Chronology 1 — Religion Clarity Campaign

• Donation of Constantine.   

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

   Publisher: The Papacy; Authors unknown, ≅ 700s-800s A.D.]
   A document fabricated in the 8th-9th cent. to strengthen the power of the Church and esp. of the see of Rome.  In it the Emp. Constantine purported to confer on Pope Sylvester I (314-315), primacy over Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and dominion over all Italy; the Pope was also made supreme judge of the clergy and was offered the Imperial crown (which he refused).  Its authenticity was challenged and its falsity demonstrated in the 15th cent.
   – The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1977, Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, ISBN 0-19-283014-7, p 158 b.
VALLA, LORENZO (c. 1406-57), Italian humanist.  He proved the spuriousness of the 'Donation of Constantine' in a work which contained a bitter attack on the temporal power of the Papacy.  He also undertook a critical comparison between the Vulgate and the Greek NT.  ... His De Elegantiis Linguae Latinae (1442) long remained a standard work on humanist Latin. ...
   – Ibid, p 533 a.
 ^ ^  Spurious  Same-sex  Relig-CONTENTS  Relig-Chronology  Relig-Links  Relig-Books  Relig-HOME  Objectionable  v v   Next > > 
 Directories:  Main 18  Australia  Esperanto  Experiments  Freedom  Georgist  Globalism  Molestation 131  Religion 1  Submission 5 
 ^ ^  CONTENTS 1   18  Translate  Links  Events  Books  HOME  v v 

PATRIMONY OF ST. PETER, The.  The estates belonging to the Church of Rome. Once an edict of Constantine in 321 had enabled the Church to hold permanent property, the patrimony came to include vast estates in Italy and lands in other countries.  As the further patrimonies were conquered, Popes concentrated on defending the region around Rome.  In 753 Stephen II appealed for protection to Pepin, King of the Franks.  By the Donations of 754 and 756 Pepin gave the Papacy territory in the exarchate of Ravenna, the Duchy of Rome, and elsewhere, and, renouncing the Byzantine authority, founded the Papal States independent of any temporal power.  See also States of the Church.
   – Ibid, pp 384-85.
STATES OF THE CHURCH.  Those parts of Italy and the territory of Avignon and Venaissin in France which formerly acknowledged the temporal sovereignty of the Papacy.  Some of these lands were also known as the 'Patrimony of St. Peter' (q.v.). ... In 1870 Rome itself was lost ... 1929 ... the 'Vatican City' a separate State.
   – Ibid, p 487 a.
   [RECAPITULATION: (Patrimony of St Peter entry) ... and, renouncing the Byzantine authority, founded the Papal States independent of any temporal power. ENDS.]
   [BACKGROUND: "Byzantine" rulers were the successors of Constantine the Great (who became sole emperor of both the Western and Eastern parts of the Roman Empire from 324).  Constantine around 312 had given the Church freedom and in 321 had allowed it to own property.
   But we find that a successor to the Bishop of Rome in the 700s connived with a Frankish king to found the Papal States, disloyally "renouncing the Byzantine authority" which at various times in history ruled Italy and surrounding territories. ENDS.]
   [COMMENT: To cover over this traitorousness, some time in the 700s to 800s a forger or forgers prepared a false document that pretended that Constantine the Great had given the Bishop of Rome all of Italy, made him the head clergyman of the world, and head of a few of the most famous Christian cities!  AND had offered him the crown of the Empire!!!
   You know, the leading Western clergymen actually quoted this fake document for centuries, using it to get armies fighting and dying to protect the Pope's lands or to conquer lands for him.  Yes, for about 700 years until Lorenzo Valla in the 1400s exposed the fake, people actually believed that a warrior emperor in the 300s had agreed to hand the crown over to a clergyman!!! 
   Also, anyone who doubted that the Bishop of Rome was the ruler of all Christians could be referred to this forged document, which declared he was the supreme judge of all clergy.
   But then carefully re-read the first entry, "... primacy over Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem ..." and ask yourself why were these eastern cities named.  Three of them had been important Christian centres years before Rome and Constantinople.  It's clear that the forgers in the 700s to 800s must still have believed that these older foundations still had claims to be of superior age and importance to Rome.  So Rome was not at the time of the forgery the comfortable ruler of the whole loyal parts of the Christian flock that faithful little Roman Catholics are led to believe she was.
   To name these patriarchates, AND to insert a claim that the Roman bishop was the supreme judge of all the clergy, is surely proof of the insecurity of the Romish position when the forgery was made. COMMENT ENDS.]
   [SCRIPTURE: Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this world. – John's gospel 18:36. ENDS.]
   [NOTE: A brief notice "Donation of Constantine" is in date order of the publication of the Concise Dictionary, 1977. ENDS.]
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/religchron.htm#donation_of_constantine
[~ 700s-800s A.D.]
• [Limbo taught for centuries after the deviation. 1910.] 

[Limbo taught for centuries after the deviation. 1910]

