Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[GreggAlvarez]

Rather, my answer is that the question in the OP is not framed well at all…again here is what I said. Read it again, and it should be clear why (IMHO) the question isn’t well conceived (b/c of how the CC has evolved into what it currently is):

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. (here we need to check history) In contrast, again from my POV, the modern CC believes A-J, doesn’t believe K-M and now also believes N-Z. (here we need to check with Catholic theologians) K-M weren’t lost in one moment, nor were N-Z added in a single moment. The change is significant enough that it isn’t appropriate to call the two (the 1st century church and the modern CC) the same church…no more appropriate than claiming that the game played in the 1890’s is the same game we now know as American Football. So perhaps the answer is these three guys: Mr. Innovation, Ms. Development and Father Time.

Does this mean anything to anybody? Besides an exercise in the English alphabet, there was nothing of substance here, unless you want to consider unwarranted claims as substance.

 

[Dokimas]

Ah, Emperor Constantine, the favored scapegoat of all Protestants who claim that the Christian Church apostatized and “became Catholic.” Let’s look at each of the charges:

Interesting: Elvis said most protestant theologians don’t believe C started the CC. Who’s correct?

I don’t think the CC apostatized. But then again I don’t consider myself protestant. I’m just a Christian.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

…thus Christian (NOT just catholic).

The two are different sides of the exact same thing. If it is Truth, it is Christian AND Catholic. It cannot be Truth in one without also being the other. We are talking about objective reality here.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

what disagreement…there is a consensus that, when Christ used “rock”, he was referring to Peter. There is a consensus that Peter didn’t preside as a bishop at Rome. I don’t see a conflict…did you actually think that referring to Peter as “rock” in Palestine somehow made Peter the bishop of Rome decades later? How odd

You probably got that from an anti-Catholic consensus, which is hardly unbias. How not odd

 

[Radical]

So if you are citing Augustine’s Neoplatonism as being the “true” belief you have to explain why Augustine’s Neoplatonic Eucharistic theology is the original.

I don’t know that I ever said Augustine’s view of the Eucharist was the original view…I will say that the somatic real presence surely wasn’t the original view. What I had said earlier is:

there is a growing consensus among those who have studied Augustine, that this “Doctor of the Church” didn’t believe in a real somatic presence. Such a possibility is, of course, unacceptable to the conservative Catholic b/c it is too improbable to declare that the (RSP) existed from the outset, but that a Doctor of the Church didn’t believe it…but, as I said, that building scholarly consensus is your problem and not mine.

But Kilmartin admits that the earlier Greek tradition was in fact the biblical tradition of the corporeal Real Presence.

well, in my book Kilmartin keeps attributing the somatic real presence to the 4th century Antiochene School (see pages 6, 21) What Kilmartin describes is a theology in transition. A hodge-podge…it doesn’t appear to be a theology that orignated with Christ and was passed on, unaltered, down through the centuries.

Here is what you quoted from Kilmartin:

The theological meaning of the anamnesis, as it was explained by the Greek Fathers (and which was, in fact, more in line with biblical thinking), is not understood by these Western theologians ** [such as Augustine]**. This accounts in part for the tendency, in the effort to fill the void, to reduce the notion of anamnesis to allegory [as Augustine arguably did]. … in the Greek perspective, [the Eucharist] was grounded on the real participation of the eucharistic elements in the reality of the crucified and risen Lord who has his natural mode of existence at the right hand of the Father…"

I have made bold your additions to the text. By “Greek Fathers”, Kilmartin likely had the 4th century Antiochene School in mind (see p 18) By “Western theologians” Kilmartin had Radbertus and Ratramnus (both 9th century) in mind. Where you inserted “the Eucharist” Kilmartin actually had the “relation between prototype and the image” (as it related to the Eucharist) in mind.

Whether on CAF or in college or even grade school, you will learn very quickly that in the age of Google, you do not win an argument by just citing some book. Your audience can instantly access the book, see what the author actually said, and determine readily that you have misrepresented what was actually said.

nice bit of chest-thumping, but where did you show that I misrepresented what Kilmartin said.

