Like the buddhist monastery, or so I see in the chinese movies, they have secrect arts and knowledge that are kept hidden and only for the monks.
Is the vatican hiding secret texts, documents, and forbidden knowledge then? I have read a site that the vatican may had a copy of the gospel of Judas but was put away, and banned before the creation of the new testament.
Now , is this right?
Yes. They’re called the New Testament.
If you try really, really hard you might be able to
find a copy of them if you want to read them.
You might try papal encyclicals as well,
if you want some really arcane learning. 
We are not a gnostic religion.
Given that the Church had a near-monopoly on learning for a looong time, I wouldn’t be suprised if they had a fair amount of texts stored away that people have forgotten about. You know, various theological treatsies, journals, perhaps, and other nick-nacks.
But I really doubt that they had any heterodox texts stored away. The Church’s Modus Operandi during the Middle Ages was to eradicate heterodox learning.
Though it would be AWESOME if some of the destroyed Aquinas texts were discovered. It’d be sweet if some monk stored them away.
What destroyed Aquinas texts? I’ve studied him, but never heard of this.
I didn’t know you were an appreciator of Thomism.
Dan,
Yes.
This is of course my own personal opinion based on my desire to dig around the net looking at random shit, but yes.
I read something, this was a while ago actually… but anyways, basically this guy decided to restore this old old church that had been abandoned or otherwise unacessable for quite some time prior to his arrival. Anyways as part of his restoration he decided to replace the alter or something, and when the inside was exposed he found a couple scrolls. He sent word of basically what he had found to the vatican, whatever it was. Some higher up in the Chirst personally came to retrieve the scrolls and upon doing so was told never to talk of what he had found again, and to put it out of his mind the church gave him what would have been at that time, a rather large fortune. More money than he could ever spend by himself in a lifetime.
This is just one story… there are many out there. Do I think the scrolls contain the secret sea parting technique? No. Extremely detrimental to the image the church has developed…
OH HELLS YA!!
edit: This was a while ago… like 17th century.
Trying to find a source on it. It was told to me by my LK (advanced?) history teacher. He claimed that the Catholic Churched burned a fair amount of his works.
However, he was also a Protestant Minister with a major beef against the Catholic Church. Since I can’t seem to find a source to back up his claim, so it’s highly suspect. There aren’t any other thinkers named Thomas Aquin that studied under Albertus Magnus of Cologne, are there?
Or perhaps it was Magni papers that were destroyed? It’s been a while and I was less interested in philosophy at that point in my life, so I could have been confused. Lemme check on it and get back to you.
As for liking his philosophy. Heck yeah! His synthesis of Hellenistic philosophy into Christianity was pretty freakin’ sweet. I tend to like the blending of ideas. Philosophies are like sherries . . . a well made solera is much more interesting than a single vintage!
Additionally, I like virtue ethics and he’s kinda required reading on that front. I’m not a Christian, so much of his work has limited appeal to me. However, sometimes when you are reading someone’s works, you just have to admire how freakin’ smart they were.
When the Jesuits came to China, they were astounded by how close the thinking of Confucians was to Catholics. Heh, they even donned the traditional garb of the Ru and tried to make Confucius into a sort of Proto-Jesus. I feel the same way about Aquinas, but in reverse.
Last night I watched the National Geographic channel the 2 hour program: The forbidden Gospel of Judas. What it struck me was the diversity of Christian sects, including writings, like Gospels. I say Gospels because were unnumbered amount of them.
How we end up with only four canonical gospels ?
According to this historical statement was the ignorance and arrogance of Irenaeus of Lyon what decided and not “inspiration” as the Roman Catholic “mother” Church and Evangelical Christians promoted.
