Merged Chick Tracts

[Craig B]

I wonder if the vernacular thought it stood for Jesus (something) Christ, hence Jesus H. Christ.

That had never occurred to me, and I really think you're right.

 

[jhunter1163]

That had never occurred to me, and I really think you're right.

I agree. It's just too simple an explanation not to be true.

 

[tsig]

I always wondered what it actually stood for, aside from that. From Wikipedia: "IHS" or "IHC", denoting the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus, IHΣΟΥΣ, iota-eta-sigma, or ΙΗΣ.

Where the sigma changed form to the lunate sigma C (lunate like a moon slice) in medieval Greek, and S sigma finally.

I wonder if the vernacular thought it stood for Jesus (something) Christ, hence Jesus H. Christ.

I thought it came from Jesus Haploid Christ.

 

[Craig B]

I thought it came from Jesus Haploid Christ.

Doesn't the Holy Spirit have DNA?

 

[barehl]

This was very much Leo XIII's view, and not only as regards Americanism.

One of the pronouncements was that separation of church and state (Americanism) was heresy. However, this claim would seem to contradict Mark 12:17 and Matthew 22:21.

 

[Craig B]

One of the pronouncements was that separation of church and state (Americanism) was heresy. However, this claim would seem to contradict Mark 12:17 and Matthew 22:21.

For a criticism of the separation of Church and State, it's worth reading Leo's successor Pius X's diatribe denouncing the French law of 1905. Vehementer nos
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos_en.html

 

[Infanta]

My grandmother was a Jehovah's Witness and detested the Catholic faith. She said they were dead wrong about everything and their teachings were all lies. For example she said the Shroud of Turin could be dismissed as a fake simply by virtue of the fact that it was in their hands. I was still pretty young when the obvious hit me - the Catholic Church was the original form of Christianity and if it was wrong, then everything built upon its foundations, i.e. every other Christian denomination, also had to be wrong. All subsequent bibles were based on the very scriptures that the Catholic Church collated and had total control over for centuries. I could also not understand why, if they did have it so wrong, did God let them continue unchallenged for hundreds of years. What about all those millions of misled souls? Why did he allow his advertising agency to misrepresent him for centuries, and get huge, powerful and fabulously wealthy in so doing? Of course I could never ask my grandmother these things. I was just a child and she was a woman who would not be questioned.

 

[Craig B]

... the obvious hit me - the Catholic Church was the original form of Christianity and if it was wrong, then everything built upon its foundations, i.e. every other Christian denomination, also had to be wrong. All subsequent bibles were based on the very scriptures that the Catholic Church collated and had total control over for centuries.

The Catholic Church evolved over a period of time, as did the authority of the head of the Church in Rome. For many centuries the Eastern and Western Patriarchates were part of the same universal church, so that the RCC has no greater claim to be the "original" church than the Eastern Orthodox churches have. They didn't formally split until the eleventh century.

 

[MCel58]

The Catholic Church evolved over a period of time, as did the authority of the head of the Church in Rome. For many centuries the Eastern and Western Patriarchates were part of the same universal church, so that the RCC has no greater claim to be the "original" church than the Eastern Orthodox churches have. They didn't formally split until the eleventh century.

I think that its important to note that the Catholic church is still evolving and that things have moved on since Pope Pius and Pope Leo. However the Jack Chick tract reminds me of how it used to be when I was a child in Glasgow being attacked frequently by the kids from the local protestant school and various young members of the Orange Order because we were Catholics and also had an Italian mother so seen locally as somehow more associated with the Pope. I remember once asking a Free Church of Scotland Minister on a holiday to Stornoway why they did that and he said because all Catholics were doomed to hell as we worshipped not just God but Mary too. I was 12 at the time.

 

[barehl]

The Catholic Church evolved over a period of time, as did the authority of the head of the Church in Rome.

