A response to Catholic Critcism

[Retro_Ace]

I’ve been surfing on tumblr and one user had made a catholic-critical statment about the Catholic Church and Maccabees

"Nobody agrees on when, Catholics think it was always there and was just taken out by protestants. Which makes no sense seeing that the Apocrypha or what they call the deuterocanonical books were not even written in the same language as the rest of the Bible. They were in Greek and the rest was in Hebrew.

Some think they were added by the Romans about 380 years after Jesus death. Which would make sense given that this was when the Roman Catholic church was formed officially and those books are what altered Christianity to be palatable to the Roman government. It also makes sense because much of Roman religion was influenced by it’s proximity to Greek society on the Italian peninsula. My theory of Pagan Roman religion being fused with Christianity makes sense when you understand the religious nature of pre-christian Rome and how catholic christianity differs from the rest of christianity. For example Catholicism like pre-christian rome is much more ritualistic and legalistic than the rest of Christianity. It’s all about ceremony, gestures, ornate displays, symbols, icons and veneration of those icons. This is why catholics have shrines but other christians don’t. It’s from roman religious practices, they tended have shrines to the gods in their homes. Catholics also like pre-christian romans see prayer as a ritual, something that is performed. They have ready made prayers and make a spectacle out of praying and blessing. Romans believed prayer to the gods to be a matter of finding the right words and phrases almost like magic where you had to use the correct verbal formulas. Jesus called these types hypocrites who treat prayer like an opportunity to show off their spirituality and instead advocated personal prayer that was more like a conversation…like there was an actual deity listening and not like you were performing an incantation.

 

[Retro_Ace]

(CONT)

Also the intermingling of morality with the law. Which was again more of a Roman thing they believed piety or “pietus” was what allowed them to become a world power and so that collective piety had to be maintained by the state.

More to my thesis that the roman catholic church was an attempt to subvert and control Christianity roman philosophers like Cicero have written that they saw religion as a form of social control. Cicero was one of the people to have argued in favour of papacy as well. It was very important to the Romans that Roman religion remain in practice. Hell rome had priests and paterfamilias long before christianity came around. The flamines were the earliest and practiced ritual purity sound familiar? Here they are.

So yeah because the apocrypha was originally written in Greek and seems to coincide with the orthodoxy that Constantine wanted to infuse christianity with I would say it was added at about that time. I just want to point out that apocrypha means hidden in Greek which is also what occult means and probably why catholics don’t like to call it the apocrypha.

Others say it was added at the council of Trent in 1546 AD which also makes sense since this was around the time of the protestant reformations. Christians were rejecting the non-biblical practices of the catholic church and so like magic the church conjured up a bunch of books that would confirm all those practices and beliefs. Convenient huh."

Any experts willing to refute this?

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

The book of Maccabees is found in the Septuagint. It does not matter if it’s in Greek, the point is this book predates the days of Christ.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s not always worth the time to be refuting crazy talk. Founded in 380 AD?

The surviving Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments of the deuterocanon written in Hebrew and Aramaic predating this anyway.

Greek was the lingua franca of the western world around the time of Christ and the early Church. The New Testament, Saint Paul included, make frequent use of the Greek translations, not the Hebrew. Some quote portions of books such as Isaiah that didn’t exist in Hebrew copies. Hebrews references Maccabees 2. We see references to Sirach and Wisdom. These texts existed at the time of Christ. To state otherwise is, again, crazy talk.

The New Testament was also written entirely in Greek, not Hebrew (some say Matthew was first written in Aramaic, but we have no copies of that and Aramaic isn’t Hebrew). So, do we throw out the NT?

 

[Retro_Ace]

About about the parallels he draws to Roman Paganism and Cicero’s words?

 

[Wesrock]

About about the parallels he draws to Roman Paganism and Cicero’s words?

Cicero lived and died before Jesus.

The “non-religious” Christian traditions have deviated from ancient Christianity founded by Christ and his apostles and are themselves the novelty.

Accusations of legalism misunderstand Catholicism.

Not everything other religions did is bad.

God established a Jewish priesthood with very specific ceremonies, so clearly it’s not just a pagan thing, either.

Again, the post reads more like conspiracy theory crazy talk than anything founded on historicap fact. I don’t need to refute every person who claims the world is flat. They’re just deluded.

 

[De_Maria]

Any experts willing to refute this?

Try this.

Sure, you’re mixing a lot of lies with a little bit of truth. You ought to try to read actual Christian history. Now, let’s see. Was the Book of Maccabbees part of the Old Testament before Jesus came? Yes. The proof is that the Jews still celebrate Hannuka. It is one of their most holy holidays. Yet, many of them have discarded the book of Maccabbees which explains the origin of that holiday.

