[ the actual title of this page:]
http://CatholicArrogance.Org/RC_ChurchFathers.html

 

"Fathers" or "Doctors" of the Church

The Roman Catholic Church's
"secret weapon" : Tradition"

The Roman Catholic Church prides itself on having greater knowledge of God and Jesus Christ than other Christians because in addition to the written "Word of God", it boasts an "oral tradition", faithfully handed down through generations of authentic descendants of the apostles. Here's a good oral presentation of their view, as presented by a Catholic spokesman:

In contrast to most other human institutions, which strive to get better and better with time, the Roman Catholic Church argues that the principal reason that it is superior to all those other institutions is that it has not changed. It claims that the ideal is to be as close as possible to the institution created by the Son of God two thousand years ago. And it argues that - unlike those who depend mostly on the bible for their faith - the Roman Catholic church has a much better grasp of what Jesus wanted his movement to become because it has preserved and treasured truths that were not published in the bible, but which were instead handed down verbally from generation to generation through its "vicars of Christ" and its "Church Fathers and Doctors", i.e. its most distinguished and holy church teachers over the centuries. (Notice how God never trusted a woman to pass on his word to his children.)
ChurchFathers        "The list of Fathers of the Church is long and their importance to the tradition-bound Church is in giving testimony to what the Christians believed in the early ages of the Church.

        None of these "Fathers of the Church" ever heard a word that Jesus uttered. They didn't even live in the same century. Most didn't even live in the century after that
        So what kinds of things did the Catholic Church supposedly learn from these "original sources" who passed down through the ages by word of mouth, rather than by the written word of the bible, what they knew of Jesus?




        The following are examples:

The Catholic Church's legacy
of contempt for the Jews :

"Various penitentials which appeared between the sixth and the tenth centuries prescribed three years to life for intentional homicide as well as for oral intercourse. Penances for anal intercourse were three to fifteen years, whereas the time suggested for coitus interruptus was two to ten years. Anything from forty days up to seven years was apparently suitable for couples who had sex with the woman on top of the man. ..homosexuality was punishable by seven to fifteen years' penance, whereas manslaughter only received seven to ten years. One of the outcomes of the concerted anti-sex drive of the Church Fathers was a very wide restriction on the days on which sex was permitted by the Church. Restrictions on sex - only within marriage, ideally for procreation and thus under no circumstance in any form which precludes conception - did apparently not suffice. Sex was not to take place on Sundays, on all (any) religious holidays, over the forty days of Lent and not on the days prior to Communion. As there was nothing in the scriptures on this matter, local bishops could go wild in their battle with the evil of lust. At a synod in 966, a bishop in Verona banned sex on Fridays. For a while, in Ireland, sex was banned by the Church on Wednesdays and Fridays in addition to Sundays ... a thirteenth-century Archbishop Canterbury, Stephen Langton, considered a wife's life of lesser value than her husband's adultery-free life. If a man demanded sex from his wife even in childbed, then 'Rather must the wife suffer herself to be killed than that her husband should sin'. Rules in the Church were made men who understood the fire in male loins but had no such empathy for the female need for sex. In the twelfth century, the chancellor of the University of Paris - in those days a Church institution - told men how to treat their wives if they demanded to have sex on a holy day. A husband was to 'quell her impudence with fasting and beating'.
        Theologians agonised over important issues such as whether monk and priests' wet dreams were sinful. Some were of the view that there could be no ejaculation of semen without sin. Others devised sliding scales, according to what they assumed were the reasons behind the dreams: too much food or drink; or, perhaps, erotic day dreaming which produced the nocturnal emission. Convoluted methods were devised by the Church to pinpoint exactly the aspects of sex that were sinful. Cardinal Robert Courson, who died as a Crusade preacher in 1219, explained that 'If a man know his wife for the purpose of procreation or in rendering her due, the first and last parts of that act, during which he strives after God, are meritorious, whereas the middle parts, during which the whole man is ruled by the flesh and becomes all flesh, are venially sinful."
        Books on sexual positions are not a modern-day invention; thirteenth-century Church theologians gave minute instructions as to the acceptability and sinfulness of non-missionary positions."  (Double Cross, by David Ranan, p. 258-60)
        "Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is probably Christianity's foremost theologian. His major work, Summa Theologica, is a complete scientifically arranged exposition of theology and a summary of Christian philosophy. Next to Augustine, Thomas is also the Church's highest authority on sexual matters. It is, therefore, of some importance to be aware of the language used by the man - whose teaching still influences the Catholic Church today in matters of sexual morality - when referring to marital intercourse. Thomas's deep-rooted disgust has defined and moulded the Catholic Church's attitude to sex and impregnated the minds of her faithful. In his writings, Thomas described marital sex as: filth (immunditia), a stain (macula), foulness (foeditas), vileness (turpitude), disgrace (ignominia), degeneracy (deformitas), a disease (morbus), a corruption of the inviolate (corruptio integritatis) and an object of disgust (repugnantia). Thomas, therefore, considered 'The man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer." (Double Cross, by David Ranan, p. 258-60)


