Constantine invented Catholicism

[De_Maria]

You know, I didnt direct that question toward you, but since you answered -

You said The Catholic Church received its authority from Christ when he gave Peter to authority to bind and loosen.

Where do you find this tid bit of information?

In the Catechism.

#881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe the Bible fell from the sky, fully written?

Or do you realize that Jesus Christ

1. Established a Church
2. Taught that Church all His Doctrines.
3. Commanded that Church to Teach the whole world
4. The Church then wrote the New Testament based upon what Jesus Christ had commanded.

 

[De_Maria]

I am not looking for a statement of your belief. I am looking for the evidence upon which you build that statement of faith.

In the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. The New Testament book is merely a tool which the Catholic Church uses to emphasize that which She was taught by Jesus Christ. The New Testament is a part of Sacred Tradition. But there are things in Sacred Tradition which are not in the New Testament.

Let me give you a simple example. Since you claim to believe in Sola Scriptura, where does the Bible tell us who wrote the Gospel of Mark?

You won’t find that answer in Scripture. You’ll find it in Sacred Tradition. As you will all questions dealing with the Christian Religion. But there are many things left out of Scripture:

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[De_Maria]

Really, I still have not received the answer.

Now its our turn to ask questions. Where do you think the Bible came from? Was it written by men? Or did it fall out of heaven?

 

[lexscripta]

I thought the title of the message board was “appologetics”? If you want to know what trolling really is, I could say some unChristian statement about Mary, or the Pope, or something else. But I am not doing that. Maybe questions seem combative to you… Kind of reminds me of a certain period in Catholic history.

And to be frank, I was baptized as a Catholic by my wonderful Catholic Grandmother, who raised me, and died of cancer when I was 5. She was the only woman that I bonded with as a mother. When my real mother came, she was abusive. Therefore, I have fond memories of my Grandmother, and to some extent, the Catholic people.

However, much has happened since then. But, If you dont like my questions, then why answer at all? I certainly wouldnt hang around an unengaging, uninteresting board like that. Maybe thats how you should handle all your visitors? It really would be effective. Just ignore them.

I assume appologetics is not only to defend the faith, but to convert its hearers.

P.S.

I am learning quite a bit about the Catholic faith, so I am thankful for that. This thing of tradition, well, it is being forcefully presented and therefore, better understood. I may challenge what is said, but that doesnt make me disrespectful, other than my human nature, which can be inflamed from time to time. Like when I get the impression someone is snarling at me. Calling me a troll, for example?

 

[lexscripta]

You keep saying tradition, but the only source material you allude to is the Bible. For example, Catechism 881. From whence did that information derive? From the New Testament, of course.

Now, it also seems that you attribute the Bible as tradition. I see what you are trying to say here. That the Bible is recorded tradition to some extent.

But here is a problem. You say that:

Jesus Christ

Established a Church
Taught that Church all His Doctrines.
Commanded that Church to Teach the whole world
The Church then wrote the New Testament based upon what Jesus Christ had commanded.

And yet have no other authoritative evidence that any of the foregoing is true without reference to the Bible - the New Testament.

If you recall, the conversation between you and I began with me accusing (playfully) you of also being a Sola Scriptura adherent. So far, that is exactly what you have done - demonstrated that your evidence is based on the Bible, and the Bible alone.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You keep saying tradition, but the only source material you allude to is the Bible. For example, Catechism 881. From whence did that information derive? From the New Testament, of course.

Now, it also seems that you attribute the Bible as tradition. I see what you are trying to say here. That the Bible is recorded tradition to some extent.

But here is a problem. You say that:

Jesus Christ

Established a Church
Taught that Church all His Doctrines.
Commanded that Church to Teach the whole world
The Church then wrote the New Testament based upon what Jesus Christ had commanded.

And yet have no other authoritative evidence that any of the foregoing is true without reference to the Bible - the New Testament.