The last major evolution of the Catholic church was Vatican II. The period of greatest decline since then was undoubtedly during the papacy of Pope John Paul II. He was said to be an amazing diplomat for relations outside the church but was terrible within the church. It's strange to me how often his views were in agreement with that of conservative Republicans. For example, he claimed that women had no right to be ordained simply because they were women. He viewed contraception as immoral and this view even overrode his own Bishops council. This point in particular is quite grating since during Vatican II, they made a special point of bringing in women auditors to prevent an otherwise all-male forum. Yet, during the Bishops investigation on the question of birth control, they only allowed a single married couple to testify amid an environment composed entirely of celibate men. That stacked the deck almost as bad as Reagan's Grace Commission on pornography. So, it was remarkable that the Bishops decided in favor of birth control as a positive influence on married couples. To then have the pope throw their recommendation in the trash was the height of both stupidity and papal arrogance.

For many centuries the Eastern and Western Patriarchates were part of the same universal church, so that the RCC has no greater claim to be the "original" church than the Eastern Orthodox churches have. They didn't formally split until the eleventh century.

Not even that since the Bible doesn't actually allow for a pope or even bishops as organized by the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. I'm rather reminded of the state of Judaism which was at its most tyrannical during the time of Jesus but became more democratic with the Rabbinical tradition after the temple was destroyed. But even in the Christian tradition we still have groups that have the equivalent of a pope such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and these groups tend to be both more conservative and more secretive than the Catholic church.

 

[barehl]

All subsequent bibles were based on the very scriptures that the Catholic Church collated and had total control over for centuries.

If memory serves, the Catholic bible is based on the Latin Vulgate whereas other bibles are based on the Greek Septuagint. These are not greatly different.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

The Catholic Church evolved over a period of time, as did the authority of the head of the Church in Rome. For many centuries the Eastern and Western Patriarchates were part of the same universal church, so that the RCC has no greater claim to be the "original" church than the Eastern Orthodox churches have. They didn't formally split until the eleventh century.

Well, they continued to pretend being a universal church until 1054. In reality, they never were, and the much older Eastern Patriarchates never accepted the pretensions of the upstart Bishop of Rome to being the head of the Church. How could such a leadership position even operate in practical terms? There was no way a bishop in Rome could tell another bishop, let alone a Patriarch, somewhere far away in the Byzantine empire what he should do, or even find out what they were doing. In an age where a simple exchange of a few letters could take years, there's not much possibilty for central control.

If memory serves, the Catholic bible is based on the Latin Vulgate whereas other bibles are based on the Greek Septuagint. These are not greatly different.

That stopped being the case a long time ago. Current Bible translations approved by the RCC, at least in the European languages I'm aware of, are all based on the same corpus modern "protestant" ones are based on. In other words, for the OT mostly the Hebrew masoretic text, with sometimes variants from the Septuagint or the bits and pieces from the Dead Sea scrolls drawn in. For the NT, on the available assortment of Greek texts, not the Vulgate either. (The Septuagint is a Jewish text, and obviously doesn't have the NT.) In several languages, there are oecumenical translations shared by catholics and various brands of protestants (for those parts of the bible they have in common, of course).

I don't know when the last vernacular translation from the Vulgate was made, but it's a long time ago. Luther did it with his German bible (at least according to non-Lutherans who've looked into it, many Lutherans will still vehemently claim he translated from the Hebrew and Greek, because that's what Luther claimed, even though he barely knew those languages). The Jehovah's Witnesses, amusingly, translate their Bible versions from English.

 

[Craig B]

Not even that since the Bible doesn't actually allow for a pope or even bishops as organized by the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.

Paul doesn't know of any, and doesn't address his letters to any such office bearers. (That's another proof, by the way, of their early provenance. If they had been concocted at a much later date, they could not have failed to reflect the nature of the hierarchy as it had developed in the second century.)

But Roman Catholics infer from Jesus' charge to Peter, that the church was monarchical from the first. (That is further proof of the early date of the Pauline epistles, for Paul acknowledges no such personal authority of Peter or James in Galatians 2. Quite the contrary.)

