markomalley

Goey, You are almost right. The first recorded usage of the term "Catholic Church" was by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, in 110 AD: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ignatius, letter to the Smyrnæans, Chapter 8, paragraph 1: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html ) The Catholic Church simply means the "Universal Church." That's all it meant then and that's all it means now. Having said that, there obviously was no Vatican City, no Curia, none of the bureaucracy. There were individual bishops in charge of the Church in individual cities, as the Faith spread throughout the then-known world. It was not nearly as organized and as bureaucratic as it is now. But it was still the Catholic Church. I have Allan on ignore, so I don't know what he has said, but has he ever refuted anything I said when I provided that analysis of I Cor 12:11 earlier? Or has he just done his usual screaming that a Catholic has no right to read the Bible, much less dare to talk about it in the same forum with a holy man of God such as himself? Thanks

Danny, Very well said, particularly the use of the feminine third person when speaking of the Church. That, in of itself, shows a dramatic amount of understanding and respect that I sincerely appreciate. Cheers!

Kathy, Please be assured that I am not the individual that was censored out of your post. I would have no way of knowing that individual's e-mail address and I certainly would not waste my time or valuable electrons sending something to that person... Warmest Regards, Mark O'Malley

Irish, I speak 4 languages, none of them Greek (English -- sort of, German, Italian, and Turkish). So I had to learn a little bit about how language is put together. That, along with a good lexicon and some Internet sites makes me good-to-go. The point I'm getting at is a demonstration of the egoism that was/is rampant in the theology of VPW. The truth be known, that is the reason why the ministry got so screwed up. That is why people were enslaved. I have tried to say that by myself. I have tried to illustrate that with the Church Fathers...and I end up getting a bunch of anti-Catholic ad hominems thrown back in my face (primarily from one person...who is now "ignored"). So I decided to illustrate it by some good, old fashioned jot and tittle nit picking Biblical research that was allegedly encouraged in TWI (provided that the 'research' didn't violate unquestionable twi dogma). And guess what...it checks out. But anyway, I'm glad it served as a blessing to you to read that. Evan, thanks. But Allan is on "ignore" status -- he's shown too many times to too many people that he has nothing positive to say in a conversation. However, I do appreciate you saying what you did.

