Anti- Catholicism

[jkwilliams]

 

I thought surely this was a misrepresentation of what Elder Ballard said, but I listened to the whole thing.  At about 58:50, he talks about how most people in the world don't know where they come from, why they are here, and where they are going. He then says:

 

If they have a Catholic background, they don't know who God is, they don't know who the Savior is, nor do they know who the Holy Ghost is. And we know who they are because Joseph knelt in the presence of the Father and the Son, and our Father introduced the Savior in these words: "Joseph, this is my beloved son. Hear him!" A boy, who then was nurtured and trained by the Savior of the World to restore the fulness of the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth.

 

Obviously, he was trying to say that the First Vision gives us a proper understanding of the nature of the Godhead, but the way he said it was unfortunate. 

[MiserereNobis]

If it weren't for the Catholic Church, Joseph Smith would not have had the Bible that had the verse that inspired him to pray.  There would not have been protestants, so he would not have been raised as one.  Therefore, he would not have known about the Christian God he prayed to.  The Catholic Church must know something about God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, then, even if from the LDS point-of-view it's not completely accurate.

 

Disagree with us, but give us credit for making the Western world Christian.  A restoration probably would have been more difficult had Joseph Smith been a pagan...

 

Edit:  removing an unnecessary comment that could be taken as inflammatory when I didn't mean it like that at all

Edited October 21, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[thesometimesaint]

Evangelical Christianity did not change the scriptures. If anything Protestant Christianity restored most of the accuracy needed to the scriptures. But, of course they were not able to restore the priesthood. Although there are a few sects guilty of changing the scriptures without prophetic authorization viz a viz, the JWs, and a few others. Therefore, evangelic Christianity is not the GAC..

 

The Catholic church decided what was to be included in the Bible. The Catholic Bible is longer than the Protestant Bible.

[Zakuska]

Not quite. While the essay does not say where the ban came from, it expressly disavows the doctrines taught by previous leaders as to the source. So while modern leaders are not offering (yet) a different explanation, they clearly are saying that earlier leaders' explanations were wrong. That much they know. 

 

And to answer your first question, yes, obviously modern leaders can be mistaken as to doctrine and those mistakes corrected by future leaders. You can have continual revelation or you can have consistent doctrine, but you can't have both.

Would "previous leaders" include JS and BY?

See Below.

 

You need to read Paul Reeve's book.

You mean this book.

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199754076.do

 

"but you don't have to throw away early leaders and 100 year old "doctrine" to the wind."

You should throw away any teachings if they were wrong.  Doesn't mean you have to throw away everything they said.

 

I don't feel any need to justify Jonah's bigotry towards Nineveh where he was actually disappointed that God didn't wipe them out after he expected that God would.  Why should I treat false ideas from more modern prophets any differently?

Bingo. No one has demonstrated that JS or the Scriptures were wrong about the "curse of cain" doctrine. The church essay merely "asserts" (Extra-Scripturally I might add) there was no cursed race.

If Im not mistaken JS held to scriptures and a Global Flood. In that Paradigm... all members of the family tree of Adam died in the flood and only 3 branches remained.

Through the Sons of Noah (and their Wives) the 3 major human racelines that remain on the earth today where preserved. The narative goes that Noah's 3 sons after the flood, split the earth into 3rds for an inheritance. From Shem came the white semetic races, from Japeth came the Oriental (red races) and from Ham came the Black African races. These are the 3 colors on Moses/Joseph Coat of many Colors.(Red, White and black). You see Charlton heston wear Josephs Coat of 3 colors (red, white and black) when he leaves Ramses Court and Egypt in the Hollywood legendary retelling of the Exodus..

In order for the church to disavow the "curse of cain" doctrine (rather than mere assertion) there is quite a lot of scripture that will need to be relegated to the trash heap.

Joseph's Doctrine on the races (along with where the black african races came from and the curse of cain) is right inline with the scriptures.

He wrote this just before receiving D&C 58

 

The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience over the boundary of the United States, wherein were present speciments of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japeth; several of the Lamanites or Indians-- represetative of Shem; quite a respectable number of negroes--decendants of Ham; and the balance was made up of citizens of the surrounding country, and fully represented themselves as pioneers of the West.

History of the Church 190-191 July 1831

How fitting that "All families of the earth" were represented on the occasion, He received this!

D&C 58

9 Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited.