If you recall, the conversation between you and I began with me accusing (playfully) you of also being a Sola Scriptura adherent. So far, that is exactly what you have done - demonstrated that your evidence is based on the Bible, and the Bible alone.

Not to step on Maria’s toes, but how do you think it was determined which books made it into the Bible?

 

[lexscripta]

I would not call the Books of the Bible, “tradition”. I would say that they are history. What is interesting here is that it seems that there is no real support for what Catholics believe - except and unless we call it Traditions. The way I it appears, is that there is no solid foundation. Even the Bible is relegated to tradition and not a true History of Gods dealings with men on earth. In fact, I get the distinct impression that many of you lower the Bible to Traditions (and in some instances, even lower!) Rather than an accurate recording of the facts, It seems that the Catholic Church places the Bible underneath the very organization that it provides instructions to - the Church itself.

This is downright frightening to me.

Besides, as I said earlier - no one has demonstrated that the Catholic Faith isnt built solely on the Bible. Without that, it seems to me the Catholic Church would fall. So, isnt that Sola Scriptura after all?

Let me put it another way. Without the Bible, where would the Catholic Church be?

 

[steve-b]

There is some truth to it.
We still haven’t escaped an over emphasis on legalism, blind obedience and aggressive evangelisation and one true Church mentality.

over emphasis? Really? Looking over your posts I’m seeing this theme

 

[Entwhistler]

Without the Bible, where would the Catholic Church be?

Around the first 300 years of Christianity’s existence. The New Testament wasn’t put together until the First Council of Nicaea in the early 300s.

 

[nearlycatholic]

no, EGW didn’t “find” the SDA. She played an important role in the early days of the movement and her writing is still considered a reliable authoritative source of teaching. Her counsel first and foremost was to read and study Scripture. She wrote, “What book can compare with the Bible? An understanding of its teachings is essential for every child and youth, and for those of mature age; for it is the word of God, given to guide the human family to heaven.”

But this is a forum for Catholics. You can find everything she ever wrote on the internet.

 

[De_Maria]

You keep saying tradition, but the only source material you allude to is the Bible.

When talking to sola Scripturists, it is a waste of time to allude to the early Church Fathers because they simply wave them off as, unbiblical.

For example, Catechism 881. From whence did that information derive? From the New Testament, of course.

Go one step further. From whence did the New Testament Scripture derive? From Sacred Tradition, of course.

Now, it also seems that you attribute the Bible as tradition. I see what you are trying to say here. That the Bible is recorded tradition to some extent.

It is completely Tradition.

But here is a problem. You say that:

Jesus Christ

Established a Church
Taught that Church all His Doctrines.
Commanded that Church to Teach the whole world
The Church then wrote the New Testament based upon what Jesus Christ had commanded.

And yet have no other authoritative evidence that any of the foregoing is true without reference to the Bible - the New Testament.

It’s not our problem, its yours. The authority of the Bible comes from the Church. It is the Church which wrote the New Testament. The New Testament merely confirms the pre-existing Traditions of Jesus Christ which are passed down by the Church.

In other words, the Church passes down Sacred Tradition by word and Scripture.

If you recall, the conversation between you and I began with me accusing (playfully) you of also being a Sola Scriptura adherent. So far, that is exactly what you have done - demonstrated that your evidence is based on the Bible, and the Bible alone.

Only because you have focused on Scripture. I focus on the Word of God which is passed on by Scripture and Tradition, through the authoritative Catholic Church.

 

[De_Maria]

I would not call the Books of the Bible, “tradition”.

I would.

I would say that they are history.

That too. History is passed down by Tradition.

What is interesting here is that it seems that there is no real support for what Catholics believe - except and unless we call it Traditions.

Contrast that to the fact that there is no real support for what you believe unless we call it, your opinion.

The way I it appears, is that there is no solid foundation. Even the Bible is relegated to tradition and not a true History of Gods dealings with men on earth.