Happy Birthday Marcia

Here's one thing that may help you out a little, Irish... If you will recall, Weirwille taught 1 Cor 12:11 (But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.) that all of these are worked by the spirit (the gift that God gave you), dividing to every man as he (the man) wills. (I don't have any more of my TWI books anymore, so if I got that part wrong, please let me know. Here is the verse in Greek from four separate manuscripts. παντα δε ταυτα ενεργει το εν και το αυτο πνευμα διαιρουν ιδια εκαστω καθως βουλεται (Textus Recepticus) παντα δε ταυτα ενεργει το εν και το αυτο πνευμα διαιρουν ιδια εκαστω καθως βουλεται (Tischendorf) παντα δε ταυτα ενεργει το εν και το αυτο πνευμα διαιρουν ιδια εκαστω καθως βουλεται (Byzantine) παντα δε ταυτα ενεργει το εν και το αυτο πνευμα διαιρουν ιδια εκαστω καθως βουλεται (Westcott/Hort) You will note that all these versions all say the same thing, exactly. So we are pretty sure that there's no controversy what is said in the Greek. A literal word for word translation is: παντα δε ταυτα ενεργει το εν και το αυτο πνευμα διαιρουν ιδια εκαστω καθως βουλεται and all these things operates the one and the same spirit distributing separately to each one as he purposes I want first to concentrate on the word "εκαστω." (ekastO) This word ekastO is an adjective form of the word "ekastos." Ekastos means every one (with the emphasis on each member of the group). This is as opposed to "pas" (which means all -- "every" with the emphasis on the group as a whole) More importantly, it is an ADJECTIVE in the dative case. The dative case indicates an indirect object. Because of the fact that there is no noun to which this ADJECTIVE follows, there has to be an elipsis figure of speech employed. You have to fill in the blank. In other words, "to each ___________ as he purposes." Why is that important? Keep reading... The next key word is "βουλεται" (bouletai) bouletai is a form of the verb boulomai (the root verb, boulomai, means: to will, to decree, to appoint, to intend). Bouletai is in the 3rd Person singular present tense, middle voice, subjunctive mood. Translate that gobbledygook, please: Third person singular = he/she/it (as opposed to third person plural=they) Present tense = happening now, as opposed to in the future or the past Middle voice = the subject the verb refers to is also the direct object (e.g., I wash myself) Subjective mood = there is a potentiality, that its not a definite but possible (I may give, as opposed to I will give, which would be indicative mood) ------------------- OK, so what does this lesson in Greek grammar mean? It means that there is NO WAY the verse can accurately be interpreted the way Wierwille interpreted it. First, he said that the usage of the word spirit was "the gift" as opposed to "the giver." To refute that, you will note the following: - "every man" should have been translated "each one" -- with one clearly identified as an implied word (supplying the elipsis). The word "man" does not appear in the Greek. The word translated "every" in the KJV is an ADJECTIVE not a noun. - the word "wills" is clearly in the singular. The nearest noun in the nominative case (subject) is the word has to refer back to the noun "Spirit", not "man" (which isn't there anyway...and even the adjective "every" is in the dative (indirect object) case. If the word "spirit" referred to "the gift" rather than "the giver", it would be inantimate and would not be able to be the subject of a verb that means "to intend" -- inantimate objects simply cannot "intend" anything. Secondly, Wierwille said that the word "he wills" refers back to "every man" To refute that, the same argument used above applies. The word "every man" is an adjective "each" in the dative case. An adjective in the dative case CANNOT be the subject of a verb. Therefore, the actor (subject) must be the nearest nominative case noun...which is "spirit." ------------------------------------- So what's the point? Orthodox Christianity is a lot closer in how it treats this issue than TWI ever was. If you're going to "authentically" speak in tongues, the Holy Spirit will distribute that manifestation as He wills. If you're going to interpret tongues, the Holy Spirit will distirbute THAT as He wills. and so on. What's the implication (tying this back to my earlier post)? Everybody was expected to speak in tongues in TWI. There was incredible pressure to do so. After all, your status as a "born again believer" was in question if you didn't speak in tongues. You all remember Lindyhopper's old signature line where he made fun of speaking in tongues? Think about it for a second...how many people had the same exact utterances when they "spoke in tongues?" I'm not saying that people intentionally faked it (although I am sure some did), but I wonder how much of this was "genuine," versus your subconscious taking over because of the pressure and then causing gibberish to come out of your mouth (which conveniently sounded in many cases pretty similar)? Sort of a form of autohypnosis, rather than authentic, inspired, speaking in another tongue? Everybody was expected to interpret and to prophesy? Again, lots of pressure. Many of us have commented how the bulk of interpretations and prophesies were largely the same (not all of them, but a HUGE percentage). Again, I wonder how many of them were authentic and how many were an act of the subconscious causing words to come spewing out of the mouth based upon what had been heard before in "believers meetings" or what was studied in the collaterals or what was studied in the Bible? If what was happening in TWI was consistently authentic (not that authentic manifestations of the gift didn't happen), then why in the world would "acceler sessions" be needed? Could it be that we needed to loosen up our brains to let the subconscious come out more easily? Why would we need to, as at least I was instructed, to practice speaking in tongues by forcing ourselves to start with a different sound? If it was given as the Spirit intended, wouldn't it always be completely natural? Why would we need to practice interpretation/prophesy so that it would be in either the first person or the third person sometimes, instead of our norm? All of these pracitces make sense if we were training our brains to accept something that the brain didn't inherently want to accept. But if it was something distributed by the Spirit as the Spirit intended, there would be no need to do so. Please keep in mind I am NOT questioning speaking in tongues, interpretation, prophecy, etc. I know that it exists and I know that the Spirit distributes it to each as the Spirit wills. But the way that TWI taught it was, in truth, a form of gnosticism that led to egoism. The emphasis was on the believer rather than the God the believer should have believed in. Hopefully the above demonstrated one place where the Word of God was improperly handled.

