The Invention of Catholicism? (Part 2)

[mark_a]

In the first thread we discussed Real Presence as a post-Acts innovation. I would suggest the institutional priesthood, clergy, and hierarchy, generally. And the concept of the Church as the new Israel.

All these are implicit in scripture and certainly not unique to Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

 

[mark_a]

I’m not suggesting that the post-Acts inventions were contrary to the teachings of the Apostles. I am suggesting:

1. The apostles were themselves groping in Acts (see the various debates e.g. about conversion of the gentiles), and
2. That the new ideas (many of which find justification in the NT) were, nevertheless, new ideas.

(And, 3, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple threw everyone a curve.)

I think your analysis is correct. And very Catholic.

 

[MariaG]

I’m guessing that you’re referring to Jesus as the “bread of life” but even here we find symbolism, e.g.:

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.
When I was a kid, we would go out to lunch after Mass. 'Cause we were hungry and thirstly.

I was thinking very specifically when Christ repeats in verse 6:53 "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.

This is not symbolic language. This is not figurative. This is a deal breaker and many walked away. I do not think they necessarily understood right then what Christ meant, but I do in fact believe that at the Last Supper, it became clear, and if not then it would have been clear when John relayed Christ’s words on the cross and the fourth cup of the passover sacrifice.

I’m not suggesting that the post-Acts inventions were contrary to the teachings of the Apostles. I am suggesting:

1. The apostles were themselves groping in Acts (see the various debates e.g. about conversion of the gentiles), and
2. That the new ideas (many of which find justification in the NT) were, nevertheless, new ideas.

(And, 3, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple threw everyone a curve.)

If by new ideas you would mean that which the Holy Spirit led the Church because they were not ready to hear everything I would say that there is much to Christianity that falls under that. Trinity, Mary, what books are inspired scripture…

However, I disagree that the Real Presence of Christ was one of them.

I think John completely understood and it is quite apparent his disciple did also.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

All these are implicit in scripture and certainly not unique to Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

It may well be the case that the are “implicit in scripture” but that does not mean they were beliefs of the Christians of Acts.

It may well have required a catalyst for the early Christians to discover that which was “implicit in scripture” and to create what became the Catholic Church. My thesis here is that catalyst was the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (and with it the Jewish priesthood and sacrificial system).

Now it is a fair question whether something “implicit in scripture” is logically necessary. Perhaps Protestantism is also “implicit in scripture” but awaited another catalyst to be realized.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think your analysis is correct. And very Catholic.

That’s the best compliment I’ve had in a long time.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was thinking very specifically when Christ repeats in verse 6:53 "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day. This is not symbolic language. This is not figurative. This is a deal breaker and many walked away. I do not think they necessarily understood right then what Christ meant, but I do in fact believe that at the Last Supper, it became clear, and if not then it would have been clear when John relayed Christ’s words on the cross and the fourth cup of the passover sacrifice.

Keeping in mind that there are two questions: 1) what did Jesus mean by those words, and 2) when did Christians form the opinion that what he meant was the Real Presence of the Last Supper. Now obviously a Catholic raised on the belief in the Real Presence is going to make the inference that 1) Jesus means taking comunion but even so it does not follow from this passage that this was the understanding in 65AD. We might, for example, ask Protestants why they don’t read those words as proof of Real Presence.

Here is one thing to keep in mind: creating the Real Presence is not something that Catholics believe anyone can accomplish, no matter how pious and holy. Real Presence is the product of a Catholic Priest conducting a Catholic Mass.

Now you might say, hey, the Apostles were proto-priests. But they would not have thought of themselves as that so long as the Jewish Priesthood survived.

If by new ideas you would mean that which the Holy Spirit led the Church because they were not ready to hear everything I would say that there is much to Christianity that falls under that. Trinity, Mary, what books are inspired scripture…

Well, sure. At least you can see the general idea.

However, I disagree that the Real Presence of Christ was one of them. I think John completely understood and it is quite apparent his disciple did also.

It’s ok to disagree.

 

[MariaG]

Keeping in mind that there are two questions: 1) what did Jesus mean by those words, and 2) when did Christians form the opinion that what he meant was the Real Presence of the Last Supper. Now obviously a Catholic raised on the belief in the Real Presence is going to make the inference that 1) Jesus means taking comunion but even so it does not follow from this passage that this was the understanding in 65AD. We might, for example, ask Protestants why they don’t read those words as proof of Real Presence.

Well, I am not one of those Catholics I was not even a Sacramental Protestant or even one of the growing number of “bible Christians” who believe in more than a symbolic communion. The only Christian Churches I was in were symbolic only Christian Churches.

I truly believe I was led to this by the Holy Spirit. It was not until AFTER I felt convicted, I actually researched the Catholic arguments which solidified my belief.

As I do not speak or read any language but English ( and un poco de Espanol ), I particulary liked scripture Catholic and their breakdown of the language of John 6 discourse.