   New Advent, quoting The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910; www. newadvent. org/cathen/ 09256a. htm , article "Limbo," by Patrick Toner, 1910
   Limbo
   (Late Latin limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).
   In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").
   In literary usage the name is sometimes applied in a wider and more general sense to any place or state of restraint, confinement, or exclusion, and is practically equivalent to "prison" (see, e.g., Milton, "Paradise Lost," III, 495; Butler, "Hudibras," part II, canto i, and other English classics). The not unnatural transition from the theological to the literary usage is exemplified in Shakespeare, "Henry VIII," act v, sc. 3. In this article we shall deal only with the theological meaning and connotation of the word.
Limbus patrum
   Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that, more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current Jewish belief in the time of Christ. Whatever name may be used in apocryphal Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is    In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum. In Matthew 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet "with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven" (cf. Luke 8:29; 14:15), and in Matthew 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and Dives it is called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) and in Christ's words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Ephesians 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ "also descended first into the lower parts of the earth," and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that "being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit," Christ went and "preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah" (1 Peter 3:18-20).
   It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ's visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were "in prison," as St. Peter says; but, as Christ's own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.
Limbus infantium  [Part of the article "Limbo," in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910; www. newadvent. org/cathen/ 09256a. htm , by Patrick Toner, 1910]
   The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."
   The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.
Pre-Augustinian tradition 
   There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative:
It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Orat., xl, 23]
Thus, according to Gregory, for children dying without baptism, and excluded for want of the "seal" from the "honor" or gratuitous favor of seeing God face to face, an intermediate or neutral state is admissible, which, unlike that of the personally wicked, is free from positive punishment. And, for the West, Tertullian opposes infant baptism on the ground that infants are innocent, while St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement; and the Ambrosiaster teaches that the "second death," which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam's sin, but by our own. This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine's time.
Teaching of St. Augustine 
   In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (De peccat. meritis I, xxi; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.
Post-Augustinian teaching 
   After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm (d. 1109), who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of the inherited sin (De conceptu virginali). On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point. According to him there was no guilt (culpa), but only punishment (poena), in the proper notion of original sin; and although this doctrine was rightly condemned by the Council of Soissons in 1140, his teaching, which rejected material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of original sin (Comm. in Rom.), was not only not condemned but was generally accepted and improved upon by the Scholastics. Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, popularized it (Sent. II, xxxiii, 5), and it acquired a certain degree of official authority from the letter of Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles, which soon found its way into the "Corpus Juris". Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores). It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness.
   No reason can be given -- so argued the Angelic Doctor -- for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense), since the latter in reality is the more grievous penalty, and is more opposed to the mitissima poena which St. Augustine was willing to admit (De Malo, V, art. iii). Hence he expressly denies that they suffer from any "interior affliction", in other words that they experience any pain of loss (nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae -- "In Sent.", II, 33, q. ii, a.2). At first ("In Sent.", loc. cit.), St. Thomas held this absence of subjective suffering to be compatible with a consciousness of objective loss or privation, the resignation of such souls to the ways of God's providence being so perfect that a knowledge of what they had lost through no fault of their own does not interfere with the full enjoyment of the natural goods they possess. Afterwards, however, he adopted the much simpler psychological explanation which denies that these souls have any knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul (De Malo loc. cit.). It should be added that in St. Thomas' view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity.
   The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumbpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching -- for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity. At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness, and the Jansenists followed on the same lines. This reacted in two ways on Catholic opinion, first by compelling attention to the historical situation, which the Scholastics had understood very imperfectly, and second by stimulating an all-round opposition to Augustinian severity regarding the effects of original sin; and the immediate result was to set up two Catholic parties, one of whom either rejected St. Thomas to follow the authority of St. Augustine or vainly try to reconcile the two, while the other remained faithful to the Greek Fathers and St. Thomas. The latter party, after a fairly prolonged struggle, has certainly the balance of success on its side.
   Besides the professed advocates of Augustinianism, the principal theologians who belonged to the first party were Bellarmine, Petavius, and Bossuet, and the chief ground of their opposition to the previously prevalent Scholastic view was that its acceptance seemed to compromise the very principle of the authority of tradition. As students of history, they felt bound to admit that, in excluding unbaptized children from any place or state even of natural happiness and condemning them to the fire of Hell, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage, and later African Fathers, like Fulgentius (De fide ad Petrum, 27), intended to teach no mere private opinion, but a doctrine of Catholic Faith; nor could they be satisfied with what Scholastics, like St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, said in reply to this difficulty, namely that St. Augustine had simply been guilty of exaggeration ("respondit Bonaventura dicens quod Augustinus excessive loquitur de illis poenis, sicut frequenter faciunt sancti" -- Scots, In Sent., II, xxxiii, 2). Neither could they accept the explanation which even some modern theologians continue to repeat: that the Pelagian doctrine condemned by St. Augustine as a heresy (see e.g., De anima et ejus orig., II, 17) consisted in claiming supernatural, as opposed to natural, happiness for those dying in original sin (see Bellarmine, De amiss. gratiae, vi, 1; Petavius, De Deo, IX, xi; De Rubeis, De Peccat. Orig., xxx, lxxii). Moreover, there was the teaching of the Council of Florence, that "the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties."
   It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively. Hence he names Catharinus and some others as revivers of the Pelagian error, as though their teaching differed in substance from the general teaching of the School, and tries in a milder way to refute what he concedes to be the view of St. Thomas (op. cit., vi-vii). He himself adopts a view which is substantially that of Abelard mentioned above; but he is obliged to do violence to the text of St. Augustine and other Fathers in his attempt to explain them in conformity with this view, and to contradict the principle he elsewhere insists upon that "original sin does not destroy the natural but only the supernatural order." (op. cit., iv).
   Petavius, on the other hand, did not try to explain away the obvious meaning of St. Augustine and his followers, but, in conformity with that teaching, condemned unbaptized children to the sensible pains of Hell, maintaining also that this was a doctrine of the Council of Florence.
   Neither of these theologians, however, succeeded in winning a large following or in turning the current of Catholic opinion from the channel into which St. Thomas had directed it. Besides Natalis Alexander (De peccat. et virtut, I, i, 12), and Estius (In Sent., II, xxxv, 7), Bellarmine's chief supporter was Bossuet, who vainly tried to induce Innocent XII to condemn certain propositions which he extracted from a posthumous work of Cardinal Sfrondati and in which the lenient scholastic view is affirmed. Only professed Augustinians like Noris and Berti, or out-and-out Jansenists like the Bishop of Pistoia, whose famous diocesan synod furnished eighty-five propositions for condemnation by Pius VI (1794), supported the harsh teaching of Petavius. The twenty-sixth of these propositions repudiated "as a Pelagian fable the existence of the place (usually called the children's limbo) in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire"; and this, taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one thereby necessarily postulates a middle place or state, involving neither guilt nor penalty, between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, is condemned by the pope as being "false and rash and as slander of the Catholic schools" (Denz. 526).
   This condemnation was practically the death-knell of extreme Augustinianism, while the mitigate Augustinianism of Bellarmine and Bossuet had already been rejected by the bulk of Catholic theologians. Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine's protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught -- that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order. It is , on the other hand, that some Catholic theologians have stood out for some kind of compromise with Augustinianism, on the ground that nature itself was wounded and weakened, or, at least that certain natural rights (including the right to perfect felicity) were lost in consequence of the Fall. But these have granted for the most part that the children's limbo implies exemption, not only from the pain of sense, but from any positive spiritual anguish for the loss of the beatific vision; and not a few have been willing to admit a certain degree of natural happiness in limbo. What has been chiefly in dispute is whether this happiness is as perfect and complete as it would have been in the hypothetical state of pure nature, and this is what the majority of Catholic theologians have affirmed.
   As to the difficulties against this view which possessed such weight in the eyes of the eminent theologians we have mentioned, it is to be observed: About this page
APA citation. Toner, P. (1910). Limbo. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www. newadvent. org/cathen/ 09256a.htm
MLA citation. Toner, Patrick. "Limbo." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. < http://www. newadvent. org/cathen/ 09256a.htm >.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Simon Parent.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org . (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback – especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
CONTACT US
   [RECAPITULATION: We must not confound St. Augustine's private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church. ENDS.
   [COMMENT: Confound it, neither has proved infallible!  Much ado about -- nothing!  This article did not tell the faithful that there had been an original Jesus teaching that the children's angels see the face of Jesus' Father in Heaven (Matthew 18:10) and "for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16); and see Matthew 18:6 and Mark 9:37 and 42.
   Gentiles too: According to Romans 2:14-16, Gentiles (by definition not circumcised) will be accounted to have obeyed God's law if they obeyed the law written in their hearts. (discovered by Keith Massam, Nov 23, 2004)
   The so-called "Fathers," who quoted texts seemingly contradicting the above, evidently refused to see that if it says "a man" it does not mean a baby! 
   Baptism for the dead: But the text, that clinches it for anyone trying to avoid scribe-like pharisaistic legalism and to follow the Good Shepherd, is in an epistle's discussion of the future resurrection of the dead: "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?  If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" (1 Corinthians 15:29).  Unless you were a Latter Day Saint (Mormon) or other such sect, your pastor probably did not encourage the flock to obey this scripture!
   Why can't people grieving for their dead infants follow that scripture if they can't believe the gospel stories of the love of Jesus for children, and other texts that he desires that everyone be saved, and that by grace we are saved?
   Reversal: The teaching of God's lovingkindness was reversed (through such as St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St Augustine of Hippo and St Fulgentius, someone called Petavius, and the Council of Carthage, and perhaps the Council of Florence) that the unbaptised children went to burn in hell forever.
   Centuries later, as mentioned above, the RC "theologians" softened it off to the Limbo compromise; still the blind leading the blind.
   It took until around 2005 for the RC theologians to partly give up Limbo.  The worst feature was a newsitem saying it had never been doctrine, and had only been "a theory."   The "infallible Church," unofficially, says now that nobody knows for sure where the babies' souls are!  That is a true word!  (Reformed Christianity centuries ago had consigned the man-made doctrines of Limbo and Purgatory to the dustbin of history.)  Sensible parents all along knew that their dead unbaptised babies were in the same place that Jesus is. COMMENT ENDS.]
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/religchron.htm#limbo_taught_for
[Approved 1910]
• 1934: [Limbo teaching in the Roman Catholic Church.] 
Radio   REPLIES         FIRST SERIES