Now Im repeating myself so next Ill talk about Bruce R MConkie and the "Great and Aboninable Whore of Babylon".

Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

If it weren't for the Catholic Church, Joseph Smith would not have had the Bible that had the verse that inspired him to pray.  There would not have been protestants, so he would not have been raised as one.  Therefore, he would not have known about the Christian God he prayed to.  The Catholic Church must know something about God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, then, even if from the LDS point-of-view it's not completely accurate.

 

Disagree with us, but give us credit for making the Western world Christian.  A restoration probably would have been more difficult had Joseph Smith been a pagan...

 

(It's interesting that if we take Elder Ballard's comments at face value, it gives good evidence to the idea that Mormons and Catholics worship different Gods)

 

I'll somewhat agree. It is a non sequitur to demand that JS would of necessity used the Bible as inspiration for prayer. It is just a factual event that he did. Agnostics, and non Christians can and do use other means of inspiration.

 

I do thank the Catholics for preserving what of the Bible we do have.

 

We don't worship different Gods. IE; Whether you believe William "Bill" Jefferson Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread or I believe he was lower than pond scum, or visa versa. We're still talking about the same person.

 

For who we believe Jesus is

SEE http://www.jesuschrist.lds.org/testimonies-of-him/articles/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?〈=eng

[Meadowchik]

Perhaps the biggest obstacle for the RCC was also it's biggest contribution to Christianity. Becoming tied up as a public institution for centuries kept the Gospel around but also made belief less of a choice.

Now that more of the world has more freedom to choose, all beliefs will have to stand more upon their own merits.

This is good, for Catholics, too.

[mfbukowski]

Evangelical Christianity did not change the scriptures. If anything Protestant Christianity restored most of the accuracy needed to the scriptures. But, of course they were not able to restore the priesthood. Although there are a few sects guilty of changing the scriptures without prophetic authorization viz a viz, the JWs, and a few others. Therefore, evangelic Christianity is not the GAC.

"Accuracy"??

 

As compared to what?  Who knows what is "accurate" and what is not?

[mfbukowski]

They dumped the Latin ie "Catholic" scriptures and went back to the Masoretic Text which restored a good bit of accuracy, and the Textus Receptus. Granted, I have more faith in the Masoretic text than the Textus Receptus, but it seems reasonably accurate. I do find it strange that we basically seem to have no NT manuscripts, Greek or Syriac or otherwise, which pre-date the rise of the Roman State church or that is the Council of Constantinople of about 380 AD. I do know later - about 431 AD the eastern churches came under a great deal of persecution over the issue of the "2 natures of Christ" which they would not accept, prompting the western church to go in and replace the bishops and destroy their religious writings. However, by that time I think the Church of the East already had Syrian scriptures which would have survived. It's an interesting question. The Peshitta and the Peshitto seem to uphold the basic accuracy of the Greek manuscripts, but there are differences. The Syriac refers to Christ as "Marya" or YHWH in more than one place - good luck finding that in any Greek manuscript because they follow the lead of the Septuagint it seems.

Same question.

 

What is the standard for "accuracy"?

 

Where is the "original" to be compared with?  In light of disputed authorship, how does one determine "accuracy", or even if the original author was in fact "authoritative" as to content?

[mfbukowski]

If it weren't for the Catholic Church, Joseph Smith would not have had the Bible that had the verse that inspired him to pray.  There would not have been protestants, so he would not have been raised as one.  Therefore, he would not have known about the Christian God he prayed to.  The Catholic Church must know something about God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, then, even if from the LDS point-of-view it's not completely accurate.

 

Disagree with us, but give us credit for making the Western world Christian. 

 

That I definitely do.

[Storm Rider]

Well it appears that this is a forum with a diverse range of opinions about almost any and every subject or topic.  That should not surprise anyone and it also should not empower anyone to paint participants as one entity.  It would seem we have a few with anti-Catholic leanings and a few with anti-Mormon leanings and then a whole bunch of others falling along the entire range.  

 

I will say that this site is a whole heck of a lot more diverse than the Catholic website that has kicked every Mormon or charitable Catholic I have ever known off their site.  That is my bit of fanging for today.

[Okrahomer]

Thank you!

[Teancum]

I thought surely this was a misrepresentation of what Elder Ballard said, but I listened to the whole thing.  At about 58:50, he talks about how most people in the world don't know where they come from, why they are here, and where they are going. He then says:

 

 

Obviously, he was trying to say that the First Vision gives us a proper understanding of the nature of the Godhead, but the way he said it was unfortunate.

