Catholicism & Capital Punishment | First Things

Catholicism & Capital Punishment | First Things

Catholics and Health Care

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/30/catholic-bishops-urge-parishioners-oppose-abortion-funding-obamas-health-care/

This weekend the Bishops of the United States are beginning a campaign to urge American Catholics to oppose the possibility of abortion funding in the health care bill now before congress. Of course as Catholics we have to do our best to defend the sanctity of life in every arena! However, when eventually tax dollars start to pay for abortions in this country, as I am sure they will one day in the near future--the Bishops will be at least in part to blame.

-They will be at blame because for many years now they have equated the Christian Gospel message of social justice with (soft) socialism.

-They will be at blame because they have ignored the Christian moral principle of subsidiarity, which teaches that true Charity begins with the individual not with the state, because statism is easier than preaching the gospel and treating poverty, illness and old age as problems to fix rather than as opportunities to love seems to have more of a chance of sucess.

-They will be partially to blame because they have (frequently) ignored the principle that as Christians we are morally obligated to obey the laws of the state even if we don't like or agree with them so long as they are not immoral. And that this moral duty extends to the Constitution, a document establishing limited government to defend against statism so as to safe guard freedom of conscious against things like abortion and contraception.

As Christian's we have a moral duty to care for the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak. However deferring our obligation to the state does nothing to help individuals grow in holiness through acts of sacrificial love. It nothing to re-enforce the dignity of the human persons who become cogs in a state bureaucracy rather than the little ones that Christ instructs us to care for. And it does nothing to help individuals learn responsibility so that they can maximize their individual potential.

Socialism may (and I stress may) be a legitimate option, but it is also a prudential issue on which Catholics of good will can disagree. Too often the Bishops have come down on one political side of this issue making it sound like socialism is the Catholic way on issue after issue after issue. But if history is any indicator the more power the state gains over and ever widening portion of our lives the more of a possibility there is that the state will begin to use this power to persecute the faithful, to oppose the Gospel, and to violate the dignity of the human person.

The problem with abortion

In the wake of the Tiller killing many people have taken to demonizing the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement. One author, sadly a former priest, claimed that the Church was anti-choice and anti-woman and that it was our hate filled rhetoric that killed Tiller.

The fact of the matter is that Tiller was killed by a man who had a choice. A choice which similarly the Catholic Church and pro-life movement disagrees with. And while I would like to think that even though misguided he did what he did to save babies, I realize that in reality he probably chose his ideology over the value of a life, the same error that many pro-death people have been making for over 40 years.

The Church is not anti-choice, we just realize that to murder a 50 year old doctor or a 5 month old baby in the womb is essentially the same thing.

And she is not anti-woman no more than someone who criticizes the holocaust is anti-German.

The fundamental fact is that murder is wrong. And while Tiller may himself have been guilty of this intrinsic evil, killing someone because of anger, frustration, and ideological hate is also wrong.

I don't want to live in a country where we need to start making decisions based on who is in power, who has the means of pursuasion, about who lives or dies.

And yet if we undermine the basic protection of all human life, that is exactly the type of society we are creating. I think we see it already.

Patrick Madrid, over at his blog, posted this sad mock letter about the direction we are LOGICALLY taking. I encourage you to read this letter and then using the logic of abortion tell me how it does not follow. Sure you can say no one wants that, which is not true as one of the leading abortion advocates, a honest philosopher at Princeton, openly promotes infanticide. But just using logic what basis can we give for who ought not to be killed and who might be - is it public opinion? That is really scary! As is this letter, but it is I think our future if we don't wake up:

January 22, 2023

Dear Mom:

Can you believe it is already the year 2023? I'm still writing '22 on everything! It seems like only yesterday that I was sitting in the first grade and celebrating the change to a new century.

I know we really haven't chatted since Christmas, Mom, and I'm sorry. Anyway, I have some difficult news to share with you and, to be honest, I really didn't want to call or talk about this face to face.

But before I get to that, let me report that Ted just got a big promotion, and I should be up for a hefty raise this year if I keep putting in all those crazy hours. You know how I work at it. (Yes, we're still struggling to pay the bills.)

Little Timmy's been okay at kindergarten, although he complains about going. But then, he wasn't happy about the day-care center either. So what can we do?

He's been a real problem, Mom. He's a good kid, but quite honestly, he's an unfair burden on us at this time in our lives.

Ted and I have talked this through, and we have finally made a choice. Plenty of other families have made the same choice and are really better off today.

Our pastor is supportive of our choice. He pointed out the family is a system, and the demands of one member shouldn't be allowed to ruin the whole. The pastor told us to be prayerful and to consider all the factors as to what is right to make our family work. He says that even though he probably wouldn't do it himself, the choice really is ours. He was kind enough to refer us to a children's clinic near here, so at least that part is easy.

Don't get me wrong, Mom. I'm not an uncaring mother. I do feel sorry for the little guy. I think he heard Ted and me talking about this the other night. I turned and saw him standing at the bottom of the stairs in his PJ's with his little teddy bear that you gave him under his arm, and his eyes were sort of welled up with tears.

Mom, the way he looked at me just about broke my heart, but I honestly believe this is better for Timmy, too. It's just not fair to force him to live in a family that can't give him the time and attention he deserves.

And please, Mom, don't give me the kind of grief that grandma gave you over your abortions. It's the same thing, you know. There's really no difference.

We've told Timmy he's just going in for a "vaccination." Anyway, they say the termination procedure is painless. I guess it's just as well that you haven't seen that much of little Timmy lately.

Please give my love to Dad.

Your daughter.

So what was accomplished?

Liberal Catholics got exactly what they wanted. They are now able to feel good about voting a pro-death canidate because he wants to lessen the need for the holocaust (opps I mean abortion). Barrack Obama understands that the debate over abortion will continue but hopes that we can work together to end poverty and war, and just agree to disagree about slavery (opps I did it again). Hopefully we can remain civil in our debate and accept the fact that people of good will disagree about racism and anti-semitism (I mean abortion and infanticide). They got exactly what they hoped for nice words that make them feel better and help them forget the actions of this president.

And Obama got what he wanted. He got a parade of dissenting priests, spouting Card. Bernadine's discredited seamless garment theory, equating the murder of an innocent to poverty, economics, and prudential judgements about war. He got these priests to accept the language of "lessening the need for abortion," glossing over the fact that this probably means promoting contraception, and that talking about lessening the need for abortion is like talking about lessening the need for murder, or racism, or genocide, as if these things were needed in the first place or we could concede that we don't want to end these intrinsic evils. He got an opportunity to make Catholics feel ok about disobeying the Church. He got the opportunity to paint the Church as divided against itself, and to paint the hierarchy as mean spirited partisans rather than as pastors of souls.

Who wins here? Barrack Hussein Obama.
Who looses? Humanity, and the principled rational debate.