Some Jews still hold the book Sacred and have kept it in their Bibles.

As for all the other dribble, it’s all in your mind.

The Catholic Church is described in the New Testament, then it must be the Church established by Jesus Christ.

First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:

Matthew 16:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:

Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.

Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.

So, even using just a few verses we can eliminate the Protestants. None of their denominations even come close to being in Scripture. But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:

The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).

And we find that the Protestant doctrinal pillars all contradict Scripture. For instance:
Sola Scriptura contradicts 2 Thess 2:152 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Sola Fide contradicts James 2:24
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
OSAS contradicts Heb 6:4-6

Hebrews 6:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Salvation by grace alone contradicts:
Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
and also:

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Every Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church also contradicts the Word of God in the Bible.

So, the fact that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church is recorded in the New Testament. And Protestants nor their doctrines are anywhere to be found in those venerable pages.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t even know how a person gets 380 AD for the Catholic Church being founded. Anyone ever hear of the ante-Nicene fathers?

 

[steve-b]

Maccabees

"Nobody agrees on when, Catholics think it was always there and was just taken out by protestants. Which makes no sense seeing that the Apocrypha or what they call the deuterocanonical books were not even written in the same language as the rest of the Bible. They were in Greek and the rest was in Hebrew.

Apocrypha ≠scripture. Deuterocanon = scripture

The OT written in Greek is the Septuagint. It was completed before the Christian era (BC)
The NT written in Greek, was completed ~100 AD

The NT was determined by the Catholic Church. The actual canon was in development. We see that recorded in the Muratorian canon ~170 AD The canon was finalized in 382 at the Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I.

Retro_Ace:

Which makes no sense seeing that the Apocrypha or what they call the deuterocanonical books were not even written in the same language as the rest of the Bible. They were in Greek and the rest was in Hebrew.

Both OT and NT books that were accepted as scripture, were both written in Greek

Retro_Ace:

Some think they were added by the Romans about 380 years after Jesus death. Which would make sense given that this was when the Roman Catholic church was formed officially and those books are what altered Christianity to be palatable to the Roman government. It also makes sense because much of Roman religion was influenced by it’s proximity to Greek society on the Italian peninsula.

We deal with facts here. And the evidence is well known .

Example.

The name Catholic Church was already used in writing from the beginning. Going back in time

2nd century​

( ~180 AD) Irenaeus, Saint and Bishop of Lyon in today France, wrote “Against Heresies” He is a Catholic Bishop in the Catholic Church Bk 1 Ch 3 paragraph 3

Irenaeus says the Church of Rome holds preeminent authority among all the Churches because THAY bishop succeeds Peter in Rome. Bk 3 ch 3 vv1-3

1st century​

Ignatius, Saint and Bishop of Antioch Syria, was ordained Bishop ~69 AD. He was a direct disciple of the apostle John. He writes to 6 Churches. He is a Catholic bishop in the Catholic Church see Ch 8 obviously he learned that from John

Scripture​

Acts 9:31
From the Greek Study Bible
Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

Translation:
ἐκκλησία = church http://bibleapps.com/greek/1577.htm ,
καθ’ = according to http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm ,
ὅλης = whole, universal http://bibleapps.com/greek/3650.htm ,
τῆς = the http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Retro_Ace:

My theory of Pagan Roman religion being fused with Christianity …

BTW, Paul’s letter to the Romans, is to the Church of Rome.

 

[po18guy]

Where does it say the bible must be written in a particular language? That is a recent, man-made argument. The Aramaic which our Lord spoke is related to, but also distinctly different from Hebrew. Is that a problem?

Ask if the Catholic Church’s approval of the 66 books in the partial protestant bible is good enough. If so, then 73 books are approved by the same authority.

 

[po18guy]

The book of Maccabees is found in the Septuagint. It does not matter if it’s in Greek, the point is this book predates the days of Christ.

Sometihng like 91% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint. If our Lord quoted from it, I think we should follow his example. Secondly, each and every book of the Deuterocanon was in use, somewhere in the fragmented and separated (but doctrinally unified) early Church, since day 1.

However, you are fighting a losing battle, as words fail to convince. You can argue with intellect, but not with ego and much of bible-based Christianity is ego-driven.

They have reverse-engineered reality until it conforms with their preferences.

 

[ratio1]

The surviving Dead Sea Scrolls have fragments of the deuterocanon written in Hebrew and Aramaic predating this anyway.