Why unfortunate? He said what he said. Mormons beleive they have a superior view of th Godhead and base it on Joseph Smith's first vision. The problem is what th LDS believe about the Godhead was not part of at least the renditions of the first vision nor other early LDS scripture or teachings. Just check out the fifth lecture on faith.

[RevTestament]

The Catholic church decided what was to be included in the Bible. The Catholic Bible is longer than the Protestant Bible.

that is because they relied upon the Septuagint. I'm not even counting those extra books and chapters. I was just referring to the changes from the  masoretic text and the NT manuscripts - of course a lot of those changes to the OT were because of the Septuagint, which if you can't tell, I don't particularly like.

[RevTestament]

Same question.

 

What is the standard for "accuracy"?

 

Where is the "original" to be compared with?  In light of disputed authorship, how does one determine "accuracy", or even if the original author was in fact "authoritative" as to content?

That of course is non-determinable to some extent. Let's just say that the Masoretic text has proven itself to be highly accurate - maybe not perfect - but it has been compared with the Qumran scrolls - such as the great Isaiah Scroll - and found to be quite accurate even if it post-dates the Qumran scrolls by about 1000 years - that is about as accurate as it gets. It seems virtually all the scribes took the command of the LORD in Deut not to change his words to a high degree of seriousness. As compared to the NT "Greek" scribes which seem to end up with a good number of variants. The Peshitta shows a much higher degree of consistency. The Septuagint on the other hand, I can find all kind of faults with - it doesn't preserve the name YHWH in any way, and it gets El Shadday wrong. It removes some things, such as YHWH in Gen 3:22, which seems like a small thing, but was actually done for theological reasons - later Jews refused to believe YHWH could know evil. To a temple-observing LDS Christian, this should click. Well I can go on, but maybe you get my point.

[RevTestament]

The Catholic Church must know something about God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, then, even if from the LDS point-of-view it's not completely accurate.

 

Disagree with us, but give us credit for making the Western world Christian.  A restoration probably would have been more difficult had Joseph Smith been a pagan...

I think Christianity would have been just fine without the Catholic church - and quite different. More like the eastern church which has always been a peaceful church. And I am not just referring to Eastern Orthodox.  There is the Syrian church and the Church of the East, which unfortunately was virtually destroyed by Timurlane the Muslim. Anyway, their "brand" of Christianity was much different than Catholicism, and I proffer what the churches would have been more like in the west, if the Bishop of Rome hadn't asserted supremacy.

[Spammer]

that is because they relied upon the Septuagint. I'm not even counting those extra books and chapters. I was just referring to the changes from the masoretic text and the NT manuscripts - of course a lot of those changes to the OT were because of the Septuagint, which if you can't tell, I don't particularly like.

The Eastern, Greek Christisns (including some NT authors, who quoted it) used the Septuagint (LXX). The Eastern Orthodox use it as their OT to this day. The first Latin (Roman) OT is Jerome's Vulgate.  Although Jerome consulted the LXX for his translation, he followed the Masoretic canon as the basis for the Latin canon, not the LXX.  The LXX is the older OT canon for early Christians. The Alexandrian Church (today's Coptic Churh in Egypt) also included Enoch in its canon. Enoch is also quoted in the NT. The LXX retains the same verbiage in key Christian proof texts in Isaiah that are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT. The MSS lacks some of this key verbiage.  That is, the 2nd Century B.C. LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls retain language favorable to Christian interpretations of the role and mission of the Messiah that the 2nd Century A.D. Masoretic text lacks. In other words, the LXX plus Enoch comprises the scriptures used by the writers and compilers of the NT and the messianic Isaiah quotes in the Gospels are Septuagint quotes. The MSS is a late Jewish edit of the Hebrew Scriptures that removed or heavily redacted these key Christian proof texts. This is not an accident.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I think Christianity would have been just fine without the Catholic church - and quite different. More like the eastern church which has always been a peaceful church. And I am not just referring to Eastern Orthodox. There is the Syrian church and the Church of the East, which unfortunately was virtually destroyed by Timurlane the Muslim. Anyway, their "brand" of Christianity was much different than Catholicism, and I proffer what the churches would have been more like in the west, if the Bishop of Rome hadn't asserted supremacy.