Now for Mary…

Immaculate Conception: Genesis 3:15
Perpetual Virginity: Ezekiel 44:2 1 Corinthians 15:25

Thanks for demonstrating that these beliefs about Mary aren’t actually put forward in scripture, but that one must force a sketchy interpretation on to certain passages to try and remedy the silence. With such license any belief could be found (existing between the lines) in scripture.

Now we look at the ECFs: Here are Justin Martyr and Tertullian saying the exact opposite of what you claim.

well here is the quote from Tertullian:

And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

and here is the quote from Martyr:

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

specifying that she was an obedient virgin hardly speaks to any of those Marian doctrines…and doesn’t at all contradict anything I claimed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not understand ‘same as Constantine’.

All true teachings are Biblical in nature, thus Christian (NOT just catholic).

Really, you don’t understand? I find that hard to believe. Maybe it’s just feigning not understanding in order to post more against Catholic? Of course anything someone posts against Catholic is a ‘fair’ question, even without support to backup such claims…

Why not quit playing these type games and produce the evidence requested of you?

 

[Dokimas]

nope, we’ve got the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we can trace our roots to Christ’s earthly ministry…fortunately God isn’t restricted by Catholic prejudices.

obviously you need to read more…may I suggest university level history books (I know that they have fewer pictures, but you’ll learn a lot more).
yes Elvis, I have seen the lists and the pitiful copy and paste presentations that can be made…as I said, you need to read more…actual books that contain an analysis of what the ECFs wrote and not just a bunch of statements taken out of context

Here’s some books to read WRT my claim regarding Augustine not believing in a Real Somatic Presence:

Kilmartin…The Eucharist in the West
Wills and Van der Meer …their biographies on Augustine

here is my partial list of fellows (from the 1st two centuries) who don’t mention anything about “The Marian Doctrines (her Assumption, Immaculate conception, Perpetual virginity, et al)”:

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Martyr, Tertullian,–to name a few.

Notice how my list names fellows who are a cut above those named in your list and notice how my fellows predate yours…yours are from a time that allows the Marian Doctrines to have been manufactured…which, of course, is what happened.

…and it is those type of changes that make the question in the OP difficult to answer

The Bible teaches ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ not the way they do to you. Can I encourage you not to ‘give it back’ to other? I understand how tempting it is but no temptation has over taken us that God hasn’t given us a way to escape.

 

[Dokimas]

Really, you don’t understand? I find that hard to believe. Maybe it’s just feigning not understanding in order to post more against Catholic? Of course anything someone posts against Catholic is a ‘fair’ question, even without support to backup such claims…

Why not quit playing these type games and produce the evidence requested of you?

Disagreeing is not being against. I’m not against catholics or catholism.

BTW, REALLY!!! No game playing, just not understanding.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

nope, we’ve got the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we can trace our roots to Christ’s earthly ministry…fortunately God isn’t restricted by Catholic prejudices.

obviously you need to read more…may I suggest university level history books (I know that they have fewer pictures, but you’ll learn a lot more).
yes Elvis, I have seen the lists and the pitiful copy and paste presentations that can be made…as I said, you need to read more…actual books that contain an analysis of what the ECFs wrote and not just a bunch of statements taken out of context

Anything to try to get us to “admit” we are wrong… You have YET to give one argument that is plausible. All you did was make an ungrounded speculation based on your anti-Catholic leanings, attacking the person because he is Catholic and assuming we are wrong just because we are Catholic. Problem is, either you have no clue how to even differentiate Truth from verisimilitudes, much less blatant fallacies of historical interpretation or even biblical exegesis OR you just want to prove yourself by childish remarks. Why are you here again?

You should take your own advice. Perhaps starting with those books you assumed elvisman read is a good start for you. He is the one actually giving arguments.

Please no insults… We should keep this a nice candid conversation. There is nothing wrong with a heated debate. There is a world of difference between a heated debate and a disrepectful confrontation.

God bless and we should all be charitable. We are all Christian here, whether or not you believe it.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Thanks for demonstrating that these beliefs about Mary aren’t actually put forward in scripture, but that one must force a sketchy interpretation on to certain passages to try and remedy the silence. With such license any belief could be found (existing between the lines) in scripture.