David: Can you give me your password so that I can read those e-mails too? Thanks, bud Mark B) ;) ;)

I have often criticized TWI doctrine as being egocentric -- placing the emphasis on the person rather than putting the emphasis on God. What I've read on this thread corresponds to that. Think about it for a second, "All 9 all the time" = if you are really "walking," you will manifest all 9 of the gifts/manifestations at will. Therefore, what did a lot of people will to do...not all, but a lot. Was there pressure to speak in tongues at the close of session 12? Did people want to find approval with the wonderful men and women of God that they've met? Sure...so some people "faked it." Was there pressure to interpret and to prophesy during "believers meetings?" -- Oh, yeah. How about the embarassment of not being inspired to do so when called upon? Therefore, how many people "faked it?" And what about the embarassment of the twig coordinator who called upon a mere "foundational" grad that they just met in a believer's meeting? Talk about not getting that "heavy revy" -- to say nothing of the spot that the poor neophyte was placed on! Pressure, pressure, pressure. Pressure, pressure, pressure. Didn't get that miracle? Must not have been walking. Didn't get the word of knowledge that there was a cop ahead? Didn't get the word of wisdom to slow down? Well, your believing was obviously hosed! Prayed for the sick and they stayed sick? Either the pray-er wasn't walking or the pray-ee's believing wasn't where it needed to be. Where was the emphasis in all of this? God? or the Individual? Sure, something good happens and we breathe a quick "thank God." But when you report to your twiggies about the great thing that happened, what was the reaction -- I usually heard, "Wow, man, you were really walking!" (barf) Seriously, how many times did you hear "Praise God!" versus "you were walking"? Where was the emphasis? I'm not saying ANYTHING bad about the teaching of the manifestations/gifts of the spirit. But what was taught with it, around it, through it was: you, the enlightened TWI believer, are enabled...YOU can do all of this stuff. The verse: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" was used all the time (including in regards to this subject). But how much emphasis was on "I can do all things" and how much was on "through Christ who strengthens me?" And when there was any emphasis on "through Christ...", I seem to recall them equating this with the gift of the Holy Spirit (oh, excuse me, I should have said holy spirit instead...silly of me) What ever happened to "blessed be the meek?" What ever happened to "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." Oh, yeah, silly me. Those verses were not addressed "To Us" -- they were only addressed "For Our Learning" and so didn't apply. Maybe if the emphasis was a little more on the Giver than the Gifts... Y'all will have to excuse me...maybe my Catholicism is messing with my perception again. (Let's see if I can kill another thread)

Cynic, I am suitably impressed. However, the term "Mother of God" was beginning to be used about 200 years before the Nestorian Heresy. Hippolytus, Discourse on the End of the World (AD 219) Gregory Thaumaturgus, The First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary (AD 262) Methodius, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna (AD 305)etc. The Nestorians rejected these terms, as they rejected the hypostatic union. The Council of Ephesus then codified usage which already was in existance for a couple of hundred years (and alluded to prior to that time). And, of course, this makes no sense whatsoever if one does not subscribe to the Trinity.

Just a thought: Couldn't it be possible that he is just a hate-filled, womanizing, redneck Okie? (no offense to anybody from Oklahoma) I remember this running "joke" when I was in the Air Force: A particularly spiteful commander referred one of his troops to the base's Alcohol Rehabilitation Committee, because the troop overslept for work a couple of days. The counselor asked the troop, "How long have you had this drinking problem?" The troop replied in horror, "Sir, I am a born again Christian. Alcohol has never touched my lips!" The counselor immediately referred him for inpatient rehab. In his report he wrote, "The airman denied he had a drinking problem. Denial is the dominant symptom of the abuser. So its obvious he is in need of immediate intervention."