Obama waxes elequent but what we need to ask is one simple question what is he talking about? What are we doing when we abort?
Answer: We are intentionally killing a human life, AKA murdering! The reasons, methods, and situations may mitigate the moral culpability but don't change this fundamental fact.

Barrack Obama supports murder and wants us to accept that people can agree to disagree about the relative value of murder and come together to "solve" other problems. He wants us to lessen the need for murder, rather than to work to end it, because Barrack Obama believes it is good, and sometimes needed, to murder babies both in and out of the womb (this last part is actually a logical position because there really is no difference between a baby inside or outside the womb).

Lessons to be learned:
1) Failure to lead the flock leaves the flock vulnerable to false prophets, wolves in sheeps clothing, and pastors will be held accountable for this failure.
2) The gloves are off, pastoral staffs have a pointed end for a reason.
3) The "Vatican II" approach to church governance is not authentically a fruit of the council and is causing grave scandal.
4) Someone needs to start holding priests accountable for what they teach and do
5) And someone needs to start making difficult decisions about Catholic institutions that are Catholic in name only.
6) We need to teach and articulate that abortion is murder, that support for abortion (let alone funding of it) is support for mass-murder, and that Catholic teachings about policy issues like war, social welfare, economics, etc. (which are applications of fundamental principles but can be debated) are of a different kind than teachings about fundamental moral principles which are always and everywhere valid. Injustice, Murder (three types of which are Abortion, Infanticide, and Genocide), Theft, Racism, Lying, Blasphemy, Adultary, Fornication, Contraception, etc. are always wrong, and for a person to promote one of these makes him unworthy of being honored by any institution that values truth, beauty, and goodness!

Finally, we should learn that in one regard the left is correct:
7) Catholics and Christians need to be more careful about partisanship. The left has correctly precieved an occasional bias toward the Republican party. Just because they are the party of the big tent, and are at least willing to give the pro-life cause a hearing doesn't mean that they are the Catholic or Christian party. Christians must be a prophetic leaven and challenge both parties to repent and believe in the Gospel, or at least to seek the common good in accord with the natural law. Just because a president is 99% for us (read President Bush), if he does not fundamentally agree that all life is sacred with no exceptions (even though this is a politically difficult position) then he has given into the culture of death and cannot be honored by the Church.

Waterboarding

My comment on the story: Torture: Do the ends justify the means?


Before entering seminary I was active in Republican circles in DC and my old spiritual director used to tell me, remember Ron not to confuse the party with the Church.

I think we live in a very divisive and partisan age. Americans no longer share a common culture, i.e. we worship different gods, and as a result our political imaginations and perceptions do not provide an adequate lowest common denominator to move forward with a fruitful debate. Representitive democracy will not long last when we can’t agree on even fundamental principles.

It use to be that killing a baby or hanging a captive man upside down and pouring water down his nose would be consider wrong; the first time, every time, all the time! Sure we were willing to fight an unjust aggressor and even to punish a criminal, but we would never accept the wholesale killing of innocents or the inhuman cruelty of torture. The proof that we have fundamentally changed as a society, and lost something that used to hold us together is in the 8th ammendment to the constitution. VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The ammendment prohibits cruelty to the guilty, never mind cruelty to the possibly guilty or to those who “know too much,” are inconvenient, or unpleasant even if they didn’t do anything themselves. And yet whether in the case of abortion or torture this is what we are doing–we are being cruel because we think someone poses a danger to our life, our happiness, our plans.

Whether its safety and security for our nation or the ability to “choose” not to be bothered with a living Child–the God that these positions represent is not the Christian God.

Someone said that this debate is only helping the democrats, maybe that is true, because they have had 40 years to come to grips with the fact that their god is libertine hedonism whereas we are just now beginning that slippery slope.

But unless Catholics and Christians wake up (and also Jews and Muslims and the rest) and realize that apologizing for the Republicans will only enable them to stray further from the path, then we will soon find American a country with two parties that are fundamentally opposed to God.

You want to help the Republicans, and I do, call up your GOP rep and party boss and tell them as much as you are against abortion you are equally against torture. Tell them that torture is unacceptable and that the GOP needs to distance themselves from any and all that defend it. I wish some of my co-religionists had had the integrity to tell the democratic party this when faced with a choice between social justice and abortion back in the 70s. This debate is sapping the vigor from the Republican party, just as moral issues sapped the Democrats for the past 40, and its not going to get better until Republicans come to grips with who they are. The question is, who will they be if they don’t move away from supporting what everyone knows is torture?

THE BRAZIL SITUATION

The Facts:
1) 9 yr old RAPED and MOLESTED by father
2) Becomes pregnate; as a result of which the molestation STOPS
3) BABY and 9 yr old GIRL in DANGER
4) Mother and doctors determine IT WOULD BE “BEST”
5) BABY KILLED
6) Mother and Doctor Excommunicated

It is simple, and still sad! The case of the Brazilian girl is a clear example of why God is God and we are not!!!

God became man created a Church and gave His Church all it needs to save souls. Part of this content, the moral law, teaches us that evil is evil, even if we do it for a good reason, and that evil will pervert the whole world if we let it.

That is what has happened here, one evil begets another. A perverted Father rapes his innocent child. Why, we don't know, but I am willing to bet that there is a history of sin and evil behind it going all the way back to Cain and Abel. He rapes and molests his daughter--how long would this have gone on if she hadn't become pregnant? God gives her the gift of a child, despite the fact that she is too young to bear children, a gift which in fact saves her life by stopping the abuse that would have left her an empty body traumatized by a childhood marked not with childish joy but violence.

The mother and doctors of this Child judged that the innocent baby, in the young girls womb is dangerous, not because it did something wrong, but because it exists, and so they killed the baby. Another objective sin, another act of violence, another emotional scar on the heart of this abused 9 year old girl. The result?

Does the girl learn to trust the God who saved her life by giving her a child? NO.

Does the girl learn through her child, who may have survived, that God can bring good out of evil? NO.

Does the girl learn how valuable the life of every child is? NO.

So what does she learn? She learns that violence can be solved with violence, that the strong will always dominate the weak, and that the only person you can trust in is yourself and your own power.

She also learns that the ancient wisdom of the Church which promotes goodness and love, even occasionally at the cost of great sacrifice, is really "just a misogynistic attempt to do violence against her."

The Church excommunicated her mother and her doctors because the Church realizes that somewhere the cycle of evil has got to stop. But instead of learning this, thanks to the Marxist feminist dialectic promoted on this page she will learn that the Church hates women; and more than this that the God of Christianity must hate women too, since in fact he ultimately wrote the law though SHALL NOT KILL. He must be a misogynist too, since he forgot to put all the necessary exceptions in for cases of rape and incest.

Like I said, it’s pretty simple, and yet sad.