Today, it is sometimes difficult to understand why some gospels were banned. Several of the banned gospels are apparently consistent with the dogma: why ban them? The devil is probably in the details: in 325 Christianity had become the religion of the Roman empire and it was not nice to emphasize that it was the Romans who had killed Jesus; in 325 Christianity had taken the beliefs that would become the Catholic dogma, and it was not nice to emphasize that Jesus had brothers (although even the official gospels say so) or that Mary Magdalene was always with him (although even the official gospels say so) and it was nice to undermine Jesus’ miracles. Most of the gospels may have been considered redundant (they didn’t add anything meaningful to the story) and dangerous (they could stress aspects of Jesus’ story that the Church would rather downplay).
The gnostic Christians were persecuted after Rome converted to Christianity and most of their texts were burned. The church also outlawed all other histories of Jesus but the four official ones. Today’s Christianity is, inevitably, the Christianity that the Roman empire chose. Every Christian in the world worships what the Roman empire decided s/he should worship. In a sense, every Christian betrays the disposyni and possibly Jesus himself by accepting the dogma of the ones who killed Jesus and persecuted his descendants.
“If the Church doesn’t want you to see it, it’s GOT to be good!”
Seriously, if there are any such documents, is there any reason other than the above for the curiousity in them? It’s a piss-poor argument for credibility.
Ironic, as your statement is completely hollow.
I respect the fact you know what your beliefs are to a fairly precise degree (or at least that’s the impression I get) but you have to at least give us something…
Groundless assertions based on faith are below you. Especially when that faith is concerned with the institution aspect of Christianity. 
Old_Gobbo:
I didn't make an assertion, I asked a question. I'll repeat it:
Other than a sentiment of “If the Church is hiding it, it’s GOT to be good,” is there any reason for the curiosity in these alleged documents?
Unless you mean to take issue with my assertion that the Church hiding a document is a piss-poor argument for that documents crediblity? I figured that was pretty unassailable- and at the very least, it's not a assertion [i]based on faith[/i], it's based on what seems like common sense.
Does the Catholic Church hold any secret documents? I haven’t a clue, they very well may. What I’m taking issue with is that the assumption that if there are such documents, they surely must condemn the Church, or Christianity, or prove the gnostics right, or some other other wild thing. Why even read the documents, when the fact that “Maybe there are some- maybe” is enough to convince you of whatever it is you want to believe?
Hi Uccisore,
I think the real problem is that people mistrust the Church so much, that they believe that this could happen. Added to that, the arch-protestants who condemn the Roman Catholic Church only pour oil on the fire - I don’t think that it is any wonder that such rumours are spread.
Shalom
I did.
Well… I don’t mean to pick a fight here, but I’d say you figured wrong.
So basically you take issue in the assumption that the documents could be… anything really. I’m not sure what to think about this…
Umm… what?
Look… I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about but seeing as how the church will not release the documents, we can’t know for sure what they will say. I think we can agree on that so far right?
Now… when I look back throughout history every case in which otherwise public data has been stored or kept secret has shown to be for the pursuit of power. If you can tell me why the Christian INSTITUTION would withhold history for the ends of preserving truth I’d be impressed.
Oh wait… the Church isn’t concerned with historical truth (all availible evidence)… only their own.
I want to read the documents so I can discern my own version of the truth of what happened, based on all the availible evidence rather than Matthew’s cute manufactured distortion. That’s all…
The Vatican is withholding the documents because they want to preserve their institutional power… they don’t have faith that their version of the events will withstand public scrutiny because it won’t obviously. They’re not -that- dumb.
I really fail to see what your argument here is…
Old-Gobbo
So, it’s your contention that if the Church hides a document, that fact alone is a good argument for the credibility of the document?
There ya go. If it’s not horribly condemning to the Church, you can’t even concieve of any other options, apparently. Firstly, there may not be any documents. Secondly if there are hidden documents, they may be
Financial Records.
Love Letters between some decon and some lady.
Historical records (which may or may not be true) that would embarrass some past or present Church official.
The Secret Gospel that reveals that the Church is a sham and that Jesus was a black woman, which the Church should have burned like all the rest, but didn’t for plot-development reasons.
Bits of untranslated or illegible scraps found in holy places, which the Church wants to keep to themselves until they figure out what they are.
