Here is your chance Protestants!

[CatherineofA]

I see what you mean about different heresies being debunked in Biblical times. However, how do you think that is related to later non Catholic views? What did they share in common that would make the later groups heretical? I see what you mean about the early church debunking ideas that were considered heretical like Jesus not being God, etc. However, most denominations you would view with the Protestant label today share those same opinions that those views would be heretical.
You stated that the records for the early church outside of the church are scare. The records that you are referring to, what do they say? You also stated that the church had a continuous devotion to keeping records and maintaining the truth. However, how much of what those early people believed and maintained was actually carried on by those who feel they inherited all their truths? Did not the church later adopt changes that were out of tune with what was originally thought or believed? Example-Marriage and priests Therefore, has the original truth even been maintained by the group that claims to be carrying on one continuous approach?
When I mentioned infallibility of the pope, I did not mean that I was taking the understanding that he was perfect. I meant more like how could the person who knew Christ be so out of tune with a man who did not? he was chosen afterall. If Peter was the one to carry on the church, how could he as the human foundation have many of his points left unadopted? I also mentioned Peter and Paul to demonstrate that there was evidently no one truth or set vision as a church, or there could not have been a complete and definite disagreement on what it meant in the most basic of issues. How someone was Christian. What converting involved. So, could the set church structure with all encompassing truths actually been there?
I have not come to any conclusion that the church as hidden an history. I am just interested in its telling of events and how the accepted historical record of the overall time period matches it. Thanks for your reply!

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

CatherineofA:

Wrong, you said:

"I want you to use information amongst historians (outside of the Catholic community

) to demonstrate that evidence exists for your point of view."

You asked for non-Catholic historians, which will take some time because I have to investigate which are not Catholic and then look into their work.

When I was doing my studies I did not limit the information to Catholic/non-Catholic historians, I just read credible historians in general.

Also, David Hunter is one of the foremost Patristic scholars in North America. His holds a Ph.d for Notre Dame in Church History and has studied under Robert L. Wilken, who is considered the foremost Patristic scholar in North America. Dr. Hunter is on the Advisory Board of The North American Patristics Society. He is a credible scholar and a Roman Catholic, the two are not mutuality exclusive.

Peace

You said, “Has the academic community ever unsubstantiated the claims made by the Catholic Church. No.”
You later more recently above, “You asked for non-Catholic historians which will take some time because I have to investigate which are not Catholic and then look into their work.”

These statements contradict. That is why I said what I did. How can you be aware of the full academic view if you have to research more of it?

I agree that it is important to view all credible historians. They can be Catholic. However, they should not ALL be Catholic. There are many credible Catholic historians. What I am saying is that knowing the truth about the time period is examinig all the available information on it that is seen as credible and verfiable.

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

For anyone who is interested he is a great Patristic sites:

moses.creighton.edu/NAPS/napslinks/index.htm

www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/

ccel.org/fathers2/

It has a great resources for all who are interested in primary sources.

Peace

Thanks! I will look into them. However, I am not often crazy about links as they generally do not reference or discuss where the original information is located. These might be helpful if they do that. I prefer books and reprints of old documents. Have any recommendations for those?

 

[CatherineofA]

Mickey:

CatherineofA:

I have attempted that type of research many times, and have found nothing. Perhaps my research skills are flawed. Why do you chastise Dennis?

Maybe you can do what my next step is. Many published or well known historians who have an emphasis area in a specific period of history can be contacted via campus email addresses on university websites. I eventually plan to do some contacting and ask for recommendations for study.

 

[CatherineofA]

Mickey:

I am not privy to any information that contradicts Church history as documented by patristic writings, ecumenical councils, etc. However, there were many heretical groups who surfaced throughout history who disagreed with the Church in certain areas. Often, this is how doctrine was defined–by dealing with the heretics and gnostics. Examples include issues such as hypostasis, the Trinity, the canonical books, creeds, etc. I am not aware of archeological contradictions.

Do you have evidence that refutes the historical documentation of the patristic writers? If you do, I’m willing to bet it can be refuted. You see that is the problem. Any secular evidence you may find can most likely be refuted, not only by patristic documentation, but also by other secular historians. So who do you believe? Again, the patristic fathers were martyred because of their writings/beliefs. If you do not have contradictory evidence, then all we really have is patristic documentation and faith. And really now, what’s so bad about faith?