Not so different. The Syrian Church and Church of the East are the remnants of Nestorianism. Catholic but not Roman Catholic. That is, it has the same ecclesiastical structure (bishops, priests, deacons, minus the supremacy of one bishop), the same liturgical style of worship (Mass-like, robes, chants, bells, candles, incense, altars, transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ) and the same theology - apart from their rejection of the Council of Ephesus in 431 that declared Jesus to have two united natures (human and divine) in one person. The Nestorians denied this unity. Apart from that critical difference, the Nestorian Churches of the East and Rome are the same. Both are fully Nicene Creedal and have the same root.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

I think Christianity would have been just fine without the Catholic church - and quite different. More like the eastern church which has always been a peaceful church. And I am not just referring to Eastern Orthodox. There is the Syrian church and the Church of the East, which unfortunately was virtually destroyed by Timurlane the Muslim. Anyway, their "brand" of Christianity was much different than Catholicism, and I proffer what the churches would have been more like in the west, if the Bishop of Rome hadn't asserted supremacy.

Here's a bit more contextualization for the conversation. Rome was and is recognized as first among equals by the Eastern Churches and Rome's orthodoxy was never in doubt and was always deferred to by the East in the seven great church councils from 335-787, but Rome had no administrative power over the Eastern churches. Even though the popes were deferred to in matters of doctrine when controversies arose, they had no recognized authority to appoint or remove bishops in the Eastern churches. Rome didn't truly begin to assert itself and press its claims of supremacy over the other churches until it had recovered from the late 5th Century collapse of the Western half of the Empire and established its compact with Charlegmagne on Christmas Day 800 AD, which gave Rome a political and military patron to counterbalance the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor and his empire - the half of the Roman Empire which never fell to the Germanic pagan hordes and which never experienced a "Dark Ages". Even after uniting with Charlemagne, the East never was subject to Rome. Charlemagne, his successors, and their armies had no power in the East at least until the Crusades (50 years after East and West formally went their separate ways) and the Eastern churches always rejected Rome's claims of administrative supremacy anyway. Rome's claims to supremacy only had a direct impact on church organization, worship, and theology in the West.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Spammer

[Meadowchik]

The Eastern, Greek Christisns (including some NT authors, who quoted it) used the Septuagint (LXX). The Eastern Orthodox use it as their OT to this day. The first Latin (Roman) OT is Jerome's Vulgate. Although Jerome consulted the LXX for his translation, he followed the Masoretic canon as the basis for the Latin canon, not the LXX. The LXX is the older OT canon for early Christians. The Alexandrian Church (today's Coptic Churh in Egypt) also included Enoch in its canon. Enoch is also quoted in the NT. The LXX retains the same verbiage in key Christian proof texts in Isaiah that are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT. The MSS lacks some of this key verbiage. That is, the 2nd Century B.C. LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls retain language favorable to Christian interpretations of the role and mission of the Messiah that the 2nd Century A.D. Masoretic text lacks. In other words, the LXX plus Enoch comprises the scriptures used by the writers and compilers of the NT and the messianic Isaiah quotes in the Gospels are Septuagint quotes. The MSS is a late Jewish edit of the Hebrew Scriptures that removed or heavily redacted these key Christian proof texts. This is not an accident.

Tangent: we met a former Eastern Orthodox monk last Spring.

He says he translated part of the Gospel of Judas before the Dead Sea Scrolls were made public.

[RevTestament]

The Eastern, Greek Christisns (including some NT authors, who quoted it) used the Septuagint (LXX). The Eastern Orthodox use it as their OT to this day. The first Latin (Roman) OT is Jerome's Vulgate.  Although Jerome consulted the LXX for his translation, he followed the Masoretic canon as the basis for the Latin canon, not the LXX.  The LXX is the older OT canon for early Christians. The Alexandrian Church (today's Coptic Churh in Egypt) also included Enoch in its canon. Enoch is also quoted in the NT. The LXX retains the same verbiage in key Christian proof texts in Isaiah that are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT. The MSS lacks some of this key verbiage.  That is, the 2nd Century B.C. LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls retain language favorable to Christian interpretations of the role and mission of the Messiah that the 2nd Century A.D. Masoretic text lacks. In other words, the LXX plus Enoch comprises the scriptures used by the writers and compilers of the NT and the messianic Isaiah quotes in the Gospels are Septuagint quotes. The MSS is a late Jewish edit of the Hebrew Scriptures that removed or heavily redacted these key Christian proof texts. This is not an accident.