[Limbo teaching in the Roman Catholic Church. 1934]

 
   Radio Replies, First Series, Australian Edition, also called "Dr. Rumble's Radio Replies in Defence of Religion -- Vol. 1", by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., (on Radio Station 2SM, Sydney, NSW, Australia), publishers: Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, Kensington, NSW, p 229, © 1934
   AUSTRALIA:
805. Then an unbaptised infant cannot attain Heaven?
   An unbaptised infant cannot attain Heaven. Christ has said very definitely, "Unless one be born again … he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Jn. III., 3. I am not more severe than Christ in my denial. He declares that the ordinary principle of life received by human generation is insufficient. We must receive an additional life of grace by baptismal rebirth. An unbaptised infant has received natural life only and had one birth only. If it dies without Baptism it has no claim to the supernatural happiness of Heaven.
806. Is it not unjust that such a child should be lost through no fault of its own?
   Injustice is not involved in this question. When treating of original sin I explained how such a child lacks that supernatural grace which is not due to human nature, and without which no one can enter Heaven. Christ offers that supernatural grace to such of Adam's children as receive Baptism. It is His sheer goodness that He does so, and those who have been baptised have but to congratulate themselves. Unbaptised infants, who have never committed any personal sins, will never endure any actual and positive suffering. But they will be content with natural happiness only, and will not be able to complain that they do not possess the supernatural happiness of seeing God face to face, and being happy with His own supreme happiness. If I bestow a gift upon a beggar in the presence of another, that other cannot tell me that I am obliged in justice to give him a gift also. Since the fall of the human race, we are all beggars before God as regards supernatural happiness. I admit that it would be unjust if a child innocent of any personal sin had to suffer the miseries of Hell. But such is not Catholic doctrine, as I have explained.
807. Do you suggest a special state for unbaptised infants?
   Yes. We call it the Limbo of unbaptised children. The word Limbo is derived from the Latin word Limbus, which means a bordering place. Limbo is an intermediate state of purely natural happiness. In that state unbaptised children will receive all the happiness proportionate to their natural capacity.
808. Why does not the Catholic Church baptise by immersion?
   Such a method of Baptism, though valid, is not necessary. From the very beginning Baptism was administered both by immersion and by infusion or pouring water upon the forehead.
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/religchron.htm#limboteaching
   (Volumes I and II were a selection of Radio Replies given from the Catholic Broadcasting Station 2SM, Sydney, by Dr Rumble. The frontispiece states there had been 50 printings in the U.S.A., 4,000,000 circulation. Copies were available from the Annals Office, Kensington, NSW.)
   (AUTHORISATION: Nihil Obstat: P.C.Cregan, D.D., Censor Deputatus; Imprimatur: + Michael, Archiep. Sydneyensis; Die 20, Dec. 1933.)  [To this website 27 July 06] [Adding to a reply of Dec 20, 05.] [1934]
• Catechism [Australian].   

CATECHISM.

   Catholic Bishops of Australia, issued with episcopal authority on the occasion of the 4th plenary council, 1937. Publishers: Australian Catholic Truth Society. Question 170, Page 42, 1938
170.   What happens to infants who die without Baptism?
          Infants who die without Baptism go to a place of happiness, but they will never see God in heaven.
Catechism, Roman Catholic, 1938 Infants unbaptised never see God
   [NOTE: 1938 was the year of publication.  The ecclesiastical approval was given in the previous year. ENDS.]
   [COMMENT: Although the word "Limbo" is not used, that is the name that RCs gave (for centuries until around 2005) to the place or state where the souls of unbaptised people supposedly went after death, if they had not committed mortal sins. ENDS.]
   [ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: T.B.M. ENDS.]
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/religchron.htm#catechism_australian
[To this website 14 Oct 2008] [1938]
• Limbo of Children; What happens after death?  (orig 1951), 1954    
· XXXVI ·
What Happens After Death? (2)