God loves you, and the mystical body of His Son, the Church loves you all too, but contrary to popular opinion God knows better than you what is good for you, and His Church is the only faithful and steadfast communicator of this knowledge. If you don't believe these two premises, you can't be Catholic, but worse than this if you don't believe this then there is no way you can escape the cycle of sin that we are all trapped by without God and his Church.

MY MANIFESTO OF HISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Ray,

You say that I am blind to the realities of History, I beg to differ. I am well aware that the Church, a creation of God, contains men, as I have said many times. I am well aware that these men often sin, sometimes involking the name of the Church when they do so.

I am aware that at times the men who make up the church has allowed itself to be intimidated by worldly powers.

I am aware that abuses of the Jewish people have taken place by the men that make up the church.

I am aware that they have failed to live the evangelical councils of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

I am aware that bishops have used the Inquisition to persecute political opponents

I am aware that the Kings of Spain did the same.

I am aware that no matter how poorly our Orthodox brothers in the East treated the West the sack of Constantinople during the second crusade was dispicable.

I am aware that indulgences have been sold.

I am aware that people have not been taught the Gospel message.

I am aware that often the Church has fail to spread this same message to those who had not heard the Good News, and that in spreading the news some missionaries acted contrary to the Law of Love.

However, I also believe that the Christian (Catholic) faith is the true faith.

I am aware that some do not believe this, and I believe that the Law of Love Requires those who know it to spread the Faith.

I believe that Christianity is objectively better (i.e. more true) than pagan cults like those in South America that demanded human sacrifices.

I am aware that while some injustices occurred in the course of the spread of the faith from Jerusalem throughout the Roman world (S. & W. Europe, W. Asia, and N. Africa), to Northern and Eastern Europe, Asia, and the rest of Africa, as well as the Americas and Australia, that the spread of Christianity—materially, morally, socially, and most importantly spiritually—improved the lives of those to whom it was spread.

I am aware of all this and much more, and yet I still believe that Christ will keep his promises to the Church and that the Church is the primary force for good in the world, often inspite of those who claim membership.

A series of emails with Ray Dubuque

A series of emails between Ray Dubuque, creator of
http://www.catholicarogance.org/ , http://www.JesusNoRepublican.org/
& http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.org/
and myself.

Ray,
You can't take bits and pieces of scripture and leave the bulk, this is the problem with protestantism. Scriptures are the Word of God, and the Word was made flesh (Jn 1) and dwelt amoung us as Jesus of Nazereth, so please don't tear Jesus apart by tearing the Word apart. Your site provides great little tidbits of scriptures, but only to suite your own designs. To do this is as honest as a Athiest taking the psalm that says Deus non est ("there is no God") as a proof apart from its context Dixit insipiens in cordo suo ("the fool says in his heart"). There are many rebuttals that can be made to your points however I will make three and a suggestion. The suggestion first, in Christ their is no Jew or Greek, Freeman or Slave, Woman or Man, etc--Paul tells us. In modern terms this means that in Christ there is no Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, etc. The message of Christ is not about power, it is about loving Jesus. "Do you love me?" is the question that you must ask yourself, because it means nothing to like Jesus. If you love Him, then you love His Father, you love His will and His Law, and you love your fellow man as yourself. This is radical love, it is a love that is not tied up in material things, not about pleasure, but rather about the things above and about self-giving. As the Evangelist says, "there is no greater love than this, to lay down one's life for a friend."

A couple of quick points:
1. Browsing your site I notice that you use the story about the prostitute to defend disordered lifestyles. Of course you read that Jesus did not condemn the woman to death, but fail to read that he told her to sin no more. Jesus came to forgive sins, but he can only forgive what we ourselves reject and are repent for. Of course to condemn a deviant is not Jesus' way, rather the true Christian way (as the Church has time and time suggested) is to forgive any sin but instruct the sinner to sin no more.
2. Jesus says you shall call no man father or teacher because you have only one master, father, and teacher your Father in heaven. But throughout scriptures he is called master, teacher, rabbi, the son of the living God, etc. Is Jesus a hypocrite NO! Jesus is pointing out here that we must boast in nothing except in God. As Paul says, my one boast is Christ and Christ cruxified. We call people reverend father or your holiness not because they are our Father, but because they are called to be like Jesus Christ who is the image of our Father in heaven. Jesus say be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect, does this mean anyone is perfect under the son, no, but we are called to the imitatio Dei, the imitation of God. The titles we use remind us and other of our promises to God, of our consecration to God, of our duty to be more like him. It means nothing else. A priest is called Father, because we ave only one true Father, not in spite of it.
3. Finally, I constantly fail to understand how anyone who reads the Bible and who knows the history of the Church that followed it can disagree with a) the Church and b) Petrine supremacy.

You claim that Jesus' promise in Matthew's Gospel to Peter is the sole justification for the Church's (i.e. the Catholic or universal Church's) idea of Hierarchy. However the Church bases its hierarchy on the promises made to all twelve apostles throughout all the Gospels starting from their call, "come with me and I will make you fishers of men."

It focuses in on Peter's primacy not only because of Matthew's Gospel, in which Jesus first gives the "Keys" to Peter and then to all of the disciples, but also because of:
a) Luke 22:31-32 where Peter at the last supper is told that he will betray Jesus, but will return to him and be the Rock that his name implies:
"Simon,Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."
b) John 21 which is Peter's redemption for his triple denial of Christ and his comission to "feed my sheep," When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he tucked in his garment, for he was lightly clad, and jumped into the sea... Jesus said to Simon Peter,"Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me."
c) and finally because of Peter's obvious primacy throughout Acts (written by Luke), i.e. Paul goes to Jerusalem to consult Peter and the Twelve, not John or James or anyone else and the Twelve but Peter. It is Peter who first confesses Jesus' divinity and it is Peter who gets his new name from Jesus, a name that is not only a name but a job discription. Peter, whose name was Simon, is give the name Peter which means Rock because this is what he is to the Church a rock that anchors us in Christ.
Jesus calls Peter satan, or tempter, after Peter tempts Jesus to reject the Father's plan, however while Peter does sin so do all men (and women). The point of Matthew 16 and of the whole Gospel is that Jesus takes sinful man and raises him up above the Angels. Jesus shows us that while he was tempted he did not reject God's plan, even if that meant the cross. Peter himself would have to overcome his own temptations to have things his way, in this passage, at the last supper, in the garden when he struck the soldier, and finally as he decided to die just outside of Rome next to the Vatican Hill in the circus of Callistus on a cross hung upside down (because he thought he wasn't good enough to die as his master had).

-----Original Message -----
From: Ray Dubuque
To: Radically Dependant,
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 10:33 PM< page =" 2">what I teach at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Challenge. But the TRUTH is that, over the course of the past 2000 years, your "Supreme Pontifs" and High Priests have been substituting all kinds of OTHER teaching for the teaching of Jesus, doctrines like
the following :

(below is the list of Ray's OTHER teachings followed by my responses)

Re: They DO "teach their own teachings rather than any teaching they have recieved from God."