Just so silence is not interpreted as agreement, I do not fully agree with you on several points. You will note that I did not claim the MT is perfect. I believe sometime after Christ, Jewish scribes changed Deut 32:8, however, I do not blame that on the Masoretes. I believe your claim about Isaiah is probably refuted by the Great Isaiah Qumran scroll, although you allude otherwise. Perhaps, you can be more specific. And Enoch is not "quoted in the NT." Jude mentions Enoch, but that is in no way a quote. The Enoch we have today is in all probability a gnostic Jewish forgery - yes, it was in Qumran, but so were other late non-canonical Jewish works. I don't believe you that the composers of the NT used Enoch or particularly the LXX. I believe later compilers conformed the Greek NT manuscripts to the LXX. The Peshitta NT conforms to its translation of the OT too rather than the LXX. That doesn't mean Jesus spoke the Syriac dialect or that it was the original.

[RevTestament]

Here's a bit more contextualization for the conversation. Rome was and is recognized as first among equals by the Eastern Churches and Rome's orthodoxy was never in doubt and was always deferred to by the East in the seven great church councils from 335-787, but Rome had no administrative power over the Eastern churches. Even though the popes were deferred to in matters of doctrine when controversies arose, they had no recognized authority to appoint or remove bishops in the Eastern churches. Rome didn't truly begin to assert itself and press its claims of supremacy over the other churches until it had recovered from the late 5th Century collapse of the Western half of the Empire and established its compact with Charlegmagne on Christmas Day 800 AD, which gave Rome a political and military patron to counterbalance the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor and his empire - the half of the Roman Empire which never fell to the Germanic pagan hordes and which never experienced a "Dark Ages". Even after uniting with Charlemagne, the East never was subject to Rome. Charlemagne, his successors, and their armies had no power in the East at least until the Crusades (50 years after East and West formally went their separate ways) and the Eastern churches always rejected Rome's claims of administrative supremacy anyway. Rome's claims to supremacy only had a direct impact on church organization, worship, and theology in the West.

I don't agree with you here either. In the council of Nicea, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and I believe Alexandria were all listed as equal in deference and authority. with Rome. Any idea of "first among equals" came later. Nor do I agree that Rome only began to assert itself after the fall of the western Roman emperors. It began to do so in the 5th century as attested to the famous bishop of Carthage specifically calling a council to address the issue.  Nor do I agree with you that that the barbarian hordes were pagan. Most were Arian Christian and did not rule with particular oppressiveness. The Catholics painted them as the cause of the dark ages, but that was really due to the fact that the Arians were eventually converted to Catholicism, and the rise of the papacy meant it was always pitting one country against another.

[RevTestament]

Not so different. The Syrian Church and Church of the East are the remnants of Nestorianism. Catholic but not Roman Catholic. That is, it has the same ecclesiastical structure (bishops, priests, deacons, minus the supremacy of one bishop), the same liturgical style of worship (Mass-like, robes, chants, bells, candles, incense, altars, transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ) and the same theology - apart from their rejection of the Council of Ephesus in 431 that declared Jesus to have two united natures (human and divine) in one person. The Nestorians denied this unity. Apart from that critical difference, the Nestorian Churches of the East and Rome are the same. Both are fully Nicene Creedal and have the same root.

The eastern liturgy was vastly different from the Roman. Perhaps you are confusing the Eastern Orthodox with the Church of the East. The Nestorian churches were not the same in theology at all, which is why they were declared heretical. Yes, they did adopt the Nicene Creed, but the theology was vastly different from modern Catholicism - no veneration of Mary, no transubstantiation, no indulgences, etc, etc. I am not alleging they preserved all the truth, but my point was and still is that Christianity would have been just fine without Roman Catholicism.

[MiserereNobis]

In this discussion, please don't forget that there are many Eastern Churches who have recognized Rome's primacy, and still continue to do so to this day.  And, in accordance with tradition, they have their own canonical laws and their own traditional liturgies.  To be "Catholic" does not mean you have to have the rites and canonical rules of the Roman Church.