Blessings,
Mickey

I agree that faith is a good thing. I am just making the point that there IS a difference in faith and church tradition and events that are actually verifiable and proven historically or through documentation. I don’t have evidence that refutes the Catholic Church, I am just posing the question to ask about other people’s research who say they have examined all the avenues. They can provide ideas and suggestions about what they HAVE researched.

 

[Shibboleth]

Here you go this is a fairly well created argument against the level in which the Papacy has attained.

The Papacy by Abbe Guettee
odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

dennisknapp:

You said, “Has the academic community ever unsubstantiated the claims made by the Catholic Church. No.”
You later more recently above, “You asked for non-Catholic historians which will take some time because I have to investigate which are not Catholic and then look into their work.”

These statements contradict. That is why I said what I did. How can you be aware of the full academic view if you have to research more of it?

I agree that it is important to view all credible historians. They can be Catholic. However, they should not ALL be Catholic. There are many credible Catholic historians. What I am saying is that knowing the truth about the time period is examinig all the available information on it that is seen as credible and verfiable.

How is this a contradiction? Did I say that the academic community substantiates and unsubstantiates the history of the Church at the same time and in the same sense?

No, I said I would have to look into my resources to varify who is Catholic and who is not, which is meaningless because a credible scholar is a credible scholar no matter his/her background or faith tradition.

You seem to be infering duplicity in those scholars who claim to Catholic, while also infering that if they are not Catholic no duplicity will be found and therefore are more reliable.

If any of the scholarship I have looked into is suspect it should fall on its own, no matter the tradition.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Shibboleth:

Here you go this is a fairly well created argument against the level in which the Papacy has attained.

The Papacy by Abbe Guettee
odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf

Here is an rebuttal on the Catholic Answers website in a article of This Rock:

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

CatherineofA:

How is this a contradiction? Did I say that the academic community substantiates and unsubstantiates the history of the Church at the same time and in the same sense?

No, I said I would have to look into my resources to varify who is Catholic and who is not, which is meaningless because a credible scholar is a credible scholar no matter his/her background or faith tradition.

You seem to be infering duplicity in those scholars who claim to Catholic, while also infering that if they are not Catholic no duplicity will be found and therefore are more reliable.

If any of the scholarship I have looked into is suspect it should fall on its own, no matter the tradition.

Peace

It appeared contradictory because you asked if the academic community had EVER unsubstantiated the claims made by the Catholic Church. You then answered your own question with the word no. You had stated at another time that you would need to view non-Catholic sources to find out what non-Catholic Church affiliated views were. How can you know what all academia thinks and also say you have not specifically examined all the arenas available? How could you have said “no” to the academic community ever unsubstantiating the claims of the church without looking at everything?
Oh well. I thank you for looking into it and I appreciate the references. I mentioned earlier wanting the book lists and copies available of original documents. Can you give me some references in print for the research you did away from the internet?
By the way, as I said before, Catholic scholars are credible and the church has played a role in recording history. However, when we are talking about historical record, it is one sided to only have aknowledge of the Catholic view or view by Catholic historians. How do you know what is credible if you don’t examine all the historical information available? Asking for that is not debunking Catholic viwes or writers who happen to be Catholic, it is just a good approach to examine all the information available.

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

Ignatius:

The Catholic side has been criticized to the nth degree. I’d like to see what kind of evidence the protestants have that they have some root in early christianity other then through the Catholic Church.

Why couldn’t they protestants had any other roots?
.

Didn’t say they couldn’t; I’d just like to know what they are.
Can you please provide some? Thank you.

 

[CatherineofA]

Ignatius:

Didn’t say they couldn’t; I’d just like to know what they are.
Can you please provide some? Thank you.

You need to read the complete thread. I am not one of the ones arguing that they HAVE a history. I am asking for information from THOSE who are CERTAIN of the histories of their faith. I have asked what they used to come to those conclusions and whether or not those conclusions included all the available historical information known about the period in the community of historians. I have not made any personal claims about my belief or certainty in any group’s historical connections. I have asked for information on those who claim to have done personal research. Someone who IS arguing what you posted, might post it later.

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

You need to read the complete thread. I am not one of the ones arguing that they HAVE a history.