Limbo of children

   This is the Faith, 1954, by the Rev. Father Francis J. Ripley (priest of the Catholic Missionary Society), published by Catechetical Guild Educational Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.; part of chapter XXXVI "What Happens After Death," pp 359-60, (approved in England 1951), 1954
   Turning now to the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened by serious personal guilt, we can find no definite statement of a positive kind in the New Testament.  Still, remembering our instruction on the necessity of Baptism, we are forced to the conclusion that those who die without it, yet not having grievous personal sin on their souls, while not meriting eternal damnation, are excluded from eternal bliss in heaven.  Throughout the centuries there has been much speculation as to the fate of these souls, but all now agree that they will enjoy a state of natural happiness forever. [...]
   Of course, there is no question of injustice in regard to Limbo.  Grace is, by definition, something which is not due to us – a free gift, which God gives to whom He wills. ...
Nihil Obstat:
J. CANONICUS MORGAN, S. T. D.,
CENSOR
Imprimatur:
+ RICHARDUS
ARCHIEPISCOPUS LIVERPOLITANUS
Liverpolii die 25a Januarii 1951
   [ON OTHER PAGES:
   P. 211: The law of the Western Church now states ... pour the water three times ... in the name of the Father ... Son ... Holy Ghost.  It is true that for twelve centuries immersion was the common practice in the Catholic Church.
   P. 214: (teachings that the unbaptised babies go to Limbo) Council of Trent ... St. Augustine ... St. Ambrose.
   P. 215: ... adults who die without even hearing of Christ ... are saved ... if they die in perfect charity or are perfectly contrite for their sins.  Children who die without Baptism are deprived of the direct vision of God in heaven ...St Thomas Aquinas says of them:  "They are free from pain and sorrow, and even enjoy a certain inward peace and happiness ..."
   P. 366: ... infants ... the unbaptized will realise the justice of their eternal loss of the beatific vision. ENDS.]
   [ARGUMENT AGAINST: Jesus said of children "of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16).   But then, He did not have a degree in theology, did He? ENDS.]
   [IN WHOSE NAME?  Matthew 28:19 says disciples are to be baptised in the name (singular) of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (three).  However, The Acts of the Apostles in two places says to baptise in the (single) name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41, and 10:47).  So, isn't it fair to ask, in the three-name formula, is the singular form of the word "name" retained as a relic of the original formula which had a single name? ENDS.]
   [CHANGING CHURCH or CHANGELESS CREED?  In spite of the book itself showing that the teachings had changed (for example, on p 211, immersion changed to pouring), on page 416 a quote from John L. Stoddard in "Rebuilding a Lost Faith" includes this sentence:  "When I reflect upon that Church's long, unbroken continuity, ... her changeless creed ... I feel that this One, Holy, Apostolic Church has given me certainty for doubt, order for confusion, sunlight for darkness and substance for shadow."  If only! ENDS.]
   [LIMBO ABANDONED ~ 2005!  Around December 8, 2005 or earlier newsitems began emanating from Vatican sources that theologians were abandoning the Limbo teaching, and had the temerity to state it was not a doctrine, only a "theory."  It would seem that these learned men were practising that other teaching, "mental reservation," which elements of the Church have been talking about for 700 years but, presumably, is only a theory still! ENDS.]
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/religchron.htm#limbo_of_children
[(approved 1951) 1954]
• Donation of Constantine.   

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

   The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, ISBN 0-19-283014-7, p 158, 1977.
   A forgery fabricated in the 8th-9th centuries purporting to be Constantine the Great donating all Italy to Pope Sylvester I (314-315), etc., etc.  Falsity demonstrated in the 15th century by Lorenzo Valla.
   [MAIN ENTRY: Check fuller entry listed above at 700s-800s A.D. ENDS.] [p 158; 1977]
• Mental reservation.  [Seemingly Roman Catholic Church teaching.]
   The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, ISBN 0-19-283014-7, pp 332-33, 1977.

MENTAL RESERVATION.

 
   The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1977, Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, pp 332-33.
   The conflict which may arise between the duty of telling the truth and that of keeping a secret has led to the development of the doctrine of mental reservation.  RC moral theologians distinguish between 'strict' and 'wide' mental reservation.  In the former a qualification is added mentally which alters the statement pronounced, so that the hearer is necessarily deceived;  it is justifiable when the person putting the question has no right to the truth or where a professional secret is involved.  In the 'wide mental reservation' words are used which are susceptible of more than one interpretation, without the speaker's giving an indication of the sense in which he uses them. #

   [DISCUSSED in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: This must be understood of all mental restrictions which are lawful.  The virtue of truth requires that, unless there is some special reason to the contrary, one who speaks to another should speak frankly and openly, in such a way that he will be understood by the person addressed.  It is not lawful to use mental reservations without good reason. -- www.newadvent. org/cathen/ 09469a.htm . ENDS.]
   [CITED in a court case about clergy child sex abuse (doctrine 700 years old): "Lawyers grapple with Catholic doctrine," Los Angeles Times, www.latimes. com/news/print edition/ california/ la-me-priest 26mar26,1, 2982832.story? coll=la- headlines- pe-california ; By John Spano, Times Staff Writer, March 26, 2007.
   "Clergy sex abuse: Lawyers face truth avoidance that shields church," Santa Fe New Mexican, www.santafe newmexican. com/news/ 59298.html , by John Spano | Los Angeles Times. March 28, 2007
   "Doctrine licence to lie: abuse lawyers; Catholic clergy accused of hiding behind ancient principle to protect Church members in child sex cases. The West Australian, p 39, Thursday, March 29, 2007. ENDS.]
   [DENIAL reported (x3) in LA Observed, Catholic League, and News Busters, April 02, 2007. ENDS.]
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/religchron.htm#mental_reservation
[(To webpage 09 Aug 08) pp 332-33; 1977]

• 1982: [Modern Bible changes put aside 99%, accept a handful of manuscripts.]