Dear Ray,

I have faith, Faith in Christ, and Faith the the Church which Christ protects against the gates of hell.

Anyway,late into the night I tried to respond to every point, I did respond to most, forgive me if my English is poor its late here you know! For a couple of your points I dismissed them as being material things, they are not intrinsic, nor are they prohibited by scripture,and so I don't see the validity of your objection. A number of your dates are wrong, if you care to dispute what I have written then I
can provide proof texts translated or in the original language, as you like. Also just because the Church defines something in a particular year doesn't mean that she didn't believe it before that time. For example Mary as the mother of God was not defined until heretics disputed the divinity of Christ and thus that his mother was the God bearer. Similarly because there was no set canon until the Protestants disputed the inclusions of the seven deutero-canonical books of the Septuagint, doesn't mean that Catholics didn't believe that the books of the bible were the books of the bible.

I would like to highly recommend a scholarly work by Yves Congar tracing the concept of Tradition in the Church from Christ (actually even before him), entitled Tradition and Traditions or his shorter book The meaning of Tradition.

215 a.d. - First mention of infant baptism.
Here is the problem, you don't believe in Baptism as something that really does something, as a gift, but rather you think of it as a sign of your action of choosing Christ. Baptism is a gift from God, we are not saved by our actions and works (despite the fact that they may have redemptive and sanctifying value), we are saved by Christ cruxifed. In Baptism we are united to Christ cruxified, this unity, or communion, is his gift all we must do is passively accept it. Your concept of Baptism is some sort of election, and action by which I activly choose Christ. Truely for converts this is the case, they must actively reject their old life, but Baptism imparts communion with God, that we can not actively choose but only passively accept. Thus a child has no need of rationality to accept a gift. If Baptism does something to you, if it is the normal means of our salvation, then why would you deny it to children? Scriptures bear my point out in a roundabout way:

Luke 18:15-16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God." Luke further recounts in Acts that, Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38-39).

When Luke in the Acts talks about a person being converted and his whole family being baptized (e.g. the jailer in Acts 16:33 "then he and all his family were baptized at once." or Act 10; 16:15) or Paul (in 1 Cor 1:1), etc, are we to assume that none of these families had children? No, while we do not explicitly read of infants being baptized NEITHER do we read of a ritual like Bar Mitzvahs in which children who are of age are baptized. In fact the only people that we read about being baptized are converts. Does this mean that only converts should be baptized? On what basis do you require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?

The Bible is not a how to manual, nor a comprehensive history, it is the story of the revelation of Christ through his own words which were passed down by his Apostles and Disciples. This word to pass down is the Latin word Tradere, the root of Tradition. In 1Co 11:23, Paul says , "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you..." But the Gospels hadn't been written when Paul was engaging in his ministry, so what is this thing that Paul is so concerned about handing down, it is the living Tradition which helps us understand what we read. Think also of the Steward of Candice, the Eunuch, who Phillip meets on the road. He has scripture alone, but in his humility he admits that he doesn't understand it. So Phillip does for him what Christ did for the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus, he opened up the scriptures, he handed down the Tradition of how Christ interpreted the Scriptures.

300 a.d. (circa) - Prayers for the dead.

Well other than being an age old TRADITION (as mentioned above) it is also referenced in II Maccabees, Judas Maccabees offers prayers for the dead Jewish soldiers. It is this Jewish tradition the Sadducee's of Jesus' time denied in denying the resurrection, i.e. a popular Jewish belief in the resurrection, and a custom of praying for the dead that they might raise. Clearly this shows that this belief was not unknown to Jesus. In the New Testament Paul speaks of our Baptism into Christ as a foundation in I Cor 3:11-16. "No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work.14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." What is this a reference to other than a trial by fire which even the "saved" undergo. Furthermore just a few chapters farther in 1 Cor 15 we read of the odd practice of being baptized for the dead. Mormons take this to mean that they should actually be baptized time and again for the rest of the unbaptized non-Mormon world. But for Catholics this is clear, we are Baptized for the dead because our prayers as Christians, in Christ's Holy Name, are readily answered by God.

300 a.d. - Making the sign of the cross. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

This is just a prayer, which like material things, can change over time, however it seems to also have sure scriptural basis in that this prayer is a reminder of Matthew's Trinitarian Baptismal form, which is used in all Christian Baptisms through which we die with Christ to the world Paul speaks of putting on Christ and taking no pride in anything but Christ and Christ crucified.

320 a.d. - Wax Candles. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Material thing, would you prefer another material?

312 a.d. - Emperor Constantine converted. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

don't follow?

321 a.d. - Constantine declared Sunday a civil holiday. (NOT A DOCTRINE)
ok, but Christian tradition and the scriptures are quite clear about it being Holy for Christians before it was holy for the state.

325 a.d. - Council of Nicea, under Constantine's direction, adopts "Creed" and recognizes episcopacy.

The creed is a formulaic restatement of what is in scriptures, is there something in particuar that you dislike about the creed, its pretty standard, one God three Divine Person Father Son and Spirit who are the same in all things except that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father, not the Son or the Father the Spirit.

Ah, yes, I forgot that we have an episcopacy that pops out of the air in 325 a.d., despite the fact that it is mentioned in scriptures and in the continuing tradition of the Church since the Apostles, modeling itself under the missio Christ gave to the Apostles and the Apostles gave to the bishops.

375 a.d. - Veneration of angels and dead saints.

God alone is to be worshiped, but Christ says that what ever we ask in his name will be answered, if this is true for those of us here on earth who often ask God for things with the wrong intention, isn't that even more so for those who are in God's presence this day, whose intentions are pure. The Saints set an example of life for us, an example of a Christ-like life. However, more than just models, they are our brothers and sisters united in Christ, for all those in Christ, both living and dead, form one body, his body. And whereas they witnessed to Christ in life by their works, in death through their works, their intercessions they continue to lead us to Christ. John testifies in the Apocalypse of seeing a vision of the Martyrs under the Altar of Heaven, pleading with Christ to avenge their blood, to give the Church its reward, why should we not believe that these can and do interceded for us? The thought is simple those that are closer to God can interceed for those who are further away.

I am not sure where you get this date, but I can personally testify to standing no more than six feet from a first century monument to Peter in Rome, surrounded by grafiti in Latin and Greek attesting to this being the place of Peters burial and that the first century
Christians venerated this saints relics soon after his death.

375 a.d. - The use of images. (Despite the third commandment "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.")

The early church used primitive images, particularly the ICTUS, to identify themselves as early as 70. Also as the 3rd council of Constance states that the injunction against images was a result of the fact that no one could portray the unseeable God. However, when the Word became flesh, God became visable through Jesus, who the Letters to the Hebrews call the veil of Heaven. Since God deemed to take a form, man can portay this form and use it to venerate the one it represents Jesus. For anyone who sees Jesus sees the Father (Jn 14).