Actually Catherine, this is in response to one of your own posts. Here it is:

CatherineofA:

Why couldn’t they have had any other roots?

Ignatius:

Didn’t say they couldn’t; I’d just like to know what they are. Can you please provide some? Thank you.

So, Can you please provide them? Thank you.

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

You need to read the complete thread. I am not one of the ones arguing that they HAVE a history. I am asking for information from THOSE who are CERTAIN of the histories of their faith. I have asked what they used to come to those conclusions and whether or not those conclusions included all the available historical information known about the period in the community of historians. I have not made any personal claims about my belief or certainty in any group’s historical connections. I have asked for information on those who claim to have done personal research. Someone who IS arguing what you posted, might post it later.

First, it would be impossible to include ALL the availible historical information known about any period in the community of historians.

Are you asking to provide every single thing ever written in order to support my claim?

Second, I have taken many classes at the University level regardiing the period in question, and I did so at a public institution–Iowa State University. In all my classes that dealt with the subject of the history of the Church, the history was all the same, whether it be Western Civ., Medieval History, Christianity in the Roman Empire, or Medieval Catholicism. In all those classe I was taught that the Catholic Church goes all the back to the early Church and can trace itself to the Apostles and Christ. This is the information I have read in all my texts books, in every class.

If you have been taught something different then please show me. Part of my conversion was because of my academic training, and that from a public institution, a secular institution.

Peace

 

[oriel36]

reggie:

Oriel,

Still don’t get it. What does Martha have to do with the question of Jesus? Jesus does not speak of two types of Christians, just that those who die in Christ will rise again, those who are living when Christ returns will never die.
So, what does this have to do with Martha?

You already determined two types of Christians in your answer ,this is not to trap you but to point out that there are two types of Christians present in the Question of Jesus.The answer must be as big as the question but it is answered through faith and faith alone and for goodness sake ,stop guessing if you can’t answer.

Look,people are inclined to mix up ’ free will’ with an ‘undisciplined will’ and therein exists all the difficulties and inability to read and comprehend the Question of Jesus.The answer must be as big as the person giving the answer through faith .

The last great Apostolic work is the Theologia Germanica where there are plenty of references to the great Christian contemplatives and the dynamics of Christianity behind the empty cans who imagine that a Catholic/Protestant split amounts to anything other than the Evil Spirit at work.

This is final word on the disgraceful behavior of people using the name Catholic for anti-Christian ends.

---

ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/theologia.toc.html

How sometimes the Spirit of God, and sometimes also the Evil Spirit may possess a Man and have the mastery over him.

It is written that sometimes the Devil and his spirit do so enter into and possess a man, that he knoweth not what he doeth and leaveth undone, and hath no power over himself, but the Evil Spirit hath the mastery over him, and doeth and leaveth undone in, and with, and through, and by the man what he will. It is true in a sense that all the world is subject to and possessed with the Evil Spirit, that is, with lies, falsehood, and other vices and evil ways; this also cometh of the Evil Spirit, but in a different sense,

Now, a man who should be in like manner possessed by the Spirit of God, so that he should not know what he doeth or leaveth undone, and have no power over himself, but the will and Spirit of God should have the mastery over him, and work, and do, and leave undone with him and by him, what and as God would; such a man were one of those of whom St. Paul saith: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,”26 and they “are not under the law, but under grace,”27 and to whom Christ saith: “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”28

But I fear that for one who is truly possessed with the Spirit of God, there are a hundred thousand or an innumerable multitude possessed with the Evil Spirit. This is because men have more likeness to the Evil Spirit than to God. For the Self, the I, the Me and the like, all belong to the Evil Spirit, and therefore it is, that he is an Evil Spirit. Behold one or two words can utter all that hath been said by these many words: “Be simply and wholly bereft of Self.” But by these many words, the matter hath been more fully sifted, proved, and set forth.

 

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

You already determined two types of Christians in your answer ,this is not to trap you but to point out that there are two types of Christians present in the Question of Jesus.The answer must be as big as the question but it is answered through faith and faith alone and for goodness sake ,stop guessing if you can’t answer.

Look,people are inclined to mix up ’ free will’ with an ‘undisciplined will’ and therein exists all the difficulties and inability to read and comprehend the Question of Jesus.The answer must be as big as the person giving the answer through faith .