Oak/Mo, I guess, according to your friend, the three of us should not be allowed to post on this site with our heretical views. Good thing that he is not the mod, because the site would miss two of the most articulate posters that it is my pleasure to read. I won't post the graphics/sound again, but my advice still remains, "Don't feed the trolls."

Danny, Thanks for the information. Those are indeed some subtle, but significant, differences you point out.

???? I am a Catholic. I have never denied that fact. How did this cause me to 'come out of the closet?' Further, did that brief post answer your question?

I am very interested in that. That is a very hopeful sign. However, the question I have in this light is if the ELCA still stands fully behind the Smalcald Articles, particularly the Second Part, Articles III and IV? I understand the LCMS and WELS still do, but, particularly from what you've said to me, I am not sure anymore about the ELCA.

OK, Evan, I'll tackle the "communion of saints" issue first. Hopefully the thought process behind this will show that "violence is not done" to scripture. I can't do anything at all about your interpretation of scripture's clear intent. Frankly, anything I believe will do violence to your beliefs. So I will not ever be able to assuage you of your beliefs and have no intention of trying to do so. But, in the interest of showing that I do not "do violence" to the scriptures, I'll try outline the scriptural origins of the Catholic belief. To clear something up first and foremost, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to worship (latria) God alone. Anything else is idolatry. Rev 7: Rev 5: Rev 8: Note: "holy ones" = agios (saints) From the above three passages, it is apparent that the prayers of the saints reach up to God. It is also apparent from the first passage, that those who died in a state of grace are taken, in some form, to heaven (they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb). They worship God day and night, which implies that they have awareness -- how could one worship God without awareness (at least the question I'd ask)? James 5:8 "...The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful." 1 Tim 2:1-2 " First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity." Of course, there are more, but these two passages show that intercessory prayer is regarded as a worthy endeavor. We see that on a regular basis, we ask our friends, relatives, and fellow Christians to pray for us on a regular basis. The Catholic Church has the belief that souls who die in a state of grace are taken to heaven and, while there, are aware of their surroundings. Not omniscient, but aware. We also believe in intercessory prayer. Becuase of these two issues, we believe that we can ask those souls in heaven to add their prayers to ours. As Clement of Alexandria said, "So is he always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him." (Stromata 7:12) (208 AD) Or as Cyprian of Carthage said, "Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy." (Epistle 56:5) (253 AD) Evan, the lives of the saints are studied and revered because their witnesses were tremendous examples of Christian piety and faith that can help strengthen our walk. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us" (Heb 12:1) As we believe that they are with God, are aware, and that their prayers are heard, we request their intercession as we would request the intercession of the saints that are here on earth (see above). I realize that, as a Protestant, you will not agree with my conclusions. However, I hope I've been able to demonstrate that these beliefs do not "do violence" to scripture. The same basic thought process applies to the Blessed Virgin, although obviously there will be some different scriptures involved.

Goey, I'm glad that you can see that I am not trying to cause a stir with the usage of the word heretic. Your last sentence, A heretic to some is a man of faith, courage and conviction to others. is a very correct statement and I would expect no less from any Protestant or Catholic who is convinced of his beliefs and is willing to stand up for those beliefs in front of opposition. I would submit that I would be viewed as a heretic in TWI, as I have totally rejected their theology since leaving that organization some 16 years ago. In fact, I am sure I would be viewed as apostate. I would not hardly be offended if a TWIt called me either of those terms, as they would be accurate, from the TWIt's perspective. Even our good friends Mike and Allan would be viewed as schismatic by TWI, but not necessarily heretical... As far as the "self-serving" comment, we could make that comment about any group that holds a set of beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be. Frankly, Merriam Webster is not hardly a Catholic source; however, the last two citations I provided were intentionally from Catholic sources (how could one call that any more self-serving than the LCMS declaration of faith which declares that the Pope is the anti-Christ?), as I was showing the basis from which Luther was declared a heretic by the Catholic Church. The bottom line is that, regardless of our beliefs, we should be able to defend those beliefs. Hopefully we can agree on some issues once we come to an understanding of what each other believes (rather than listening to propaganda, invective, and ad homina from either side) and, at the end of the day, respect each others' right to believe differently. I enjoy that kind of debate and consider it as an opportunity for either side to grow in understanding of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of the others in the discussion.