394 a.d. - The Mass as a daily celebration. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

If mass is what we, and Christ, says it is then why not recieve this spiritual food, this communion with Christ the Lord, daily?

394 a.d. - Council of Carthage: canonization of Scripture.

The cannon was actually not closed until Trent since through universal acclamation most books were accepted before that time. However, I should note that if it wasn't for the Church's tradition protestants wouldn't have a sola scriptura to cite, because it was the Church that eliminated certain so-called "Gospels" and other Apocryphal texs, while insisting on others.

405 a.d. - Latin Vulgate Bible by Jerome. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Translated from the Greek, just as the Jewish scriptures were translated into Greek (by the Jews of Alexandria). The Church has a long tradition of translating the Bible into the venacular while maintaining older languages as a sign of unity in the Church, especially in the liturgy, and as a means of exegesis. I have my Greek NT, next to my Vulagate (sadly I cannot read Hebrew), which is next to be Douay-Rheims (translated by French monks and Catholic exiles from England into English at the same time as the original King James), and my Italian and English New Jerusalem Bibles.

407 a.d. - Edict of Innocent I: Compulsory infant baptism.

If Baptism is a Sacrament, a freely given gift of God's grace, i.e. participation in God's Trinitarian life, then why would a Catholic deny this to a Child?

*see Baptism

431 a.d. - The beginning of the exaltation of Mary. The title "Mother of God" originated with the Council of Ephesus.

A. Jesus (I) is (=) truly God (II) and truly Man (based on lots of scriptures, e.g. anyone who has seen me has seen the father, Jn 14).

B. Mary is the mother of Jesus (I)

C. If A and B are true then us then if I = II then by the logical rule of substitution you can substitute truly God for Jesus.

Ergo the proposition Mary is Mother of Jesus = Mary is the mother of the One who is truly God. Now if you deny that Jesus is truly God, then your not a Christian!

*As for exaltation see the Saints

500 a.d. - Priests begin to dress differently than laymen. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Material thing, with basis in many passages including put on Christ (i.e. his death and resurrection).

526 a.d. - Extreme Unction formalize. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

This is the name of a combination of three Sacraments: Confession (recall Jesus saying: those whose sins you for give are forgiven...), Holy Communion (recall Jesus saying: unless you eat of the flesh... [and] do this in memory of me...), and Anointing of the Sick (Recall Jesus preforming many ritual actions to heal the sick using water, mud spittle, etc., and the Apostles praying over the sick, and finally the Apostle Jame's instruction: "Is there any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven")

529 a.d. - First monastic order begun by Benedict of Nursia. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

A monastic order is a way to help a group of Christian men or women to live the evangelical consels as the Beloved Apostle John did and as the early Christians did. While Peter and Paul travel on mission evangelizing the world John stays with our Lady meditating on the Gospel message, this is of course why the theological depth of John's gospel, letters, and Apocalypse is so much more than Mark's simplicity, or Luke's (the physician) descriptive precision. Also monastic orders live the Radical gospel message in a way that most Christians are unwilling to, and just as that first community of Christians lived in Jerusalem holding all things in common, seeing to the needs of all, and centering their lives on prayer. AND of course monastic orders were a development of the spiritual practices of the desert fathers and hermits. IS THIS A BAD THING?

593 a.d. - The doctrine of purgatory is established by Gregory I.

The Doctrine of Purgatory is a logical conclusion of praying for the dead, therefore Gregory gave words to what Catholics already believed.

600 a.d. - The use of Latin language in prayer and worship made official.
(NOT A DOCTRINE)

Actually Latin is only the official language of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, we have also throughout the centuries maintained rites in Greek, Arabic, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, and Ge'ez to name a few "dead languages." And while our Rites use common languages because Catholics value a unified Church (as Christ did, e.g. Jn 17, Ut Unum Sint) teaching in preaching have always been done in vernacular tongues.

600 a.d. - Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and to angels.

* See dead and saints

(540-604) - Pope Gregory the Great says that sex for married couple was all right provided they did not ‘befoul their intercourse with pleasure’ (Pastoral Rule 3.27).

You think this is wrong? Intercourse is about love, didn't you know? If you have intercourse for the sake of pleasure then you are using your spouse like a person uses a brush to scrub their back. Pleasure is an effect of intercourse, not a reason for it. I would like to recommend the Theology of the Body, a great read about how sexuality, and all human actions, should be based on the Greatest commandments, love God (i.e. Shema Israel)... and love your neighbor as yourself. If your wife is not your neighbor who is?

607 a.d. - Title of "Pope" (Bishop of the universe) given to Boniface III by the Emperor Phocas.

The title of Pope means father and was given the the Bishops of the sees of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch from the third century. While the coptic word Father (pope) was a latecomer, neither the word Father nor the concept of Petrine Primacy (as noted in a previous email see PETER in ACTS or many of the first century, i.e. those who actually new the Apostles who knew Christ, Church Fathers)

680 a.d. - Pope Honorius declared a heretic by Third Council of Constantinople.

Honorius sent a private letter to his friend Sergius expressing his thoughts on a Christological dispute. This letter was condemned, i.e. he wasn't teaching but putting in his thoughts on a open theological question, well after his death. Furthermore this same council which you cite here lauds the victory which Agatho, "which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles," the current Bishop of Rome, "speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy" at the council. With all the complexities of the difficult fields of Christology and Trinitarian Theology it is to be imagined that the way Honorius understood Sergius' writings may have been different from the way that they came to be understood by the council--and since Honorius was not present to clarify his own intentions the council had to condemn a writing that confirmed a heresy lest it lead others to error. It is interesting that in an official letter to Agatho, Bishop of Rome, from the Emperor, the Emperor calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself" not a Monotheilite heretic, i.e. he was too nice to a heretical friend.

709 a.d. - Kissing the pope's foot begins with Pope Constantine. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Material practice that people started without ecclesial instruction.

750 a.d. - Temporal power of the popes is conferred by Pepin, King of the Franks.

As you mean it this is a material practice not essential to the Papacy, and thus not in practice. However if you believe in God's Judgement, and the Petrine doctrine of the keys then a certain Temporal Power is implicit.

786 a.d. - Worship of the cross, images and relics is now officially authorized.

Based on Paul's concept of glorying only in the Cross and John's account in Revelation of the Martyrs being under the Altar, and ultimately relating back to prayers for and to the dead

* see dead and saints

850 a.d - Holy Water (mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest) comes into use. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Material thing: symbolic of Christ saying you are the salt of the earth

890 a.d. - The worship of Joseph as a saint.