Which Bible Can we Trust, Les GARRETT 20.8kb
   Which Bible can we Trust? 1982, Les Garrett (compiler), Christian Centre Press, Gosnells (Western Australia), pp 148-151, March 1982.
   PERTH (W. Australia): Modern Bible revisers rely mainly on a handful out of more than 1000 manuscripts, which differ; there are 10 different correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus.
   In enumerating and describing the five ancient Codices now in existence, Dean Burgon remarks that four of these, and especially the Vatican and Sinaitic Mss. "have, within the last twenty years, established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the critics which can only be fitly spoken of as blind superstition."
   Those ancient Codices have indeed been blindly followed, notwithstanding that they differ "not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant Mss. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. As said of the two false witnesses that came to testify against Christ, so it may be said of these witnesses who are brought forward at this late day to testify against the Received Text, "But neither so did their witness agree together."
148                               WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST
* * *
IV     CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWO OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS
   The principle which the modern editors have adopted, namely, that of following the oldest manuscripts in settling all questions of doubtful or disputed readings, throws us back upon the two Codices (Vaticanus and Sinaitic) which, though not dated, are regarded by all competent antiquarians as belonging to the fourth century; and its practical effect is to make those two solitary survivors of the first four Christian centuries the final authorities, where they agree (which is not always the case), upon all questions of the true Text of Scripture.
   Therefore it behoves us to inquire with the utmost care into the character of these two ancient witnesses, and to acquaint ourselves with all available facts whereby their trustworthiness may be tested. And this inquiry is necessary, regardless of what may be our opinion concerning the principle of "ancient evidence only," which we propose to examine later on. For what now confronts us is the fact that those two fourth century Codices have had the deciding voice in the settling of the Greek Text of the R.V. and are responsible for practically all the departures from the Received Text to which serious objection has been made. Thus, Canon Cook in his authoritative work on "The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels" says:
   "The two oldest Mss. are responsible for nearly all the readings which we have brought under consideration - readings which, when we look at them individually, and still more when we regard them collectively, inflict most grievous damage upon our Lord's words and works."
   And again:
   "By far the greatest number in innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our minds, are adopted on the testimony of two manuscripts, or even of one manuscript, against the distinct testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive …. The Vatican Codex, sometimes alone, but generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in the R.V."
   Dean Burgon, whom we shall have occasion to quote largely because of his mastery of the entire subject, after having spent five and a half
WHICH VERSION? AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?         149
years "laboriously collating the five old uncials throughout the Gospels," declared at the completion of his prodigious task that -
   "So manifest are the disfigurements jointly and exclusively exhibited by the two codices (Vatican and Sinaitic) that, instead of accepting them as two independent witnesses to the inspired original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and comparatively late copy."
The Many Corrections of the Sinaitic Ms.
   Turning our attention first to the Codex Sinaiticus, we would lay stress upon a matter which, in our judgment, has a decisive bearing upon the all-important question of the trustworthiness of that ancient manuscript. And we are the more urgent to impress this particular matter upon the consideration of our readers because - notwithstanding its controlling importance - it has been practically ignored in such discussions of the subject as have come under our eye.
   What we now refer to is the fact that, since this document was first inscribed, it has been made the subject of no less than ten different attempts of revision and correction. The number of these attempts is witnessed by the different chirographies of the revisers, and the centuries in which they were respectively made can be approximated by the character of the different hand-writings by which the several sets of corrections were carried out.
   Dr. Scrivener published (in 1864) "A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus," with an explanatory introduction in which he states, among other facts of interest, that "the Codex is covered with such alterations" -i.e., alterations of an obviously correctional character - "brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the Ms., many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century."
   We are sure that every intelligent reader will perceive, and with little effort, the immense significance of this feature of the Sinaitic Codex. Here is a document which the Revisers have esteemed (and that solely because of its antiquity) to be so pure that it should be taken as a standard whereby all other copies of the Scriptures are to be tested and corrected. Such is the estimate of certain scholars of the 19th century. But it bears upon its face the proof that those in whose possession it had been, from the very first, and for some hundreds of years thereafter, esteemed it to be so impure as to require correction in every part.
   Considering the great value to its owner of such a manuscript (it is on vellum of the finest quality) and that he would be most reluctant to consent to alterations in it except the need was clearly apparent, it is plain that this much admired Codex bears upon its face the most incontestable proof of its corrupt and defective character.
150                               WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST
   But more than that, Dr. Scrivener tells us that the evident purpose of the thorough-going revision which he places in the 6th or 7th century was to make the Ms. conform to manuscripts in vogue at that time which were ''far nearer to our modern Textus Receptus."
   The evidential value of these numerous attempts at correcting the Sinaitic Codex and of the plainly discernible purpose of the most important of those attempts is such that, by all the sound rules and principles of evidence, this "ancient witness," so far from tending to raise doubts as to the trustworthiness and textual purity of the Received Text, should be regarded as affording strong confirmation thereof.
   From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose; and second that the Text recognized in those days as the standard Text, and by which the defective Codex now so highly rated by scholars was one that agreed with our Textus Receptus.
   It is most surprising that facts which affect so profoundly the evidential value of the Codex Sinaiticus, facts which indeed change it from a hostile to a friendly witness (as regards the Received Text) should have been so completely disregarded.
The Work of an Incompetent Scribe
   There are other characteristics of this old Ms. which have to be taken into consideration if a correct estimate of its evidential value is to be reached. Thus, there are internal evidences that lead to the conclusion that it was the work of a scribe who was singularly careless, or incompetent, or both. In this Ms. the arrangement of the lines is peculiar, there being four columns on each page, each line containing about twelve letters - all capitals run together. There is no attempt to end a word at the end of a line, for even words having only two letters as en, ek, are split in the middle, the last letter being carried over to the beginning of the next line, though there was ample room for it on the line preceding. This and other peculiarities give us an idea of the character and competence of the scribe.
   But more than that, Dr. Scrivener says: "This manuscript must have been derived from one in which the lines were similarly divided, since the writer occasionally omits just the number of letters which would suffice to fill a line, and that to the utter ruin of the sense; as if his eye had heedlessly wandered to the line immediately below." Dr. Scrivener cites instances "where complete lines are omitted," and others "where the copyist passed in the middle of a line to the corresponding portion of the line below."
   From this it is evident that the work of copying was done by a scribe who was both heedless and incompetent. A careful copyist would not have made the above and other mistakes so frequently; and only the most incompetent would have failed to notice, upon reading over the
WHICH VERSION? AUTHORIZED OR REVISED?         151
page, and to correct omissions which utterly destroyed the sense.
   Dr. Scrivener's judgment on this feature of the case is entitled to the utmost confidence, not only because of his great ability as a textual critic, but because, being impressed, as all antiquarians were, with the importance of Tischendorf s discovery, it was solely from a sheer sense of duty and honesty, and with manifest reluctance, that he brought himself to point out the defects of the manuscript. Therefore, the following admission made by him carries much weight:
   "It must be confessed indeed that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first rate importance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that 'the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.' "
   Speaking of the character of the two oldest Mss. Dean Burgon says:
   "The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but of fact …. In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
   In enumerating and describing the five ancient Codices now in existence, Dean Burgon remarks that four of these, and especially the Vatican and Sinaitic Mss. "have, within the last twenty years, established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the critics which can only be fitly spoken of as blind superstition."
   Those ancient Codices have indeed been blindly followed, notwithstanding that they differ "not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant Mss. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. As said of the two false witnesses that came to testify against Christ, so it may be said of these witnesses who are brought forward at this late day to testify against the Received Text, "But neither so did their witness agree together."
* * *
   [COMMENT: Well, many Christians have been and are being told that the body of believers, and the holy books, are under the inspiration of God. If so, and if the argument of this writer is correct, how did it happen that "Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen"? Why didn't God either prevent this, or incite his followers to correct, or destroy, such an error-filled copy? Should Church leaders be so cocksure of doctrine, when our forefathers could not even keep the scriptures straight?
   Notice there was no question mark after the page main title headings "WHICH BIBLE CAN WE TRUST" That's the way the book came out. Except for the front cover, that's the way the book's name appeared throughout.
Compiler: Pastor Les Garrett, Christian Family Centre, Perth, Western Australia; Publisher: Christian Centre Press, PO Box 77, Gosnells, W.A., 6110; Foreword: David Otis Fuller, DD, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; Introduction: Pastor Frank Hultgren, Shiloh Faith Centre, Perth, W.A. Publication date March 1982. - jcm 07 and 24 Jan 05. COMMENT ENDS.] [March, 1982]
• [Irish bishops said free mother and child care sinful.]  - RCC. Ireland, Republic of / Eire, flag; www.edwardmooney.com/miniflags  

[Irish bishops said free mother and child care sinful.]