The last great Apostolic work is the Theologia Germanica where there are plenty of references to the great Christian contemplatives and the dynamics of Christianity behind the empty cans who imagine that a Catholic/Protestant split amounts to anything other than the Evil Spirit at work.

This is final word on the disgraceful behavior of people using the name Catholic for anti-Christian ends.

---

ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/theologia.toc.html

How sometimes the Spirit of God, and sometimes also the Evil Spirit may possess a Man and have the mastery over him.

It is written that sometimes the Devil and his spirit do so enter into and possess a man, that he knoweth not what he doeth and leaveth undone, and hath no power over himself, but the Evil Spirit hath the mastery over him, and doeth and leaveth undone in, and with, and through, and by the man what he will. It is true in a sense that all the world is subject to and possessed with the Evil Spirit, that is, with lies, falsehood, and other vices and evil ways; this also cometh of the Evil Spirit, but in a different sense,

Now, a man who should be in like manner possessed by the Spirit of God, so that he should not know what he doeth or leaveth undone, and have no power over himself, but the will and Spirit of God should have the mastery over him, and work, and do, and leave undone with him and by him, what and as God would; such a man were one of those of whom St. Paul saith: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,”26 and they “are not under the law, but under grace,”27 and to whom Christ saith: “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”28

But I fear that for one who is truly possessed with the Spirit of God, there are a hundred thousand or an innumerable multitude possessed with the Evil Spirit. This is because men have more likeness to the Evil Spirit than to God. For the Self, the I, the Me and the like, all belong to the Evil Spirit, and therefore it is, that he is an Evil Spirit. Behold one or two words can utter all that hath been said by these many words: “Be simply and wholly bereft of Self.” But by these many words, the matter hath been more fully sifted, proved, and set forth.

Are you claiming that some here are possessed by the evil one?

The work you site is not even Catholic and was made accessible by Martin Luther.

Please, please site a Catholic source that agrees with your theory. I for one can not accept it unless it is part of official Catholic belief.

Also, you never answered my question–should Protestants be allowed to recieve communion in the Catholic Church?

Peace

 

[Mickey]

CatherineofA:

However, when we are talking about historical record, it is one sided to only have aknowledge of the Catholic view or view by Catholic historians. How do you know what is credible if you don’t examine all the historical information available?

Since anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable form of discrimination in this country, if sources were available to contradict the “Catholic view” of history, they would most certainly be made widely available by the most venomous anti-Catholic bigots in this country.

The fact of the matter is, (and I belief this completely), such contradictory accounts of the history of Christianity do not exist, because the fathers of the Church got it right!

But then of course, you will discover this for yourself!

 

[CatherineofA]

Mickey:

Since anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable form of discrimination in this country, if sources were available to contradict the “Catholic view” of history, they would most certainly be made widely available by the most venomous anti-Catholic bigots in this country.

The fact of the matter is, (and I belief this completely), such contradictory accounts of the history of Christianity do not exist, because the fathers of the Church got it right!

But then of course, you will discover this for yourself!

I see your point and it is definitely food for thought. I hope to get a lot of information on these boards! I am not sure if you have come from a totally Catholic background or one that has had some Protestant experiences mixed into the pot. I ask because as a Southern Baptist I grew up hearing some information on early church history and have known seminary graduates who have had to cover this area and mentioned it as well. What they said was not supportive of Catholic Church views on church history. It didn’t necessarily debunk it or say it wasn’t there in some form. It was just seen as one demensional or tunnel visioned on itself as the only “designated” church set-up. With or without rivals. They also thought this mentality led the members to put as much faith in the non-Biblical aspects that make a church as the scriptural aspects. Even if the Catholic Church was the instrument used for a while to present God’s message. Even if the Catholic Church spearheaded the collection of scriptures in text form, they still regard the men in that church as devinely led to get it right. Because the scriptures were meant to be and not because one church organization had to be the one to do it. Christ and God’s message was always first and that message was presented through the men who collected it. They were tools. It was about the message and God’s word, not who was used by God to get the message out. This I have heard for years. Much of what I heard about history has been a while back and has been in passing or was part of an overall Sunday School topic. I am in the process of looking into or tracing what I have heard in the past about history to examine and cover it. So, based on this, I am not sure if people are not using information on history because they don’t really have it or if they don’t consider it an issue. I say this because (I have mentioned this on these boards before.) many Southern Baptists and others I have known in other denominations never consider history an issue. That is Catholic Church history to them. In addition, they see church bodies and events as being used by God to get out what was the most important. The scriptures. Being used as the means does not mean you are part of the end. Most in my experience are so ingrained in scripture as guide and head that anything outside of it is considered secondary. Even if it was there and in front of their face, they wouldn’t care because they think scripture is the basis for church activities and not the scripture and a designated earthly church as basis for the activities.

