The Catholic Church burned the proof!

[Usagi]

Did the early Church call itself Catholic ? I must look it up ,but this was well before the split with the East ,so it was part of the Universal Church, which was made up of several ,one of which was Rome . There was of course no Vatican either, at that time .

“Catholic” means “universal,” and is a way of referring to the very church you cite. It has been in use since at least the early second century in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, and has been used as a proper name at least since St. Augustine in the fourth/fifth centuries. St. Patrick flourished later in the fifth century, though I do not know how much knowledge he had of the earlier men’s writings.

I suppose the actual debate is not whether he would have used the word, but whether his beliefs and practices would have been recognizable as closer to those of modern Catholic Christians than those of modern Protestant Christians. I suspect the answer is yes, but I would have to research to be sure.

Note also that the Catholic Church, even in the narrower sense of “those Christians who are in communion with the Pope,” is not just “Rome.” We look to the Bishop of Rome for leadership, it’s true, but the church of Rome is just one of many dioceses that make up the Catholic Church.

Usagi

 

[epan]

The best answer of all is to look him in the eye and smile and simply say, “prove it”.

You can rest assured that it’s some baseless bunkum and he will be either unable or unwilling to provide his source for this propaganda.

Then you can point out that just because someone told him that that doesn’t make it a fact.

Perhaps a more reasonable approach is neither to agree, nor to disagree. After all, if you were required many of the claims of Christianity, including much of the Catechism, you would simply be at a loss to come up with any objective evidence.

For example: prove the Trinity from scripture. You can find references to three, but I have yet to find any reference to three being one. Another example: show any evidence for the Immaculate Conception. As far as I know, it does not come from the Bible. So, where does it come from. Is there any evidence whatsoever. Those are just two examples, which are far more important to Catholics, and to most Christians, than the legend of St. Patrick, or what symbolism might be involved.

 

[benotagoat]

“Catholic” means “universal,” and is a way of referring to the very church you cite. It has been in use since at least the early second century in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, and has been used as a proper name at least since St. Augustine in the fourth/fifth centuries. St. Patrick flourished later in the fifth century, though I do not know how much knowledge he had of the earlier men’s writings.

I suppose the actual debate is not whether he would have used the word, but whether his beliefs and practices would have been recognizable as closer to those of modern Catholic Christians than those of modern Protestant Christians. I suspect the answer is yes, but I would have to research to be sure.

Note also that the Catholic Church, even in the narrower sense of “those Christians who are in communion with the Pope,” is not just “Rome.” We look to the Bishop of Rome for leadership, it’s true, but the church of Rome is just one of many dioceses that make up the Catholic Church.

Usagi

I think his beliefs and practice would correspond more to the Eastern Orthodox ,as the Irish of the time would have been more in tune with a less hierarchical structure. The celtic christian would not be in harmony with a rich and distant rulership; they were not Romans ,not empire seekers ,but clan oriented,and already of a mystical nature .

 

[z_0101]

For example: prove the Trinity from scripture. You can find references to three, but I have yet to find any reference to three being one.

3

Then, respectfully, you have over looked, for even the Baptists acknowledge the triune:
(These are from the KJV)
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John Chapter 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: ***and these three are one.

---

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:*** and these three agree in one.***

 

[thistle]

If the Church destroyed all the evidence, how come he knows about it?

 

[patrick457]

This particular question does come to mind, whereas the answer to that question coming from someone with this perspective, is that the oral tradition of the people that had been persecuted was passed down through generations.

Whereas, we as Catholics preach Sacred Tradition in the OT and the NT, they feel that we don’t have a leg to stand on when we say something like, “This oral myth isn’t reliable over 1500 years,” well… they kind of laugh at us.

Plot twist: the Church destroyed the evidence and then came up with a fake story and a fake persecuted group (all the real ones were burned long ago) to transmit said story. Hey, Jack T. Chick could claim the Church was behind the founding of Islam.

 

[z_0101]

plot twist: The church destroyed the evidence and then came up with a fake story and a fake persecuted group (all the real ones were burned long ago) to transmit said story. Hey, jack t. Chick could claim the church was behind the founding of islam.

 

[Memaw]

Plot twist: the Church destroyed the evidence and then came up with a fake story and a fake persecuted group (all the real ones were burned long ago) to transmit said story. Hey, Jack T. Chick could claim the Church was behind the founding of Islam.

Don’t give him any ideas !! He can come up with enough wild ones of his own !!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[tafan]

Does he also believe that the UFOs have taken people from Roswell? Or that Elvis is still alive? or that the government did it? (Doesn’t matter what, but the government’s always the evil thing conspiring against us.) If so, he’s beyond hope. He’s far more a fideist than the most fideistic of Protestant fundamentalists.

Did he get the idea from Zeitgeist or something?

UFO and Elvis are bad analogies. People who hold those theories will try to give you all sorts of “evidence” to back up their case. I doubt if the person saying such things about St Patrick will provide even that level of evidence.

Its an insult to the UFO and Elvis wacko’s to place them in the same category as this.

 

[novusCatholic]

What about the Vativan archives? I’m sure that the Church isn’t proud of everything that can be found in its shelves. But, it’s there.