I suggested this site before when gas first hit $2. -- http://www.gasbuddy.com/ -- provides an opportunity for users to share high and low gas prices in their area. Kept up to date fairly well.

From my studies on the subject, I have found nothing in Church dogma that has "done violence" to scripture. I have, on the other hand, seen a lot that has been promulgated as dogma (but in fact wasn't) that does incredible violence. Well, not being an expert at it, I'll have to take your word for this. I based my judgement upon readings like the following, from Reformed Perspectives: As I said earlier, I'm sure my beliefs as a Catholic would rank me as a Heretic in most Protestant eyes.

OK, Jerry. Heresy is defined by Webster's dictionary as: The Code of Canon Law defines it as follows: St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa II-II.11.1): So you ask if it is a little hypocritical to call Luther, Calvin, et al, heretics? If you read the definitions, above, it is clear that they would be considered as such. I'm sorry if that is upsetting, but, from the definitions I've shown you, you can see that I am not trying to use the word as a perjorative, its simply the correct word.Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT accusing modern subscribers to Lutheranism or Calvinism heretics or schismatics. They were raised in their denominations -- obviously the heresies that formed those denominations should not be laid at their feet. I'm just thankful of the orthodoxy that those denominations DO subscribe to and pray that they will eventually be able to be brought into the fold again at some point. In fact, Jerry, you'll be surprised to learn that I have encouraged some people who have considered converting to Catholicism but who have lingering problems with some aspect of Catholic dogma to study the issue thoroughly and, if they can't resolve the problem, to hold off converting or to go to a relatively orthodox Protestant denomination, such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, or Methodism. My thought is that it would be better for them to wait until such time as they are fully convinced rather than to convert with lingering doubts and then to leave. (cf 2 Pet 2:21) Oh, and by the way, I would imagine that most Protestants would consider me, as a Catholic, to be a heretic as well, because my beliefs do not agree with their established orthodoxy. And that's fine. To quote John 10:32 (NAB) "Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?" Jerry, for one, I consider the concept of Sola Scriptura taught by most Protestants as simply being unscriptural. 2 Thes 2:15 (NAB): "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." 2 Thes 2:15 (RSV): "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Both of the above verses explicitly state that the apostles (Paul specifically here) taught the people not only through the letters but also by oral teachings -- that were not recorded in the Bible. So how are the brothers supposed to stand fast in traditions taught "by word of mouth" if they practice sola scriptura in their theology? That's one example. A fairly controversial one, I'll admit. But just one. That is very simplistic. First of all, if you read the definitions I supplied above, I'm sure you'll see why "heretic" is the correct word to use for Luther's case. However, I'll try to synthesize the situation down a little bit; any errors I make are unintentional and hopefully Thomas will be able to correct any errors I've made. Luther was an Augustinian Monk. He had a very scrupulous nature. He was (rightly) offended by the abuses of indulgences promulgated by Pope Leo X. As stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia: His 95 Theses, rather than strictly dealing with those abuses, attacked the instution of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation itself. (See Thesis #6, in particular) That's where the charge of heresy initally sprung out of. It grew from there. Rather than dealing with the legitimate issues raised by Luther, the Pope dealt severely with Luther and then there was pushback on Luther's part. In fairness to Luther, he initially did not want to foment a schism in the Church. Had the Church dealt with the substance of Luther's issues, its likely that he wouldn't have left. But he did, and then there were continued changes: he rejected all of Tradition, proclaiming sola scriptura; he rejected the effectual nature of the sacraments, proclaiming sola fide, and he eventually called the Pope the anti-Christ (Smalcald Articles, Article IV). Obviously at that point, there was no turning back. The ultimate irony is that the abuses of indulgences was recognized and corrected not that long after Luther and his followers left. (See my extract from the Council of Trent, a couple of posts up) To say that Martin Luther read something in Romans, had a light turn on in his head and have him reject Catholicism all at one point, is overly simplistic and does neither Luther nor Catholicism any favors. Thomas, if I've misstated something, my apologies, please do add on as you see fit.