"He (Pope John Paul II) teaches that sex is a beautiful gift of God.  But he can't admit that most of his predecessors taught that it's always ugly and disgusting.  Leo I  (440-461) said,  'All marital intercourse is a sin,' and Innocent III (1198-1216), 'The consummation of marriage never takes place without the flames of lust.' Two 17th century popes said all foreplay, even sensuous kissing between married couples, is a grave sin.
        The entire tradition was: Sex outside marriage is dirty.  Within marriage it is also dirty.  The only question is the degree of dirt.  Marriage, said St Ambrose, is a crime against God in that it changed the state of virginity that God gave every creature at birth.  During intercourse, couples should keep their minds on Jesus and the stork.  All sex is pornographic, destined to deprave and corrupt.  It cannot be spiritualised.  Sex, said Augustine, the converted fornicator, must not be sexy.  Nuns mustn't eat beans, Jerome decided, because they titillate the genitals.  Today, we would send these holy popes and theologians to a sex-therapist.
        John Paul praises the sanctity of marriage but can't admit that for centuries his predecessors thought it so lewd that it was never blessed by the church.  At best, couples gave their legal consent outside the church, and never with the blessing of the clergy.  As Chaucer's Wife of Bath, first married at twelve, put it,  'Five husbands have I had at the church door.'  How could clerics bless a thing so sinful they couldn't indulge in it?  Marriage was too sordid to be a sacrament until the 16th century.
        Like Paul VI, John Paul tries to choreograph what couples do in bed by promoting sex during 'the safe period'.  This is a bizarre idea in that human females, unlike animals, seldom know when they're infertile even after using thermometers, calendars and higher mathematics.  A case of sexual hide-and-seek.  Couples had better be as accurate as a Mafia hit-man.
        The method might have suited clever cloistered nuns, not busy mothers, many of whom can't read or write and perhaps have no electric light.  If safety belts in cars were as safe as the safe period they would be outlawed.  What the Pope can never bring himself to concede was that nearly all pontiffs condemned the safe period or what we might call 'sex for fun'.  Their view was clear: sex has only one purpose, procreation.  To have sex and not intend a child, worse, to have sex and intend not to have a child is to commit adultery with one's wife.
        John Paul teaches that a human being exists from the first moment of conception, hence every abortion, even of a three day embryo, is murder.  Not essentially different from what Jack the Ripper did or Timothy McVeigh.  Very well, but why did he not admit that nearly all his predecessors said the opposite.
        He teaches that every embryo and fetus is an innocent human being.  Why doesn't he say that most of his predecessors said explicitly that every unbaptised infant, far from being innocent, is stained with original sin, a kind of venereal disease?  Each babe, as part of the massa damnata, is under the devil's dominion so that if it dies unbaptized, they are so disgusting to God they cannot look at him, nor can he at them, for all eternity.  Not that tradition ever explained how Adam could hand on original sin when sin is in the soul and the soul comes not from parents but directly from God.
        John Paul teaches that only celibacy is in tune with the sacrament of holy orders, conveniently forgetting that Jesus chose married men as his apostles.  Also, if Peter were to return to earth today, not being one of the Pope's castrati, John Paul would have declared him unfit to serve as a curate in a city slum."
an article by Peter de Rosa, the author of a history of the popes called Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy

Now, how about we take a break from reading? SandyRapp
and listen to the great song,
White Men In Black Dresses,
by the modern folk singer, Sandy Rapp.

 

          For more on this topic, see my Church vs. Sex on the reasons that the Catholic Church is so obsessed with everything sexual.

For a great treatise on the history of sexual problems
the Roman Catholic Church has had over clerical celibacy, see
expert testimony, by Fr. Tom Doyle, O.P.

The Church Fathers' support
for Human Slavery :

(The "truth", according to the Catholic Church's sacred "tradition", is that)
It was God's plan that only some people be free
and the rest should be slaves

That was what the "Fathers and Doctors" of the Roman Catholic Church supposedly got from Jesus and "transmitted", i.e. passed on faithfully, through the centuries as inspired "Tradition", to generation after generation of the faithful ( until "godless liberals" intervened and tried to show the world what nonsense this all was). Rather than repeating here what I have published on a separate page, simply go to my Church & slavery page.

This is just one of the many unique,
truth-filled and insightful pages
of
Click on this banner
Click on this banner to see the whole picture!
email image
contact David@CatholicArrogance.Org