 

[Frankenfurter]

FYI: This is a well-done and very entertaining book about St Patrick. It is filled with original source material too. I think that this book gives a very good perspective. Perhaps your friend might like to read it. I think about it every time St Patty’s comes around.

amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Based on his surviving writings, St. Patrick certainly held to Catholic views that are not shared by all Protestants, as he baptized and used chrism (consecrated oil) in the Sacrament. He held that the Church’s priests have the power to bind and release, quoting Matthew 16:19. He consecrated monks and nuns in Ireland and ordained priests. St. Patrick quoted scripture directly and made allusions to scriptural passages extensively, including the deuterocanonical books that many Protestants reject as inspired but which Catholics include in their Bible (such as the Book of Tobit, the Book of Sirachus, and the Book of Wisdom). He believed Baptism was essential to salvation. It would be hard to argue that St. Patrick was not Catholic.

In one of the texts he wrote, an exhortation to the soldiers of the pagan king Coroticus, he was clear that he recognized Rome as the seat of the Church, and recognized the hierarchy of his superiors, although he sometimes chafed under it. He stood in opposition to the pagan kings, who enslaved and murdered Christian converts and sold women and children into prostitution (the pagans of Ireland were not a gentle, mystical bunch, but more like what Patrick called “gangsters”)

We can also read that he held that their pagan gods were actually demons (a common view held by the early Church fathers), and it could be supposed that the legend of St. Patrick driving the serpents out of Ireland was symbolic of him dispelling the evils of Celtic paganism - not killing pagans, as it is obvious he possessed little temporal power to do so, and the killings were by the pagans. In Part II, Section 9 of his letter he inveighs against taking life, using scriptural justification, so he was unlikely to turn around and kill others, pagan or not. He wanted to convert, not kill. Every Irish pagan who died without repentance would have been considered a loss to Satan by St, Patrick.

It’s also worth noting that St. Patrick, like St. Augustine, St. Nicholas, and St. Paul, stood boldly against slave trading and sex trafficking, and risked his life in doing so.

You can read his letter, which in context tells you a lot about how feisty the bishop was, here:

ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/p02.html

In his Confession (the other surviving work by him), he states clearly that he did no harm to the pagans:

"You all know, and God knows, how I have lived among you since my youth, in true faith and in sincerity of heart. Towards the pagan people too among whom I live, I have lived in good faith, and will continue to do so. God knows that I have not been devious with even one of them, nor do I think of doing so, for the sake of God and his church. I would not want to arouse persecution of them and of all of us; nor would I want that the Lord’s name should be blasphemed on account of me; since it is written: “Woe to the one through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed.”

You can find a translation of his Confession here: confessio.ie/etexts/confessio_english#

 

[wmscott]

Did the early Church call itself Catholic ? I must look it up ,but this was well before the split with the East ,so it was part of the Universal Church, which was made up of several ,one of which was Rome . There was of course no Vatican either, at that time .

Just throwing this out for thought to your question. Remember that the term “Catholic” was just not invented in A.D. 110, by then it was a common term. Hope this helps a little

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. ***Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." ***Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[thistle]

Just throwing this out for thought to your question. Remember that the term “Catholic” was just not invented in A.D. 110, by then it was a common term. Hope this helps a little

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. ***Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." ***Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Acts 9:31 “the Church throughout all” (Greek: ekklesia kath olos).

 

[Memaw]

Based on his surviving writings, St. Patrick certainly held to Catholic views that are not shared by all Protestants, as he baptized and used chrism (consecrated oil) in the Sacrament. He held that the Church’s priests have the power to bind and release, quoting Matthew 16:19. He consecrated monks and nuns in Ireland and ordained priests. St. Patrick quoted scripture directly and made allusions to scriptural passages extensively, including the deuterocanonical books that many Protestants reject as inspired but which Catholics include in their Bible (such as the Book of Tobit, the Book of Sirachus, and the Book of Wisdom). He believed Baptism was essential to salvation. It would be hard to argue that St. Patrick was not Catholic.

In one of the texts he wrote, an exhortation to the soldiers of the pagan king Coroticus, he was clear that he recognized Rome as the seat of the Church, and recognized the hierarchy of his superiors, although he sometimes chafed under it. He stood in opposition to the pagan kings, who enslaved and murdered Christian converts and sold women and children into prostitution (the pagans of Ireland were not a gentle, mystical bunch, but more like what Patrick called “gangsters”)

We can also read that he held that their pagan gods were actually demons (a common view held by the early Church fathers), and it could be supposed that the legend of St. Patrick driving the serpents out of Ireland was symbolic of him dispelling the evils of Celtic paganism - not killing pagans, as it is obvious he possessed little temporal power to do so, and the killings were by the pagans. In Part II, Section 9 of his letter he inveighs against taking life, using scriptural justification, so he was unlikely to turn around and kill others, pagan or not. He wanted to convert, not kill. Every Irish pagan who died without repentance would have been considered a loss to Satan by St, Patrick.

It’s also worth noting that St. Patrick, like St. Augustine, St. Nicholas, and St. Paul, stood boldly against slave trading and sex trafficking, and risked his life in doing so.

You can read his letter, which in context tells you a lot about how feisty the bishop was, here:

ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/p02.html

In his Confession (the other surviving work by him), he states clearly that he did no harm to the pagans:

"You all know, and God knows, how I have lived among you since my youth, in true faith and in sincerity of heart. Towards the pagan people too among whom I live, I have lived in good faith, and will continue to do so. God knows that I have not been devious with even one of them, nor do I think of doing so, for the sake of God and his church. I would not want to arouse persecution of them and of all of us; nor would I want that the Lord’s name should be blasphemed on account of me; since it is written: “Woe to the one through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed.”

You can find a translation of his Confession here: confessio.ie/etexts/confessio_english#

Thank you and God Bless, Memaw