I can think of no phrases, codewords, or colloquialisms of TWI that I would now classify as "fun." Not even remotely so. :(

Oh, Thomas, one other thing: Luther was correctly upset at the abuse of indulgences that had become widespread in his day. That practice was reformed through the Council of Trent: Session XXV, p 278

Thomas, My apologies if I said something to offend you. That was certainly not my intent in any fashion. My sole intent in even entering this thread was in reaction to a statement made by another poster which was, I considered, to be an ad hominem attack. I am glad that the Lutheran World Federation, of which ELCA (from what I understand) is a member, was able to arrive at a partial consensus with Rome in the form of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and does not publish scurrilous attacks against the Catholic Church in its statement of beliefs. I wish that this was the case for the other Lutheran denominations, such as the LCMS, the WELS, and the ELS (see item 13 on the web page). The ELCA does say that they accept the Smalcald Articles, as well, but they don't explicitly state that they fully endorse Article IV anymore, so its hoped that they have reconsidered that position. I, for one, am glad that they have toned it down. If you can identify the specific thing I said that you believe was an attack, I'll be happy to see if I can rephrase it in more neutral language. As I said, my intent was not hardly to offend, but rather to present a vigorous defense against an ad hominem attack.

Cynic: As to your links: I am well familiar with the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which did include many faulty translations of the Bible, to include the Tyndale and the "King James" Versions. I have no apologies to offer. Frankly, I wish that Paul VI would not have eliminated the Index back in the 1960s. Since that time all sorts of heterodox publications have come out claiming to be Catholic, while only actually bearing a vague resemblence to actual Catholic doctrine. In regards to the prohibiting the printing, sales, and possession of the Bible in the vernacular, to my knowledge, the prohibition applied to works produced by heretical sources (e.g., Lutheran and Calvanist sources). Frankly, I would be hesitant to take Schaff-Herzog at face value without actually examining the contents of the particular documents for myself. For what its worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following regarding the subject: Of course, I'd expect you to take my source with the same quantity of grains of salt as I would apply to yours.Now, as to your statements: You will, of course, recall my mention of the Constitutions of Oxford. This law, prohibiting unlicensed publication of an unlicensed English language version of the Bible, was enacted by the English Parliment in 1408. The British Parlimentary move was obviously in response to Wycliff's version of the Bible. Wycliff was clearly a heretic and, from what I've read, his translation was significantly influenced by his heresy. This may have as much to do with it as anything else. France, Holland, Germany and Spain all had vernacular versions of the Bible prior to 1500. To my knowledge, those were authorized versions. Why an authorized version was not published in English until 1585, I can't say. I have a feeling that you are likely correct that it was recognized that a "good" translation of the Bible ought to be made available, as the Lutherans and Calvanists were bound and determined to infiltrate their versions into England. Thus, for the Anglicans, the King James Version was published in 1611 and for Catholics, the Douay Rheims. (An obvious, but humorous, aside is that, since the English Crown had broken away from Rome by that time, the Douay Rheims version would have been just as unlicensed as the Tyndale version). This still begs the question, authorized vernacular translations in a number of languages existed prior to the Reformation. Yes, English was not one of those languages. However, had the vernacular been supressed because of its being the vernacular, why in the world would these translations been authorized? By the way, the Spanish version was called the Biblia Alfonsina and dates from the 1200s. The German version was translated by Rellach in 1475. The Dutch version was the "Delft Bible," published in 1477. The French version was the Vaudetar Bible, 1371. By the way, I am not defending the actions of Paul IV or Sixtus V. Both were thoroughly HORRIBLE popes. Garth, I would think that this is the way that any debate should occur. Politely. But I appreciate your humor... Its amazing what happens when ad hominem attacks and invective are left at the door...