 
   The Growth Illusion; How economic growth has enriched the few, impoverished the many, and endangered the planet, by Richard Douthwaite, pp 269-270, 1992.
   [~ 1948-50] When [Noël] Browne pointed out that only 10 per cent of children got any secondary education and that there were only thirty-five free scholarships to university, de Valera defended the system and denied that it needed to be improved.
   Similarly, when Browne proposed a mother-and-child health service in 1950 that would have given all children free health care until they were sixteen and looked after mothers before, during and after childbirth, he was called before the archbishop and read a letter the bishops had sent to the Taoiseach that attacked his proposals on several grounds.
   Among the objections were that the scheme infringed the rights of the family and the individual to provide their own health care; that only the church was competent to give instruction about sexual relations, chastity, and marriage, and that if the state got involved, 'doctors trained in institutions in which we no confidence … may give gynaecological care not in accordance with Catholic principles,' leading to the introduction of abortion and contraception.
   When Browne tried to put his case, the Bishop of Galway told him it was unfair to tax the rest of the community to give the poor a free health service, a view most of the hierarchy held.  Browne was later described from the pulpit of the church in the village where he spent his weekends as one of those who 'come amongst us disguised as friends when meanwhile their real is to poison the wells and so kill off our stock,' while the Bishop of Galway preached that the health scheme advocated euthanasia for the unfit and aged, and that Browne's beliefs came from Nazi Germany.
   A Dominican magazine said it was a mortal sin to introduce a mother-and-child health that was not means-tested; communist countries had a free health service, it carefully pointed out.  All this was too much for the government members would never have dreamed of going against the church anyway.  The mother-and-child scheme was dead and Browne's party forced him to resign as minister.
   Browne did, however, manage to get an amazing number of things done during his three years in office, showing just how much more a self-reliant Ireland could have accomplished had it had the vision.
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/religchron.htm#irish_bishops
   [DETAILS: Publisher: Green Books, Bideford and Dublin; 1992; ISBN 0 870098 41 2; Dewey shelf number 338.9] [1992]
• 1993: When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity.

When Women Were Priests:
Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity

 
   Sunshine for Women, www.pinn.net/~ sunshine/main.html , sunshine@pinn.net, Book, www.pinn.net/ ~sunshine/ book-sum/ wmnprst.html , by Karen Jo Torjesen, Publisher: Harper San Franscisco, 1993
   1) The Catholic Church knows that it is lying when it says women were not priests in the early church: "Giorgio Otranto, an Italian professor of church history, has shown through papal letters and inscriptions that women participated in the Catholic priesthood for the first thousand years of the church's history." page 2
   2) "He [Jesus] addressed women as equals, gave honor and recognition to children, championed the poor and the outcast, ate and mingled with people across all class and gender lines, and with bold rhetoric attacked the social bonds that held together the patriarchal family. When Jesus gathered disciples around him to carry his message to the world, women were prominent in the group. Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and Mary his mother are women whose names survived the retelling of the Christian story in the language and literary conventions of Roman patriarchal society. Paul's letters reflect an early Christian world in which women were well-known evangelists, apostles, leaders of congregations, and bearers of prophetic authority." page 4
   3) "If prophets, speaking under the influence of the Spirit, asked for food or money for themselves, then the community would know that they were not true prophets. (What would happen if televangelists today were evaluated as authentic Christians in this way?)" page 25
   4) "Yet up until the mid-third century, only occasional sparks were generated by this clash between the social strictures on women's roles and the freedom women found in Christianity. For more than two hundred years Christianity was essentially a religion of the private sphere, practiced in the private space of the household rather than the public sphere of a temple. Its concerns were the domestic life of its community rather than the political life of the city.
   But during the third century Christianity began evolving toward its eventual form as a public religion. The burgeoning numbers of adherents and the new formality and dignity of the Christian liturgies meant that Christian participation was increasingly a public event. By the fourth century Christians were worshiping [sic] in their own public temples, called basilicas. During this period the friction between the social conventions about women's place and women's actual long-standing roles as house church leaders, prophets, evangelists, and even bishops precipitated virulent controversies.
   As Christianity entered the public sphere, male leaders began to demand the same subjugation of women in the churches as prevailed in Greco-Roman society at large. Their detractors reproached women leaders, often in strident rhetoric, for operating outside the domestic sphere and thus violating their nature and society's vital moral codes. How could they remain virtuous women, the critics demanded, while being active in public life?" pages 37-38
   5) "One [Celsus] second-century detractor of Christianity attacked and dismissed the religion as a woman's movement." page 81
   6) "But in the earliest Christian communities, which - inspired by Jesus' radical teaching and example - were much more egalitarian than the society at large, such ideological perspectives remained muted and their influence on social roles limited." page 82
   7) "So long as church leadership continued to model itself on the familiar role of household manager, there was no cultural barrier to women assuming leadership roles." page 82
   8) "Origen of Alexandria, who ironically, as noted in Chapter 3, would never have become a theologian without the sponsorship of a woman patron, appealed to this gender system [the dual public-private system with conflicting expectations] in his polemic against the Montanist woman prophets." pages 113-114
   9) "Modern church scholars have invariably assumed that the condemnation of women's leadership by these ancient Christian writers was based on theological arguments. When Tertullian and his ilk bar women from teaching and baptizing, scholars have tended to see divine, and therefore unassailable, justification behind it. But such interpretations are guilty of a serious oversight: They fail to take into account the enormous extent to which the Christian church allowed Greco-Roman social dogma to pervade its teachings - in this case, the secular circumscriptions on women's activities.
   They have also somehow missed an important implication in these ancient denunciations: that women actually held significant positions of leadership in the churches. Otherwise, there would have been no need for these fulminations, which convey the unmistakable tone of threatened authority." page 114
   10) "The era and its institutions were virtually saturated by contradictions between the codes that purported to limit women's roles and the obvious fact of women's influence in every sector, including the public." page 115
   11) "Gerda Lerner shows in The Creation of Patriarchy, 123-41, that part of the evolution of the patriarchal system involved dividing women into two classes, women whose sexuality was available to one man and women whose sexuality was available to all men. This is the basis here for the distinction between good women and bad women. The distinction between good widows and bad widows follows this same typology." page 152
   12) "As the architectural space in which Christians worshipped [sic] became a more public space, and as the models for leadership were drawn increasingly from public life, women's leadership became more controversial. Because the public-versus-private gender ideology restricted women's activities in public life, the new leaders of the church were not as comfortable with women's leadership in the churches." page 157
   13) "From Tertullian's hostility to women leaders we learn that in the congregations familiar to him women were teaching, baptizing, exorcising, and healing." page 158
   "Tertullian represents the attitude of the conservative Roman aristocracy that the only proper roles for women lay within the private sphere. And it is Tertullian's innovative vision of the church as a political body rather than a household or private association that made women's leadership roles in the church particularly odious to him.
   His paradoxical positions resulted from his recasting of Latin Christianity into a juridical or political mold. Tertullian offered the first consistent articulation of Christianity to draw its language, metaphors, and paradigms from institutions of public political life. Tertullian's rejection of women's leadership in the church was therefore determined by Roman society's relegation of women's activities to the private domestic sphere and its insistence that the public woman was a promiscuous woman." page 160
   "Tertullian's first line of argument was designed to convince Christian women that pagans did not really possess the virtue of chastity. He did this by creating a new definition of Christian chastity that made the Christian woman responsible for male sexuality." page 170 (my emphasis)
   14) "The Romans inherited their views about the proper roles of men and women in public and in private from ancient Greece. Christianity, in turn, absorbed these views from the Roman Empire, its cultural home. As Christianity spread, it transmitted this Greco-Roman gender system throughout the West and succeeded in shaping cultural attitudes about women and sexuality that continue to prevail." page 179 [***]
   [COMMENT: Downgrading women's ministries occured in the Eastern Churches (now including the Orthodox), under the sway of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, as well as the Western part (now called the Roman Catholic Church, and its breakaway successor Churches).  So don't read the first paragraph's attack on the RCC through 20th and 21st century eyes.  Reformist Churches such as the Protestant and Anglican copied these practices.  So remember, when the Roman Empire (both the Latin- and Greek- speaking parts) adopted Christianity, it ADAPTED Christianity, in spite of the denials of "Churchianity" supporters and apologists, moving away from the various Jesus groups' practices and beliefs. ENDS.] [1993]
• Can ISRAEL break away from ISRAEL? Religious puzzle.   
Religious puzzle:

Can ISRAEL break away from ISRAEL?

   William D. Rinzy, by Wm. D. Rinzy, August 19, 1996
   On Sunday, August 18, 1996, I heard a sermon in a mainstream Australian church, in which the preacher said that long ago, before Christ, 10 tribes had broken away from ancient Israel.  I deny that, though it is a popular belief among churchgoers.  (The 10 tribes, who were the northern kingdom, are the fact behind the legends of the Ten Lost Tribes.)  He also said that the people of Israel, the 12 tribes, were descended from the 12 sons of Jacob.  I doubt this.
   The preacher was backgrounding the oft-criticised "exclusivism" of the people he called Jews, but which are more accurately called Judaists, that is, followers of Judaism.  The preacher's message was that the three scripture readings that day, the 20th Sunday in ordinary time, taught us not to copy the alleged behaviour of the "Jews," nor to be racist nor excessively nationalistic.  Nor even to be so bound to, say, a football club, that we forgot that we should see ourselves as partners in the world and in such things as football.  (The three scripture readings that day were: Isaiah 56:1, 6-7; Romans 11:13-15, 29-32; Matthew 15:21-28.)
   He did not explain whether if, like Judaists, Christians practised exclusivism, they might become excessively racist or nationalistic!
   The preacher did explain that one reason for the ancient "Jews" keeping apart from their pagan neighbours was that experience had shown them that intermarrying and otherwise mixing had, too often, led to them adopting the morals and beliefs of the pagans around them.  He pointed out that Christians have the same problem; and present-day parents see their young people falling into the ways of the people of different beliefs and no beliefs around them.
   But, can good come from error? Why do the mainstream Churches, in discussing the civil and religious relationships of the centuries leading up to the time of Jesus Christ, say that the northern kingdom (based for most of its history on Samaria) BROKE AWAY from the southern kingdom, with Jerusalem as capital?
DOES THE TAIL WAG THE DOG?
   THE OPPOSITE is clear from the documents, and is now recognised by many scholars.  'But first, let's look at it simply:
   1. Who broke away?  If there are TEN groups becoming separate from TWO groups, isn't it normal to say that 2 broke away?  Otherwise, should we ask "Does the tail wag the dog?"
   2. If the united kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon was called ISRAEL, would the true kingdom keep the name Israel, and the breakaway be called something else?  Probably yes.  Well, the truth is that the northern kingdom continued to be called Israel.
   In other words, it was the southerners, Judah, with the city of Jerusalem, that broke away, not what your Sunday School might have told you!  The southern kingdom, based on the comparatively new capital Jerusalem, was called Judah, and the region was, years later, called Judea; the inhabitants were called Judeans, which got corrupted later by bad Bible translators or publishers into "Jews."
TITLE DEEDS TO PALESTINE; JUDAH V. ISRAEL
   Does all this old history matter?  Well, yes it does.  Forty-eight years ago a group that most people call "Jews" used guns to grab Palestine/Canaan on May 14, 1948, and millions around the world believe the "Jews," now calling themselves "Israelis," own it because of Bible writings.  And, using ample funds from the United States, they prevent the Indigenous People of the Holy Land from returning to their homes and workplaces.  So this religious matter does cause deaths, injuries, hatred, loss of homes and incomes, and some risk of a Third World War, therefore it is important.
   J.L.McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible wrote that Judah probably was not part of the group that left Egypt under Moses, and that both David and Solomon ruled a dual monarchy of Judah (south) and Israel (north); he claims that relations between the two groups were not close during the monarchy (page 462 a).  My readings are that David was first anointed king of Judah (Bible, 2 Samuel 2:4).  It was only after the murder of the king of Israel, Saul's son Ishbaal (pagan type of name), and when the leaders of Israel came to his capital at Hebron about 20 miles south of Jerusalem, that David made a covenant with them, after which the leaders anointed David king of Israel (see Bible, 2 Samuel 5:1-4).  Verse 5 states he ruled over Judah in Hebron for seven years six months, and over all Israel 33 years, and that he captured the stronghold in Jerusalem.
   McKenzie also has written:
The origins of the schism between Jews and Samaritans lie deep in early Israelite history; indeed, it probably reflects the fact that Judah and Israel were never really one. … divisions appear both before the reigns of David and Solomon and after … It is clear that the schism occurred before the Jews [? Judahites, or general followers of Yahweh ?] accepted the prophets and the writings as canonical … the Samaritans accept only the Pnt [= Pentateuch].  The MS now to be seen at Nablus is thought by scholars to belong to the 12th century AD [after Christ}.  The text has some minor differences from the MT [Masoretic Text = Judaists' accepted version] … and has an added verse which identifies Gerizim as the [divine] temple mountain.  Some readings of the Samaritan Pnt appears [sic] in the MSS of Qumran*. … (p 766 a)
(* Manuscripts of Qumran, i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls.)