As I mentioned on other posts on these boards, I really enjoy topics of an historical nature. Most of the areas that I have studied with any religious history connections have been those related to events more towards the Reformation era. I am somwhat getting started in the study of early church history and that is the main reason I have participated in these threads. I have mentioned the benefits of discussing church history with people such as Southern Baptists to give them an idea of the history that is there and that it is an important consideration. I don’t think many will ever see it as proof due to scripture being paramount. However, I believe it will be very productive in reducing the anti-Catholic sentiment amongst non Catholics. So, based on my own experiences, the most rabid anti-Catholics might not be using it because they know the focus won’t matter much. It is easier for them to get an audience to show how the church has teachings that are heavy on church teachings than Bible teachings only. That, they will get an audience on.

 

[CatherineofA]

Ignatius:

Actually Catherine, this is in response to one of your own posts. Here it is:

CatherineofA:

Why couldn’t they have had any other roots?

So, Can you please provide them? Thank you.

Again, I am not arguing that I have a certainty or heavy and ready knowledge to make the claim that they do have the roots. Some on the board stated that they felt they had certainty based on historical proof that non Catholics did not have an historical case. I asked why they couldn’t have roots. I didn’t say they did. That is two different things. I HAVE NOT CLAIMED TO HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. READ THE THREAD. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON A TOPIC YOU ARE ASKING FOR INFORMATION ON!

 

[CatherineofA]

dennisknapp:

First, it would be impossible to include ALL the availible historical information known about any period in the community of historians.

Are you asking to provide every single thing ever written in order to support my claim?

Second, I have taken many classes at the University level regardiing the period in question, and I did so at a public institution–Iowa State University. In all my classes that dealt with the subject of the history of the Church, the history was all the same, whether it be Western Civ., Medieval History, Christianity in the Roman Empire, or Medieval Catholicism. In all those classe I was taught that the Catholic Church goes all the back to the early Church and can trace itself to the Apostles and Christ. This is the information I have read in all my texts books, in every class.

If you have been taught something different then please show me. Part of my conversion was because of my academic training, and that from a public institution, a secular institution.

Peace

Needed for well rounded study=Variety of historians who substantiate their views on documented evidence. Did you base all of your education in this matter in what you were instructed to cover at ISU? Did you conduct any personal study? Consult non ISU writers or professors? What about professors in your ISU history department outside of religious studies? I am not saying that you could not have had a good education. I have not said anything about that. You just stated that the historical evidence led you to embrace Catholicism. I just thought that you probably put a lot of study into your conversion examining a wide variety of information that included Catholic and non Catholic support using, or attempting to use, historical evidence. If I had all the answers and was sure one way or another, I wouldn’t be asking you. Could you please list some of the books or manuscripts you consulted (Catholic, non-Catholic, secular history, etc.) to come to your conclusions. I would like to read or consider what you used. I am looking to persue some resources. Thanks!

 

[mercygate]

CatherineofA:

. . . You just stated that the historical evidence led you to embrace Catholicism.

I’m another victim of studying the Roman period at a secular university, where I encountered the ECFs without any sectarian bias. I was Protestant at the time. I remember sitting in the library reading Irenaeus and feeing a chill run through my bones reading so much that pointed to the historical continuity of the Church and realizing that the Catholic Church today is the Church Irenaeus was defending. Before the Great Schism. Before the Protestant revolt. So the word “catholic” didn’t have the charged meaning it has today.

Another thing that struck me like thunder at the time was the fact that the Church gave us the Scriptures. I had never so much as given it a moment’s thought. The Bible was just “there.”

Lately I have been having thoughts about that as well. Although the New Testament manuscripts carry more credibility than any other manuscripts of the time, there are still a lot of textual variations in what we have received. If the Scriptures were intended as the sole rule of faith, then shouldn’t there be a clear, single text?