I try to stay as neutral as possible, but you're right, though, that my judgement could be colored. I don't hesitate to admit that fact. My involvement in this thread at all is a reaction to some statements in another persons' posts which, although given as fact, were little more than (imho) anti-Catholic bigotry. That is an interesting question and a very valid question. As you know, illiteracy was the norm throughout the middle ages and that continued up to the past couple of hundred years. One other point to bring up would be that the cost of the printed word was likewise out of the reach of normal people during those days, as well. Prior to Gutenburg's press, books literally took years to reproduce. Thus they would only be in the reach of the very wealthy and would be very highly cherished. As a result, what use would reading be to a working class who were largely serfs or tradesmen? But what did the Church do to influence literacy among the common man? Frankly, I doubt too much. But, on the other hand, I doubt that any of the rulers of those days did too much either (after all, if the serfs were educated, they might be more likely to revolt). In fact, the general illiteracy of the populace was what gave rise to the tradition of stained glass windows. It was important to be able to teach the gospel to the people; if they couldn't read, at least they could see the pictures in the windows...and those pictures were used as graphic aids to teaching. However, I don't think that the Church ever discouraged reading scripture, at least not as a matter of policy. Lectio Divina (reading and meditating on sacred scripture) has always been encouraged and, in fact, brings with it an indulgence: § 1.59 Plenaria indulgentia conceditur christifideli qui Sacram Scripturam, iuxta textum a competenti auctoritate adprobatum, cum veneratione divino eloquio debita et ad modum lectionis spiritalis, per dimidiam saltem horam legerit; si per minus tempus id egerit indulgentia erit partialis. (from Eschiridion Indulgentium N. 30) Other than that, has the Catholic Church done anything else to encourage reading of scriptures? Honestly, up until the past 50 years, not nearly as much as they should have. You touch on an important issue though "read (and interpret) scripture for themselves." I can state beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic Church does not encourage interpretations of the scriptures that are at odds with the Magesterium. On the other hand, I can't think of any denomination (with the exception of the Unitarians) that does encourage scriptural interpretations that fall outside of their doctrinal framework. And that includes TWI (in fact, TWI would be a prima facie example of that). I hope I did so adequately.

Danny, Thanks for the additional information on the Marcionites and the reference. I'll try to get a copy of it from my library (or inter-library loan) when I have the time to devote to reading it. Obviously, the sources I have read in regard to that differ in their treatment of Marcion, but I wouldn't say that I am familiar enough to debate the point with you. I can't, however, disagree with you on the point you make about Marcionism being Catholicism without the influence of the Old Testament. Again, I can't speak authoritatively about Marcionism and won't attempt to do so, but Catholicism, without the influence of the Old Testament, would be radically different. In fact, I could imagine that it would be unrecognizable. Much of Catholic liturgical symbolism was based upon Old Testament models. As the author of Hebrews stated, much of the Old Testament ritual was "a symbol (figure) for the present time." For example, the Divine Office can trace its origins to the Old Testament custom of prayers five times a day, (morning, noon, afternoon, evening, night), as continued by the Apostles (shown numerous places throughout Acts). You can see the definite old testament influences even in the architecture of churches. One question I have for you, though, is did Marcion reject all the scriptures that had an old testament influence on them or just a portion of them? I'm not sure how that worked, other than the fact that he rejected a number of the writings in his canon.