I’d just like to point out to OP that the Hebrew text of book of Sirach was also found in the Cairo Geniza, which constitutes about 2/3 of the book. Hence we have evidence more than just fragments. When more fragments of Sirach in Hebrew were discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls and that they match very well, just about every single scholar would agree that Sirach was originally written in Hebrew.

What’s not to say other books were not originally written in Hebrew, maybe we just haven’t discovered them yet.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Some think they were added by the Romans about 380 years after Jesus death.

Concerning Maccabees, it appears that Origen, a Christian, writing between 220 and 230, referred to Maccabees as holy Scripture and quoted from 2 Maccabees 7:28:

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, “I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.” (Origen, On the First Principles (De Principiis), Book 2, Chapter 1) (source)

 

[BartholomewB]

Two things. First, the poster you’re quoting is not quite right about the language of the deuterocanonical books. Some of them, such as Wisdom and 2 Maccabees, were written in Greek, but others, such as 1 Maccabees and Tobit, are translations from Hebrew originals.

The second thing is the argument that @Wesrock eloquently stated higher up in this thread:

The New Testament was also written entirely in Greek, not Hebrew (some say Matthew was first written in Aramaic, but we have no copies of that and Aramaic isn’t Hebrew). So, do we throw out the NT?

 

[Pattylt]

It is one of their most holy holidays

Just a slight correction…it’s an important and joyous holiday but is not considered a holy one. It is not required to be celebrated at all.
Thanks!

 

[Retro_Ace]

I guess its when he uses JEsus’s words about hypocrites, comparing our rituals to Pagan ones and our prayers to incantations and the Apocrypha to “Occult”, it always gets to me

 

[vivnes]

Retro_Ace, someone with wisdom ought to listen to you, and ask did I hear your standpoint correctly? The listener could ask his or herself, how may I infuse an idea that would help make sense of your grievance. Idea by idea, in right faith, progress to a better hope. Pope Francis, says we are called to form consciences not replace them. Are you willing to be conformed to the uncreated truth, despite your created reason?

 

[ZMystiCat]

Which makes no sense seeing that the Apocrypha or what they call the deuterocanonical books were not even written in the same language as the rest of the Bible. They were in Greek and the rest was in Hebrew.

Parts of the Bible were originally written in Aramaic. Parts (i.e. the whole New Testament) were originally written in Greek. At the very least, the Deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint, which is the most frequent source of OT citations in the NT, and even have some citations in the NT. Basically, they were at least known in the Church since the first century, and while there was some debate to their inclusion, as there were with many other books, they weren’t exactly “added” hundreds of years later.

Some think they were added by the Romans about 380 years after Jesus death.

That would put their addition in the fifth century, and they were declared canonical most notably in the Council of Carthage in the late fourth century. As already mentioned, they were also part of the Septuagint for hundreds of years before that, so I’m not sure that this person knows their history all that well. As a result, I’m skipping over some speculation.

how catholic christianity differs from the rest of christianity. For example Catholicism like pre-christian rome is much more ritualistic

This person is basically defining the “rest of christianity” to be modern Evangelicalism, which is horribly ignorant of the whole of Christianity. Heck, it isn’t even aware of the history of Christianity. The Didache kind of shocked me with how ritualistic it appeared the first time I read it (was still Protestant), and that is a first or second century Christian writing.

Catholics also like pre-christian romans see prayer as a ritual, something that is performed…Jesus called these types hypocrites who treat prayer like an opportunity to show off their spirituality and instead advocated personal prayer that was more like a conversation

Jesus is the one who gave us the “Our Father”, and if reciting things like the “Our Father” is against the words of Jesus…Yeah, this argument doesn’t make much sense. (This is beyond just taking Jesus’ comments horribly out of context.)

Also, the aforementioned Didache encouraged praying the Our Father three times a day.

Also, the idea of recited prayer and conversational prayer are not at all at odds with each other.

Others say it was added at the council of Trent in 1546 AD which also makes sense

I’m just quoting this to highlight how obviously little the guy knows of history.

Christians were rejecting the non-biblical practices of the catholic church and so like magic the church conjured up a bunch of books that would confirm all those practices and beliefs.

Like how Martin Luther tried diminishing the importance of books that were difficult for his theology…

 

[CelticWarlord]

I guess its when he uses JEsus’s words about hypocrites, comparing our rituals to Pagan ones and our prayers to incantations and the Apocrypha to “Occult”, it always gets to me

The internet is teeming with anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-free enterprise etc etc web sites. We need only avoid those we know to be off-putting. Or, if one likes a good bout of fisticuffs, do a bit of research, as you have done here, and go back in with both feet flying. LOL