On the contrary, it is to the Church that Jesus passed on His Deposit of Faith. Jesus did not write one word of Scripture, remember?

In fact, I get the distinct impression that many of you lower the Bible to Traditions (and in some instances, even lower!)

I don’t consider it, “lowering”. Although, you lower the word of God to your opinion. And that is lowering.

Rather than an accurate recording of the facts, It seems that the Catholic Church places the Bible underneath the very organization that it provides instructions to - the Church itself.

[/QUOTE]
The Catholic Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. Everything she has recorded in her Doctrines is accurate. She is infallible.

This is downright frightening to me.

Be that as it may, we don’t worry about what frightens you.

Besides, as I said earlier - no one has demonstrated that the Catholic Faith isnt built solely on the Bible.

In fact, we have. You simply think that you can wave off our evidence with your opinion. But you have yet to provide a better or even a valid alternative to the Catholic Church’s Three Legged Stool for handing on the Word of God.

Without that, it seems to me the Catholic Church would fall. So, isnt that Sola Scriptura after all?

It is merely your uninformed opinion. The Catholic Church has been here since Christ established her, 2000 years ago. Doing precisely what Jesus said, handing down His Commands, by Sacred Tradition and proving them by Scripture.

Let me put it another way. Without the Bible, where would the Catholic Church be?

[/QUOTE]
For the first 300 years, there was no Bible. And the Catholic Church evangelized the world. Then, she decided to discern the books that should be included in the Bible. And she did. And you can thank her for the Bible upon which you put your sole reliance. But, most non-Catholics who rely on the bible are too ungrateful to even do that.

 

[Quaestor]

I wrote as “founded” not “find”, She laid the groundwork through her authoritative writings…

 

[lexscripta]

Around the first 300 years of Christianity’s existence. The New Testament wasn’t put together until the First Council of Nicaea in the early 300s.

So? The letters, the Septuagint were around. The Council was only where they were compiled. Any educated Jew could have helped compile the Old Testament. And really, what was so hard about it? They didnt have that much to choose from!

 

[Quaestor]

Very important fact, Jews considered the whole bible to have originated in the Oral Tradition, an when Moses wrote only a part of the Oral Tradition (the torah shebalpeh) down as the Written Torah. So everything was Oral Tradition at one time.

At one time the Bible was all an Oral Tradition of which only a part was written down - this is alluded directly in the bible at the end of the Gospel of John.

When the apostles were preaching and teaching they were not using the New Testament books, they used only the old testament and the Tradition taught to them by Christ… of which a part was written down by some of the apostle or disciples or their followers.

The Bible was put together by several church councils which sat between 382 and 397 and came into effect when the pope ratified the council’s findings in 420. The final canon chosen was the Canon of Rome, which matched the canon of Carthage

 

[Quaestor]

Reading Scripture
When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai he brought with him the Written Law (only the 10 commandments) and the Oral Tradition. He also had the authority given to him by the Lord so that he could authoritatively interpret the scripture. It did not take 40 days for the Lord to chip away the stone but it took Moses 40 days to learn the tradition from the Lord and how to apply it.

The Written Law cannot be understood without the Oral Tradition as taught by the rabbis (who sit in the seat of Moses). Those Jews who attempt to read the Written Law without the Oral Tradition as taught by rabbis are considered ignorant fools. If you are not Jewish and attempt to read the Written Law, you will never understand it, because it was written for those already Jewish. Thus, being within encultured and living within the tradition of the Jews the Written Law will make sense.

How is one to understand the Bible? The Bible was written for those already Jews or Catholics (post-Messianic Jews). It is extremely difficult to understand the bible out of this binary context. Since a Jew or a Catholic is already a member of culture and living within that Catholic or Jewish culture the Bible will makes sense as it the intended audience. If you are not a Catholic or a Jew you are not the intended audience, and never will be. One cannot learn the faith from the Bible as it is not self-explanatory and was never intended to be. The Bible can be only understood correctly and its complete context in the light of Sacred Tradition as presented by the Magisterium by those sitting in the chair of the Bishop. It is only within this context can the Bible find its meaning.