[Spammer]

Just so silence is not interpreted as agreement, I do not fully agree with you on several points. You will note that I did not claim the MT is perfect. I believe sometime after Christ, Jewish scribes changed Deut 32:8, however, I do not blame that on the Masoretes. I believe your claim about Isaiah is probably refuted by the Great Isaiah Qumran scroll, although you allude otherwise. Perhaps, you can be more specific. And Enoch is not "quoted in the NT." Jude mentions Enoch, but that is in no way a quote. The Enoch we have today is in all probability a gnostic Jewish forgery - yes, it was in Qumran, but so were other late non-canonical Jewish works. I don't believe you that the composers of the NT used Enoch or particularly the LXX. I believe later compilers conformed the Greek NT manuscripts to the LXX. The Peshitta NT conforms to its translation of the OT too rather than the LXX. That doesn't mean Jesus spoke the Syriac dialect or that it was the original.

 

Jude 1:14-15 is a quotation of Enoch 1:9.   The sole translation of the Greek OT for those who spoke and wrote Greek during the period the NT was written was the Septuagint.  Jesus' recorded Isaiah quotes in the oldest surviving Gospel manuscripts are quotations of the Isaiah verses as they're found in the Septuagint and in the Qumran scrolls.   These are facts.  

 

"I believe later compilers conformed the Greek NT manuscripts to the LXX."  What evidence is there to substantiate this claim?  Do you know of an even older surviving manuscript that quotes the Isaiah verses as they're found in the MSS?   

[Spammer]

I don't agree with you here either. In the council of Nicea, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and I believe Alexandria were all listed as equal in deference and authority. with Rome. Any idea of "first among equals" came later. Nor do I agree that Rome only began to assert itself after the fall of the western Roman emperors. It began to do so in the 5th century as attested to the famous bishop of Carthage specifically calling a council to address the issue. Nor do I agree with you that that the barbarian hordes were pagan. Most were Arian Christian and did not rule with particular oppressiveness. The Catholics painted them as the cause of the dark ages, but that was really due to the fact that the Arians were eventually converted to Catholicism, and the rise of the papacy meant it was always pitting one country against another.

All equal in authority, but Rome was always acknowledged as first among equals. When the Eastern bishops meeting in council could not agree over a point of doctrine, the pope was always referred to as the final word. However, the Eastern bishops never accepted papal claims to administrative supremacy. Assertion of that authority and actually acquiring it are two different things and Rome didn't actually acquire such primacy in Europe until after Arianism was defeated through the gradual conversion of the Germanic kings. That process took many centuries and wasn't complete until over three centuries after the Fall of Rome. Not until then could the popes reasonably be considered as 'supreme' on the Continent.

The point is that the common claim among some Mormons and Protestants that the Roman popes forcibly converted and wiped out other Christianities in Europe is simply untrue. Arianism was defeated through preaching. Until Charlemagne, conversion to Roman Catholicism was solely the work of missionaries and monasteries, who understandably targeted the kings and nobles (as the king goes, so goes his subjects). The first of the kings to convert to the Roman Catholic faith was Clovis, baptized in 496. Forcible conversion to the Roman Catholic faith through force of arms didn't occur until Charlemagne's accession to power and his mid-8th Century war against the pagan Saxons. The popes weren't supreme in the West until after these events. They were never supreme in the East. The suppression of the Nestorian churches of the East was an action of the Byzantine Emperors, not the popes of Rome. (your original point that I sought to address)

Catholicism as the cause of the so-called "Dark Ages" is a Protestant myth that has been debunked through scholarship. The violence of the barbarian wars that ruined the Western Roman Empire and its urban centers is the cause of the the period referred to as "Dark". The ruination of the old way of life was the result of violence, not the rise of Roman Catholicism. The priests, monks, and bishops, were literate. Most of the Germanic settlers and their descendants were illiterate. The preservation of literacy was an action of the monasteries. Thank God for the Roman Catholic monks. Whatever light from classical civilization that remained in the West was preserved by the Church in its monasteries, whose monks salvaged ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts (including biblical manuscripts), stored them, copied and disseminated them. Monks established the first monastic schools after the Empire's fall. They created the first hospitals and were the seedbed for the first cathedral schools, which became the first universities. Roman Catholicism, the same faith as that of the Byzantine Empire until the two went their separate ways in the 11th Century, is older than the Fall of Rome and that faith saved the remnants of classical civilization in the West (the same civilization that continued to exist in the East until Islam conquered the Byzantines and took Constantinople in 1453). To blame the so-called "Dark Ages" on Roman Catholicism is sign of historical misunderstanding and ingratitude.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Spammer