*see saints

927 a.d. - College of Cardinals established (for election of popes).
(NOT A DOCTRINE)

This is a juridical practice with roots in the Patristic Church. Reasonably of course, someone had to elect him, why not the priests of Rome? I mean that is what a Cardinal is, a priest elector of Rome.

965 a.d. - Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Consecrating people and things used to worship God is a OT custom that goes back to Abraham.

995 a.d. - The canonization of dead saints is first done by Pope John XV.

*again see saints

998 a.d. - Fasting on Fridays and during "Lent" begins. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Umph? this isn't true, fasting during lent began immediately after Christians came out of the catacombs, and started as a preparation for Catechumens who were to enter the Church at the Easter vigil. Of course fasting has Old Testament roots and Jesus did fast forty days in the Desert and say that once the bridegroom had left his disciples would fast.

1050 - The mass has gradually developed into a sacrifice and attendance is now obligatory.

?? Have you read the Epistle to the Gospels, Epistles, or Revelation; the sacrificial language is pretty evident, in fact the Fathers in the first centuries were already making allusions to the sacrifice of Issac which God forestalled only to sacrifice his only begotten son?

(Mt 26:26... and elsewhere) While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Rev 12 "They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb" and Rev 5:5-6,12 "'Do not weep. The lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, 3 has triumphed, enabling him to open the scroll with its seven seals.' Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the (seven) spirits of God sent out into the whole world." ... "Worthy are you to receive the scroll and to break open its seals, for you were slain and with your blood you purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue, people and nation. "

As I have said before if the Mass is what we say it is the why wouldn't you want to go daily? The obligation is for those who do know what is good for them, and thus need someone to force feed them.

1079 The celibacy of the priesthood is required by Pope Gregory II. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

This is not strictly speak a doctrine, seeing that the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have married Priests, however does have very strong scriptural roots.

Recall Matthew 19:10-12: [His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."

He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

All of the Apostles and Presbyters (i.e. the elders, those who share in the Priesthood of Christ the one Priest) were always called to be either celebrate(preferable) or continent (i.e. married and yet abstaining from intercourse with their wives). The councils as early as 300 when it became possible to deal with deviation took issue with priests in ministry who were having children (i.e. not being continent). Jerome in the 3rd century argues for the prudence of the celebate priesthood, and Gregory II after being hounded by the Laity codified this age old practice.

1090 - The rosary, a mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit.

Yes this was a new practice in the west, mirrored after the more ancient Jesus prayer in
the East, can't people make up new prayers, most protestants do it all the time.

1184 - The Inquisition, in operation for centuries, is now made official by Council of Verona. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

This gets a bad rap, the local lords each held their own inquisition in their territory and used it to silence political foes (i.e. the way the British used the English Inquisition to silence Saint Joan of Arc) as a result the Pope centralized the Inquisition to end abuse of it, as a result the number of people put to death by the inquisition dropped dramatically. Also it should be noted that the number of people put to death in the entire Inquisition is less than the number of Catholic civilians that died during the first year of the Spanish Civil War at the hand of the Marxists.

1190 - The sale of indulgences begins. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Dreadful practice that is why Trent condemned it!

1215 - Doctrine of transubstantiation is proclaimed by Pope Innocent III as the power to bring down God out of heaven into a cup and wafer.

Actually its Jesus' power as God to send, sacramentally, down his human flesh and blood that he sacrificed for us on Calvary. Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood, do this in memory of me in the Gospels, he also says unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you in John 6.

Paul, who wasn't even at the last supper makes it quite clear in 1Co 11:23: For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

I mean if its just bread and wine then why the threat at the end? If it is not his body and blood then Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul are lying, because Jesus is not speaking in metaphor in John 6, this is why the Jews are scandalized, he says :"my words are spirit and truth...and the spirit gives LIFE." I think we should make the distinction between things Catholics believed and which were furthur explained, and new doctrines. Transubstantiation, is a big word, which means exactly what Jesus says in the Gospels and what Paul says in 1 Co.

1215 - Auricular confession of sins to a priest is instituted by Pope Innocent III and required annually in the Lateran council. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Yes, before that you had to do it in public before the Priest and the whole assembly and then do a multi-YEAR penance. In my book this is both an improvement and more in keeping with Jesus' mercy.

1220 - The adoration of the wafer (host) is decreed by Pope Honorius III. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

If you believe what Jesus says in the Bible, this is my blood, then a certain reverence
is natural.

1229 - Laymen are officially forbidden to have or read the Bible - by the Council of Valencia. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Except for the fact that the scriptures where read aloud daily at the liturgy, this is probably true. Anyone can read the bible, think of the story of the eunuch and St. Phillip, but not everyone can understand it, and if someone tries to attach their agenda to the Gospel message you get heresy and schism and protestantism. Is it not better not to read something that you might misunderstand and instead have someone versed in it read it to you?

1251 - Protection by a piece of cloth, the scapular is invented by Simon Stock, a British monk. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Protection by prayer, what is it, don't you like any prayers? The Scapular is a devotional
to a saint (as above discussed) (or to Jesus under one of the Titles we honor him by) through which you pray that the particular saint whose image you wear around your neck will intercede for you with God.

1414- Laymen are forbidden to drink the cup at communion, by order of the Council of Constance. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

This is a practical concern, one which still exists today even though we often minister the Chalice. If you believe what Jesus says in the Bible, this is my blood, then a certain reverence and fear of profanation is natural.

1439- Purgatory is proclaimed as a dogma by Council of Florence.

If praying for the dead is a true Tradition, as we see in Maccabees, then purgatory is a given. We Catholics believe that you are either Saved or your not!

One mortal sin could mean damnation. However, we also believe that even those whose faith, baptism, and/or good will (in the case of pagans) may have through Christ's love and mercy attained salvation for them may still not be well disposed to enter into Gods presence. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position, both in Scripture and in Tradition.

1439- Doctrine of seven sacraments is affirmed on pain of mortal sin.[These seven key "sacraments" make the Catholic laity dependent on the clergy at every important moment of their life.] (NOT TRUE)

I ) Baptism can be administered by anyone and is the first and primary sacrament, the normal means of Salvation. Catholics believe that anyone baptized with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy spirit (the formula required by scriptures) is baptized. All the rest of the Sacraments are not strictly speaking necessary, but Jesus gives us these gifts of his grace, out of love for us to help us live better lives as Christians and so that the Gospel may be spread to the ends of the earth. Of course, strictly speaking, despite the fact that Baptism is the ordinary means of Salvation, even those who never have access to the Scriptures and to Baptism, may still be "saved" through Jesus' Divine Mercy, i.e. they may be in the "Church" despite their lack of knowledge. Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

II ) Confirmation is the prayer for, and calling down of the Holy Spirit by the Apostles seen in Acts 8:14-17 it is an imitation of Christ who himself called down the Holy Spirit on the Disciples and Apostles.