… The [theory of the] 12-tribe system is itself, however, not free of difficulties.  Ephraim and Manasseh are always counted as separate tribes, which raises the number to 13; where 12 are counted, Levi as a landless tribe is not counted. … A difference between Israel and Judah appears even in David's reign (2 S 19:42; 20:1 ff). … The name Israel is used after the schism of Jeroboam of the northern kingdom.  This, despite the fact that the historical books must have been finally edited by Judahite scholars, [actually, by Talmudic scholars mainly based in Babylon, Iraq] shows that both northern and southern Israelites accepted the northern kingdom, which included the majority of Israelites, as the true Israel and Judah as the seceding party.  This usage is found in the writings of Hosea and Amos and in those parts of Is [Isaiah] which precede the fall of Samaria in 722.  After the collapse of the northern kingdom in 722 the name Israel passes to Judah. (p 404 b; McKenzie,J.L.: Dictionary of the Bible, 1968, London, Geoffrey Chapman)
   Is the northern kingdom based on the Samarian area the "true Israel," and the south, Judah, "the seceding party"?  Does the Bible have evidence of this?
   Firstly, we see in the Bible 1 Kings 9:15-20 [[Douay: 3 Kings]] that Solomon forced the conquered peoples to labour on building the Temple of Yahweh, his palace, the Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer, Lower Beth-horon, Baalath, Tamar, the towns for garrisons, chariots and horses, and all it pleased him to build in Jerusalem, Lebanon, and all the countries subject to him.  Verse 23 says there were 550 officials in charge of the forced labour.
SOLOMON'S PAGAN ALTARS WERE IN USE OVER 300 YEARS
   In 1 Kings 11:5-8 (and see same book 11:33) [[Douay: 3 Kings]] we read that Solomon (961-922 BC) began following the false goddess Ashtoreth or Astarte of Sidon, and Milcom of Ammon.  Solomon also built on the mountain east of Jerusalem a place to worship Chemosh of Moab, and a place to worship Milcom.  These sanctuaries evidently kept going MORE THAN 300 YEARS until the reign of Josiah (640-609 BC) who demolished them, see 2 Kings 23:13 [[Douay: 4 Kings]], where three altars are mentioned as being built east of Jerusalem south of the Mount of Olives, honouring all three divinities quoted above.  And Solomon built places for his pagan wives to burn incense and offer worship to their pagan gods (1 Kings 11:8) [[Douay: 3 Kings]].  Do you doubt that the people paid taxes for all this?
GOD GIVES THE KINGDOM AWAY
   In the same book 11:11: "Jehovah now said to Solomon: 'For the reason that this has taken place with you and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I laid in command upon you, I shall without fail rip the kingdom away from off you, and I shall certainly give it to your servant'."
   The prophet Ahijah of Shiloh spoke to a military man, Jeroboam, the son of Nebat and Zeruah, an Ephraimite (Joshua's tribe which had led Israel for some time) from Zeredah:
   "… for thus Yahweh, the God of Israel, speaks: I am going to tear the kingdom from Solomon's hand and give ten tribes to you." (1 Kings 11:31, Jerusalem Bible translation) [[Douay: 3 Kings]].
   I presume that some honest folk of both Judah and Israel must have been angry that the forced labour of the conquered peoples had been wasted on altars for idols, "all it pleased him to build" (1 K 9:19) [[Douay: 3 Kings]].
   Anyway, after Solomon died (1 Kings 11:43) [[Douay: 3 Kings]], his son Rehoboam had to go to Shechem (about 64 km north of Jerusalem) to where "all Israel came to make him king." (1 Kings 12:1) [[Douay: 3 Kings]]  But it wasn't as simple as that.  The northerners had really come to discuss who THEY would choose as king; and they had wisely sent for the warrior Jeroboam (see above) to come from exile in Egypt.
ISRAELITE ELDERS MAKE THE KING COME TO THEM
   Note that, although in the days of his grandfather the Israelite elders had come south to Hebron to negotiate with David, the young Rehoboam had to go about 40 miles north of Jerusalem to Shechem to meet the Israelite elders for their deliberations.
   When the negotiators started, they told Rehoboam that Solomon had made their yoke hard, and they wanted him to lighten it.  The king's old counsellors, who had presumably advised Solomon how to get away with loading the people with taxes and burdens, told him to "speak to them with good words," in other words, make a pre-election promise.  The young king turned to the young men, and they advised him to say the opposite (in other words, to tell the truth).
   The young king told the truth, that he would increase the people's burdens and whip them with scorpions (see 1 Kings 12:14) [[Douay: 3 Kings]].  But, the Israelites, instead of accepting this, decided not to continue with the royal line of David, saying "To your tents, oh Israel."  When Rehoboam sent his work gang leader to them, they pelted him with stones, and the young king needed a chariot to flee back to Jerusalem (same book, 12:18).  In other words, Israel had decided to elect a more suitable king than the son of the hard taskmaster and semi-pagan Solomon.  The two southern tribes evidently did not have the sense to follow suit, and so the dual monarchy ended for ever.
   When Judah's king later planned to fight Israel (1 Kings 12:22-24) [[Douay: 3 Kings]] "Then the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God saying: 'Say to Rehoboam the son of Solomon the king of Judah and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin and the rest of the people, this is what Jehovah has said: "You must not go up and fight against your brothers the sons of Israel.  Go back each one to his house". ' "
WORSHIPPING THE GOLDEN BULLS OF BETHEL
   Did you know there had been a temple in Bethel (about 14 miles =22km north of Jerusalem), which was part of the northern kingdom?  Alice Parmelee, in her A guidebook to the bible, 1967, London, Teach Yourself Books, English Universities Press, p 21, knew there was one; a quick read of these will help you: Early sacredness of the site Genesis 12:8; 13:3; 28:10 ff; 35:1-13; prophets reported in Bethel: 1 Kings 13 [[Douay: 3 Kings]]; 2 Kings 2:2 f, 23 [[Douay: 4 Kings]].  But Alice didn't want to tell us this next bit: King Jeroboam (922-901 BC) of Israel (i.e., the northern kingdom) told his subjects they had been going long enough to Jerusalem, and he set up golden bulls in Bethel, and at Dan in the far north of Israel (1 Kings 12:28-29) [[Douay: 3 Kings]] and offered a sacrifice to the bull at Bethel (same, 12:33, and 13:1-6).  (It is possible he knew that the Jerusalem monopoly was not the original doctrine, and also possible that his teachings were that Jehovah/Yahweh was invisibly standing on the bulls.)  And, a later king Jehu (842-815 BC) kept up the golden calves (2 Kings 10:29) [[Douay: 4 Kings]].  So, the northern kingdom of Israel had adopted unauthorised worship, just as Judah had been doing on and off for a long, long time.
BOTH KINGDOMS PAGAN, BUT CHRISTIANS GIVEN A SANITISED STORY
   It's not comforting to think of pagan shrines in the Holy Land.  But, is it true that nearly all Western Christians are taught that the true Israel was the southern kingdom with Jerusalem as capital, and that the 10 tribes of the north broke away?
   Dr Clifford A. Wilson, former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, and area supervisor in Gezer, Israel, in 1969, honorary director of Word of Truth Productions Ltd., and a for