Which is exactly why we have Tradition. They shed light on Scriptures. It only seems sketchy because you do not believe that Sacred Tradition exists, that or you do not understand why we believe what we believe. In any event, those Scriptures Cat gave are very precise in talking about Mary. Whether or not her name was used is irrelevant. Either it was on purpose or it happened by chance. The fact that you do not accept it as purposeful does not make it wrong.

And with your last sentence, you cancel out Sola Scriptura.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Disagreeing is not being against. I’m not against catholics or catholism.

BTW, REALLY!!! No game playing, just not understanding.

And still not presenting evidence to support your statement, that has been requested of you repeatedly by many…yet it’s no game playing?

 

[Dokimas]

And still not presenting evidence to support your statement, that has been requested of you repeatedly by many…yet it’s no game playing?

NO games and no submitting. Are you really interested in evidence?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

NO games and no submitting. Are you really interested in evidence?

How many people have requested you provide evidence for your statement? Yet, you’re still avoiding presenting any.

See, that’s how your posts are interpreted as ‘anti’. You assert our beliefs are wrong, just because you say so? That seems to be posts intending to inflame since you provide no evidence that can be rebutted. It is a game when one avoids direct answers…

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t know that I ever said Augustine’s view of the Eucharist was the original view…I will say that the somatic real presence surely wasn’t the original view. …

well, in my book Kilmartin keeps attributing the somatic real presence to the 4th century Antiochene School (see pages 6, 21)

Then what is up with all of these second century Church Fathers…

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).​

Thanks for demonstrating that these beliefs about Mary aren’t actually put forward in scripture, but that one must force a sketchy interpretation on to certain passages to try and remedy the silence. With such license any belief could be found (existing between the lines) in scripture.

Look in the mirror. The Bible does not expressly say that you should go to a church building on Sunday. Instead it says that the early Christians worshiped at home and prayed in their rooms in secret. So if you want to go with what is “actually put forth in Scripture” you need to tell your pastor read Acts 2, to quit and go home and sell the church building to feed the poor.

In response you will start “forc[ing] a sketchy interpretation on to certain passages to try and remedy the silence” about communal Sunday worship. You have tradition too.

 

[Radical]

First of all – can it with your

condescending** tone. my apologies…I had meant it as a bit of light-hearted teasing, but obviously you and others found it offensive…and who knows, perhaps light-hearted teasing is inappropriate too. In any event, I am sorry.**

 

[Radical]

The Bible teaches ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ not the way they do to you.

thanks for the reminder…someone reported me and I ended up with a 5 point infraction…have no idea how many demerits I am allowed.

Can I encourage you not to ‘give it back’ to other?

most certainly, you do well not to respond in kind to the abuse hurled your way…I think I’ll just take this as an opportunity to take a break…I have answered the OP, I have provided references for any one who actual cares to look more deeply into scholarly opinions and so, once I give Cat Herder one more page reference. I’ll be done.

I understand how tempting it is but no temptation has over taken us that God hasn’t given us a way to escape.

thanks and Cheers.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think the case of Galileo is a very good example why the Church does not teach in the areas of history, science, etc.

Galileo was excommicated because he insisted on instructing the Bishops,and demanded that they change the wording of the Holy Scriptures to conform with his scientific findings.

QUOTE]

Uhh…Galileo never was excommunicated, he remained a faithful Catholic all his life.

And I haven’t read anything about his instructing the bishops and demanding that they change the wordiing of Holy Scriptures. Where did that idea come from?

 

[elvisman]

I’m glad to be able to help you ease up a bit and laugh.

Ay, ay, ay - again with the empty, curt reponses due to a lack of evidence . . .

 

[Dokimas]

Ay, ay, ay - again with the empty, curt reponses due to a lack of evidence . . .

Correct again.

 

[elvisman]

my apologies…I had meant it as a bit of light-hearted teasing, but obviously you and others found it offensive…and who knows, perhaps light-hearted teasing is inappropriate too. In any event, I am sorry.

It’s cool - just keep it to the debate at hand. **
Now . . . let’s carry on, brother.