III ) Holy Communion we have discussed at length

IV ) Confession--in Psalm 32 the Psalmist notes what happens to those who fail to confess their sins to God. Thus the Psalmist vows to confess his sins to God. In Confession the successors of the Apostles excercise Christ's power to forgive sins that he gave them (in the scriptures).

V )Holy orders is seen soon after Pentecost when the Apostles they in their ministry need to focus of prayer and service of the Word, thus they name seven deacons in Acts 6 who act in the person of Christ the Slave In persona Christi doulos. There is mention of the imposition of hands throughout the scriptures if you look: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word 8 with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate" (in 1Ti 4:14) and for bishops (Acts 13:3).

VI ) Marriage i.e. "what ever God puts together..." The ordinary minister of this Sacrament is actually not the Priest (and it never was) but rather the two persons being married. The Sacrament of Marriage takes place when two people make the marriage vows to each other before the Church (two witnesses, one of which was ussually a priest).

VII ) and Annointing seen in the letter of James.

1504 - The sale of indulgences (by Tetzel) begins. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Simony has been a crime (sin) in the Church since the word was coined by simon magus, sadly some men in the Church sinned against this injunction. Back to that fallen nature thing.

1506 - Rebuilding of St. Peter with money from indulgence business begins.
(NOT A DOCTRINE)

Didn't Judas sell Jesus for thirty pieces of silver and Peter deny Jesus thrice? Jesus did not promise that Pope's would never do evil but rather never teach evil, incorrect doctrine or morals. None of these examples show that a Pope taught against the Scriptures, only that they taugh with the scriptures, i.e. within the Tradition.

1508 - The first part of the "Ave Maria" saying is made official.

I thought you liked scriptures, all the Hail Mary is, is scriptures tied together with an intercession to the Mother of God!

1593 - The last part of the "Ave Maria" has been prepared, and is required of the faithful by Pope Sixtus V (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is With you, Blessed are you amoung women, and blessed is the fruit of you womb Jesus...

Sounds a lot like Luke 2:28,30-31 "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

1534 - The Jesuit Order is founded by Ignatius Loyola; (NOT A DOCTRINE)
Luther publishes Bible (NOT A DOCTRINE)
Calvin publishes his Institutes. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Jesuits founded to combat protestantism, a movement started by Luther, a Catholic Priest and monk who made a vow of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience to God and his Church breaks this vow, marries, and founds a mirror immage of the Catholic Church, which ultimately fragments again and again into the 20000 + protestant communities in the world. Calvin, also a priest, also breaks his promises to God, but at least he wasn't in vows. Do you know what happens to those who break vows in the Old Testament? Its not pleasant! Luther died besieged by other "reformers" and seeing his "true church" fragmenting--I wonder what he would say to the spectacle of 20,000 communities claiming to be the "true church" each of them using sola scriptura, and reading something different from all the other communities.

The Catholic Church on the other hand has been around since 33 A.D. and although there are a few divisions in it, e.g. the Orthodox, it is still for the most part one, and still the primary seeker of Christian unity following the wishes of Christ's prayer, "Father may they all be one as you and I are one."

1542 - Pope Paul III creates the Inquisition, the first Roman Congregation of what is now the Vatican Curia. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

You listed this already in 1184. Again. This gets a bad rap, the local lords each held their own inquisition in their territory and used it to silence political foes (i.e. the way the British used the English Inquisition to silence Saint Joan of Arc) as a result the Pope centralized the Inquisition to end abuse of it, as a result the number of people put to death by the inquisition dropped dramatically. Also it should be noted that the number of people put to death in the entire Inquisition is less than the number of Catholic civilians that died during the first year of the Spanish Civil War at the hand of the Marxists.

1545 - The Council of Trent declares "Tradition" (the teaching of the "fathers", popes and councils) equal in authority with the bible.

The stuff, that was handed down from Jesus, i.e. the Tradition, which existed before the New Testament was written, and has been handed down with the Scriptures ever since is Christ's revelation of himself which comes to us through the Apostles, Fathers, Popes, Councils, Doctors, etc. Not too hard to stomach.

1546- The Council of Trent adds the apocryphal books to the bible. (<< NOT TRUE)

The early church spoke greek and read the Greek translation of the old testament known as "the seventy" ( i.e. the septuagint ) which contained what you refer to as the apocrypha, thus these books would have been considered part of the bible by the church of the first and second century. Also, Jesus may have also read this verson/collection of scriptures, since even the Holy Land had been Hellenized by this point, and Greek was the common language of the world.

Luther chose not to include these books because Maccabees contains accounts of the Jews of Jesus' time praying the dead. Instead of using the Scriptures the Church had used through the ages he claimed a cannon of scriptures that was promulgated by the Jews, not the Christians, about 90 after the birth of Christ. That is to say, 30 years after the founding of the Church of Rome and the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, during the leadership of the Church of Rome (what would later be called the Pontificate) of the Bishop St. Clement. This Jewish council, of Jamnia, removed the seven books you call apocrypha because they appeared in the Greek copies of the Scriptures not in the Hebrew copies. Since these seven books where written last, after the Helenization of the Holy Land, it would make sense that they would be written in the common toungue, Greek, a living language, rather than Hebrew a dead language already at the time (the Jews native spoken language was not Hebrew but Aramaic at the time). The Jews did this as a negative reaction of Christianity; making this a great council for the protestants to cite as an authority, while casting off the Church's Authority, i.e. rejecting Peter and the Apostles in favor of the Sanhadrin and the High Priest Caiaphus.

1559 - Pope Paul IV initiates the "Index of Forbidden Books".(NOT A DOCTRINE)

In fact this list was never strictly forbidden, rather Catholics were required to seek guidance from their Bishop before reading these books, just like drugs can be useful but often have bad side effects which must be monitored and mitigated so ideas, which are contrary to the Gospel, often contain grains of truth in them, which can be useful if used under the supervision of one's bishop.

1560 - The creed of Pope Pius IV is imposed as the official creed of the church.

What creed is that the Church has used the Creed of Nicea since the Council, modified only by the removal of a series of Anathemas which was replaced by a short section on the Spirit, I have the text (eh, in Greek) if you want to compare it.

1831-46 : Pope Gregory XVI condemns "freedom of conscience" as "a mad opinion".
The utilitarian/liberitarian theory of freedom is madness--the only true freedom is to be free to do the good, free to do God's will.

1854 - The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is proclaimed by Pope Pius IX.

Long debated issue that started in the Patristic period. There is a professor her in Rome that has a great presentation on the topic, historically. The issue wasn't really if Mary was without sin, but how she got that way. Very interesting, but I am too tired to give you the whole story. If you are really interested let me know.

1864 - The First Vatican Council ratifies, as the truth of God, Pope Pius X's "Syllabus of Errors" (which condemned and repudiated : freedom of religion, speech, press, and all scientific discoveries that have not been approved by the church) .