Like Judaism, Catholicism requires instruction and enculturation – meaning that it practiced in the life which is lived. It within this Catholic Culture, which is attendance of the liturgy, being attentive to the teaching of the Church and following the tradition and Catholic way of life. This enculturation form us and aligns us in the mindset of the Church.

Becoming a Catholic or a Jew takes time and study and you can literally spend a lifetime in study of either one of these Faiths. Once a person become “officially” a catholic after going through the RCIA process and get the triple slam of sacraments you only have dipped your foot in the pool. Becoming Catholic just takes time; there is the Catholic vocabulary you will need to learn. It can take a few years of being a Catholic to be Catholic.

However, if you are already a Jew reading it, it makes a lot of sense. Why? Because you come to it with the correct assumptions already. The Bible assumes that you already know what it talking about. These preconceived notions are absolutely necessary to understand the bible. Without these preconceptions the Bible does not make sense. It is written for a predetermined audience – those in conformity with the mindset of the Church.
Continued…

 

[Quaestor]

To those outside Catholicism and Judaism tradition might as well be a four letter word and oftentimes subjected to ridicule and derision by those outside these faiths. Does the Bible favor tradition or does it not? The bible is not clear in the least. In one place it appears to reject it and in another require it. There is no clarity even in the New Testament and by itself is useless. Take Matthew 15 for example, we know Jesus is talking about a specific takkanah. Priests were required to wash their hands prior to performing rituals in the sanctuary during the Second Temple Period with the Bread of the Presence. However, the Rabbis extended this to ordinary people engaged in ordinary life who found this harder to keep than the priests who lived a consecrated more secluded life. Like the Jewish priests of the STP period, Catholic Priests conduct the ablutions accompanied by the relevant prayers prior to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but there is no mandate that an ordinary Catholic do so, however basic hygiene requires one to do so. Jesus goes on to compel obedience to those who sit in the seat of Moses but not to act in the manner as they would.

Take another example should perform charitable without someone knowing about it or should one do so that it is an example to others – fully visible to others. Again, the Bible lacks clarity in this regard condemning it and requiring it in another place. Again this can easily be understood once you understand the teaching of the Jews and Catholics. It is best when giving that you do not know to whom you give and the receiver does not know who the benefactor is. But the Church also wants to encourage people to donate to causes and if a person should do so in full visibility of others it would be an encouragement to others to follow suit. Each has its place and the intention and context is important but these are not provided anywhere in the Written Word. The clarity is not provided scripture but those tasked with teaching scripture.

The Lord never meant the words written in stone (or on paper) to be read and understood without Tradition or the sages or those in authority. It was always meant to be heard by the believers and taught by those who knew the Tradition and had the authority to do so. They are to teach and we are required to learn from them. Jesus compels us to obedience to these authorities in the Church or synagogue. The Catholic Church is a missionary and teaching Church, or else simply handing out bibles is sufficient enough. We see this illustrate for us by the Ethiopian eunuch who reads the scripture but cannot make sense out of it. But when he is taught by Philip understands the scripture.
Continued

 

[Quaestor]

This is the reason why the Bible was not taught to new converts. Rather the Jews of the period created a document called the Didache which provides a new gentile convert the required Catechesis to understand the general principles of the Faith before becoming a Catholic and getting a mikvah. The Catholic Jews knew well that the Bible would take time to learn, and as long as the convert has an open heart and mind to the Faith as was preached. The Didache is older than the Bible and was by many considered inspired and a contender for the Book which became a part of the New Testament canon. Which in the end was decided solely by those books which were used in the Catholic Liturgy.

 

[nearlycatholic]

I got it God bless!

 

[De_Maria]

Absolutely. Its called the Old Testament. It is referred to over and over again by all of the Apostles.

Where does the Old Testament say that Jesus rose from the dead?