I'm rather reminded of the state of Judaism which was at its most tyrannical during the time of Jesus but became more democratic with the Rabbinical tradition after the temple was destroyed. But even in the Christian tradition we still have groups that have the equivalent of a pope such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and these groups tend to be both more conservative and more secretive than the Catholic church.

Is it conceivable that under the charge of the present Pope the Catholic Church might acquire a more collegial and democratic constitution, at least as far as ecclesiastical governance, even if not theological principle, is concerned? That would be a very welcome further "evolution".

 

[tsig]

Paul doesn't know of any, and doesn't address his letters to any such office bearers. (That's another proof, by the way, of their early provenance. If they had been concocted at a much later date, they could not have failed to reflect the nature of the hierarchy as it had developed in the second century.)

But Roman Catholics infer from Jesus' charge to Peter, that the church was monarchical from the first. (That is further proof of the early date of the Pauline epistles, for Paul acknowledges no such personal authority of Peter or James in Galatians 2. Quite the contrary.)
Is it conceivable that under the charge of the present Pope the Catholic Church might acquire a more collegial and democratic constitution, at least as far as ecclesiastical governance, even if not theological principle, is concerned? That would be a very welcome further "evolution".

King James Bible
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1Tim 3:1

 

[Craig B]

King James Bible
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1Tim 3:1

Not by Paul.

Nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century. Most scholars now affirm this view.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

 

[barehl]

King James Bible
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1Tim 3:1

Clearly the Catholic church is not using 1 Timothy 3.

1 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV)

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

 

[Craig B]

Clearly the Catholic church is not using 1 Timothy 3.

1 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV)

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Well, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, priests can marry, but not bishops. But in the West

The First Lateran Council (1123), a General Council, adopted the following canons:

Canon 3: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.
Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance.

Peter has a mother in law in Matthew 8:14.

 

[tsig]

The last major evolution of the Catholic church was Vatican II. The period of greatest decline since then was undoubtedly during the papacy of Pope John Paul II. He was said to be an amazing diplomat for relations outside the church but was terrible within the church. It's strange to me how often his views were in agreement with that of conservative Republicans. For example, he claimed that women had no right to be ordained simply because they were women. He viewed contraception as immoral and this view even overrode his own Bishops council. This point in particular is quite grating since during Vatican II, they made a special point of bringing in women auditors to prevent an otherwise all-male forum. Yet, during the Bishops investigation on the question of birth control, they only allowed a single married couple to testify amid an environment composed entirely of celibate men. That stacked the deck almost as bad as Reagan's Grace Commission on pornography. So, it was remarkable that the Bishops decided in favor of birth control as a positive influence on married couples. To then have the pope throw their recommendation in the trash was the height of both stupidity and papal arrogance.


Not even that since the Bible doesn't actually allow for a pope or even bishops as organized by the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. I'm rather reminded of the state of Judaism which was at its most tyrannical during the time of Jesus but became more democratic with the Rabbinical tradition after the temple was destroyed. But even in the Christian tradition we still have groups that have the equivalent of a pope such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and these groups tend to be both more conservative and more secretive than the Catholic church.

Clearly the Catholic church is not using 1 Timothy 3.

1 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV)

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Hilited what you posted.

Bishops are mentioned in the bible.

 

[Craig B]

Bishops are mentioned in the bible.

Can you be more specific? I was referring to the fact that Paul did not address his letters to any such persons.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

Bishops are mentioned in the bible.

Only in some translations, such as the KJV. Strangely, translations all originating with brands of Christianity that had bishops when those translations were made. Non-episcopal translations use terms such as "overseer", "church official", "elder", etc. (and equivalents in languages other than English) in the passage from 1 Timothy quoted.

ETA: if you look at a comparative site such as https://www.biblegateway.com/, it's also noticeable that, across languages, the use of the word "bishop" or equivalents diminishes the newer the translations get.