Occult documents pertaining to deviltry, ‘magic’, and suchlike.
Private documents held in the Church vaults that have no bearing on anything, but are simply held there as a personal favor to someone.
Did I mention there might not even be any such documents?
?
Yes we can.
I'm too young to directly remember the grand opening of Al Capone's vaults, but I've heard the story enough to learn the lesson- the Unknown is almost always overblown.
The assumptions here are too many to deal with. First, that there are any such documents. Secondly, that they concern history. Thirdly, that they are held there on the authority of the Christian INSTITUTION and not as a favor to the Vatican librarian’s dad or somesuch, and Fourthly that they would be of absolutely any interest to anybody. And that’s exactly the kind of attitude I’m talking about. You’ve leaped from
“I heard there might be some documents in the Vatican library that they don’t let people see, maybe”
to
“The Catholic Church is hiding important parts of their history, which should be public record, in order to maniuplate people and further their own power-grabbing agenda.”
I don’t even know if you realize you’ve done it. The subtle power of the phrase “they don’t let people see” is so compelling that we can’t help but fantasize when we hear it. But ‘fantasize’ is exactly all we can do.
Well, you've got about 40 languages to learn then, hop to it! What's your major in college going to be, Ancient Lit? Dead Languages? I hope so for your sake. So, Mr. "The Truth is Out There", how much of the Vatican library- the part they will LET you read- have you read?
Are you after truth, or controversy?
I know.
Bob
Absolutely. I totally agree with this, and that we Protestants are as much to blame as anybody. The problem with this, as with all conspiracy theories, is that they have a core of the Unknown, in which we can dump all our own biases without confrontation. Hmm. You'd probably say theology is a lot like that too, wouldn't you? :slight_smile:
Heh…
Ucci i get your point despite what I wrote. I can only hope you get mine…
Anyways, there is a reason I don’t go into the religion forum too much when it comes to Christianity… You think I’m misguided, I think you’re making excuses… and and round and a round we go.
lol… favors to the librarian… I gotta remember that one =D>
Hi Uccisore,
Only to a certain degree, I think that the deficite in theology is that each statement is built on a previous one, without checking whether the previous statement is reliable or not.
This year I am experiencing the passion of Christ as a very sensual and emotional lesson, revealing to me that much of what the Bible tells us is very basic and intuitive - more down to earth than much of the theological theory. I don’t think that Good Friday and Easter Sunday has ever spoken so clearly in the past. And this is due to the attempt of a “Free Church” to connect with children.
Watching those children, I sometimes wonder why the church is about power, and whether there is something that the powerful are hiding from me. Isn’t that normal?
Shalom
A splendid discussion between 2 ILP legend.
I am satisfied. =D>
Still, I wonder what the vatican are hiding?
Gobbo:
I do see what you’re saying. Even if there were no rumors now, the very term “Vatican Library” reeks of intrigue. So there would always be that unknown. There are good reasons for not trusting the Church, and that lack of trust is easy to pour into what we don’t know to fill it. There are good reasons to respect and love the Church, and likewise, we can think of the Unknown that way too. I’m no Catholic, but I admire longevity and Institution, so I defend them when it doesn’t look like anybody else is going to. Just remember Al Capone’s vault. Take this statement for example:
The same writer went from “I wonder if they are hiding” to “I wonder WHAT they are hiding” with no logical process that I can discern. I think this kind of thinking is too easy, and not objective at all.
The Roman Catholic Church and it’s capital the city of the Vatican is hiding a lot of things past and present besides destroying the competition starting with the gnostics about 1800 years ago. I’m going to help you with some sites to clarify your mind and maybe wonder why anyone can call himself:
I’m a Roman Catholic
www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/
wesclark.com/jw/vatican_time_machine.html
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169979,00.html
vaticanbankclaims.com/links.html
So, you jumped in to let me know the Vactican is keeping a time machine. Thanks, I’ll take that under due consideration.