[ADDED 03-20-2009: I am not sure why I omitted answering this question back in 2005 but as I reformatted and edited this post I decided to add a little addition here]
The Syllabus condemns the idea of Freedom of Religion as a type of religious indifferentism and Freedom of the press as a type of relativism, central to the teaching of the Church is the idea that truth must be promoted and sought, an idea voiced in the Fathers and in St. Thomas Aquinas, and enshrined by the second Vatican Council.

The “scientific discovery” that you are probably referring to is Darwinism, which is not so much a scientific discovery but a nihilistic system that makes metaphysical, not just physical claims.


1864 - The temporal authority of the pope over all rulers is officially reaffirmed.

If you have authority over the things of the Spirit, temporal authority is sort of a given.

1869-70- The First Vatican Council proclaims the absolute infallibility of the pope in all matters of a faith and morals .

We have said enough about this, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you," and all that.

1907 - Pope Pius X publishes the encyclical letters Lamentabili and Pascendi against "Modernism" .

Modernism is filled with the roots of all sorts of bad isms: National and Marxist Socialism, as well as Communist and Capitalism Materialism, to name a few.

1930 - "Public schools" (i.e. non-sectarian) are condemned by Pope Pius XI (as opposed to church-run schools subsidized by the state, on the basis of taxes imposed on the public).

Because, in many places these schools where used to indoctrinate children. Parents have a right and duty to raise their Children well, if they know that the Christian faith is true, as I do, why should they be forced to send their children to a Nazi or Communist school, as they were in Europe in the 1930s, or even to a protestant controled public school as they were in the US?

[Addendum: For Catholics the Right and Duty to raise children is primarily with the Parents. Thus schools that go against the parents beliefs violate what one might call a human right. Given the moral state of our schools these days one sees the Churches wisdom I think!]

Throughout World War II, while Hitler's government subsidized Catholic and Lutheran churches and schools, those church (sic) refused to speak out against the Jewish Holocaust. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

The Church tax was not instituted by Hitler, it was an old German tradition (actually a European Tradition). I am not a huge fan of it myself because of my concern for the freedom of the Church and out of concern that it creates scandalous appearances (as you have noted). It is also, in my opinion a huge cause of sloth in the Church. However, the numbers of individual priests executed, tortured, and deported; as well as the numbers of Churches burned; and the numbers of Jewish, and others, men and women who survived only due to the efforts of the Church discredits the idea that the Church did nothing.

1939-1958 - Pope Pius XII (NOT A DOCTRINE)

1933 - Pius XII signs "Concordat" with Hitler (NOT A DOCTRINE)

1939 - when Eugenio Pacelli became Pope, rather than publish the Encyclical Letter,Humani Generis Unitas {The Unity of the Human Race} in which Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned the Holocaust, he buried it in the Vatican archives. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Neither during Adolf Hitler's rise to power or any time since, is his book "Mein Kampf" ever put on the "Index of Forbidden Books". (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Historically, Hitler is documented as saying that he would keep up appearances, allowing the Church to continue in existence, until it was opportune to destroy it. Its "destruction," i.e. the invasion of the Vatican, was actually planned but never carried out thanks to the American landing at Anzio.

To Judge a men who were faced with violent dictatorships, based on their prudential decisions, seems to me to be in bad taste. Many indivudual Catholic lay people, sisters, priests, bishops died at the hands of Socialist Marxists and National Socialists in the 1930s and thereafter, in fact they had a whole section in Dachau for priests, but for the Pope to make a statement against these monsters after they had come to power meant that the whole church would loose its position, which though persecuted was considerably strong. A position which, the Church used this position to save millions of Jews and others from certain death. It is not a fluk that after seeing what Pius XII did for the Jews the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted. I would also remind you that Benedict XV warned the US and Europe that the harsh treatment of the Germans after WWI would lead to another worse war and the destruction of Europe.

1950- The Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) is proclaimed by Pope Pius XII.

This tradition which in the West is called the Assumption and in the East is called the Dormition has been around since the second century. As you yourself point out by 375 people where venerating the Saints (I of course point out that the shrine at the Tomb of Peter and the graffiti announcing Peter is here, on the Vatican hill, dates to the first century soon after his death c. 65 AD); if this is the case why do you think it is that while their are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century tombs and shrines for most of the Apostles, none has ever been claimed for Mary? It follows from the Immaculate Conception, and from the fact that Mary was the first disciple, overshadowed by the Spirit, ever obediant to the will of the Father, that the Mother of Jesus (Jesus = GOD) who played a more important role in the history of Salvation than Moses or Elijah, would be bodily taken to be with here son, as a precursor to the resurrection of the dead and just as other Old Testiment prophets were said to have been. Is it suprising that John, to whom Jesus entrusted Mary to, writes in the Apocalypse (Rev 12) of a Woman who could only be Mary being taken up by God's angels when the beast tried to find her.

1958-1963- Pope John XXIII (A POPE, NOT A DOCTRINE)

Yes?

1962-1965- The Second Vatican Council ( A COUNCIL, NOT A DOCTRINE)

Yes, again, whats your point? The Church had a council in which it refocused itself on the challenges of Evangelization in the Modern/postModern world. It does this sort of thing from time to time. My personal opinion is that the council could have been timed better, but Jesus didn't promise the Church the gift of timeliness!

1963-1978: Birth Control issue removed from the competence of the General Council of the Church by Pope Paul VI

The Church had always preached against the various methods of birth control, as well as abortion and infanticide (as witnessed to in the Didache). Birth control in particular, in the form of Onanism, has been seen as sinful since well before the time of Jesus, i.e. the word comes from the book of Genisis. Paul defined the moral depravity of birth control because those who were vacilating with the times (recall Paul) desired to change an age old teaching that predated Christ and was fulfilled by Christ's Law of Love. As a result of Paul's teaching in Humane Vitae the field of Sexual theology has blossomed. As I noted before wives are to be loved not used for pleasure!

*see sex and pleasure above

1965 - Mary is proclaimed to be "the Mother of God", by Pope Paul VI. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Actually Mary is proclaimed to be Mother of God by the Angel Gabriel (c. 0 A.D.) when he announces that she will bear a son who will be the Son of the Most High. See above: basic logic of the Marian Title Theotokos, which was, AS YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID, formally defined by the Church at the Council of Ephesus, in the 4th century.

966- The "Index of Forbidden Books" discontinued by Pope Paul VI. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Paul determined that practically speaking this list was not really serving the above function, particularly since so much of the poison of Modernism had alread seeped into culture. And so he discontinued a practice that was no longer practical. The list itself seems very much in keeping with the idea of the good shepard who guards his sheep against the wolves.

1978-2003- Pope John Paul II. (NOT A DOCTRINE)

Actually 1978-2005. Yes? Your critism here is what exacty? He is the 264th successor of Peter.