If this language had not been so strong, and repeated even more emphatically by Christ, you might have a point. And while the average Christian of the time might not have understood exactly, which I think we can safely say there were at least some who did not believe or there would not have been so many strong statements by ECF, I do not think you can make a case that John whom taught Ignatious and was one of the first saved writings defending the Real Presence, did not understand.

So I guess I could concede that there may have been some Christians who did not have the belief in the Real Presence, I just do not think there can be a strong case made for those who were teaching that the concept of the Real Presence was a development of doctrine in the same way as Mary has been, due primarily to the strong language of John 6 discourse of which the apostles were front and center.

Here is one thing to keep in mind: creating the Real Presence is not something that Catholics believe anyone can accomplish, no matter how pious and holy. Real Presence is the product of a Catholic Priest conducting a Catholic Mass.

Now you might say, hey, the Apostles were proto-priests. But they would not have thought of themselves as that so long as the Jewish Priesthood survived.

I disagree. It is laid out in Acts how to pick and replace the apostles. We also see a list of requirements for those who would be the authorities over others in the Church so I think they absolutely saw themselves as the ruling authority over Christians, and I am sure the whole “keys of the kingdom” being given to Peter it was absolutely seen as transfering power from the old covenant to the New.

Well, sure. At least you can see the general idea.

Absolutely.

It’s ok to disagree

Absolutely

God Bless,
Maria

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t really have anything of great substance to offer here, but I am finding this thread very interesting and informative.

Don’t mind me. I’m just marking it so that it will show up in my subscribed threads.

Carry on!

 

[Eucharisted]

Can anyone suggest a book that focuses on the period 65-110AD? Most books seem to focus on 33-65AD or more generally 33-300AD.

spurgeon.org/~phil/fathers.htm

64 Emperor Nero blames the fire that destroys much of Rome on the Christians. He persecutes the church ruthlessly, and uses Christians as candles to light his garden. It is likely that both Peter and Paul were executed during this persecution
68 The end of Nero’s reign
69 b. Polycarp, in Smyrna. He was a strong defender of the faith in Asia Minor combating the Marcionites and the Valentinians. Irenaeus reported that Polycarp had communication with John the Apostle and ‘others who had seen the Lord’
81 Domitian becomes Emperor. As Emperor, he persecuted both Jews and Christians
96 The end of Domitian’s reign
96 d. Clement of Rome. He wrote influential epistles to Corinth
98 Trajan becomes Emperor. Trajan eventually instituted a policy toward Christians that staid in effect until the time of Aurelius. His policy was not to seek Christians out, but if they were brought before the authorities they were to be punished, usually executed, for being Christians
By the end of the first century it is possible to document congregations in almost every city that Paul visited on his three missionary journeys. There are also a few churches in Egypt and along the coast of Northern Africa
107 Ignatius led to Rome and martyred
115 b. Ireneaus, the first great Catholic theologian and author of Against Heresies, a treatise against the gnostics

(source)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

spurgeon.org/~phil/fathers.htm

Very good, thank you.

churchtimeline.com/apostolic.htm

I found Clement’s epistle to Corinth which is dated 96AD (his death, I think). That seems to be the earliest writings after the destruction of the Temple.

More:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistles_of_Clement

What’s interesting from the general overview description is that Clement is asserting the authority of the appointed “episcopate” of “presbyters” continuing the generic usage of the terms from Acts.

1 Clement (Clement to Corinth) is considered authentic, 2 Clement is not attributed to him by historians.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

As I do not speak or read any language but English ( and un poco de Espanol ), I particulary liked scripture Catholic and their breakdown of the language of John 6 discourse. …I do not think you can make a case that John whom taught Ignatious and was one of the first saved writings defending the Real Presence, did not understand.

What strikes me most about the passages cited on the cite you gave above is that they are virtually all from John. I want to start a seperate thread on the Real Presence issue itself, which I have avoided in the “Invention” threads, but the thing to note about the Gospel of John is that 1) it is the most theological of the Gospels, and 2) it was the last written, probably sometime in 90-100AD and unlike the Synoptic Gospels, it was probably not an oral tradition before being written down. This puts John well past 65AD and into the period after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

I disagree. It is laid out in Acts how to pick and replace the apostles. We also see a list of requirements for those who would be the authorities over others in the Church so I think they absolutely saw themselves as the ruling authority over Christians, and I am sure the whole “keys of the kingdom” being given to Peter it was absolutely seen as transfering power from the old covenant to the New.

I think you misunderstand. “Priest” is not merely an alternative label to deacon. It has a distinct meaning in history and in Catholic theology. Before 65AD the priests were performing animal sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple and, according to Acts, the Apostles were still performing their Jewish obligations at the Temple (and generally). (Also, with respect to “authority”, the language of Acts etc, as discussed in the previous thread was generic, not official.)

 

[johnnydigit]

i think i was where Bubba is now at when i started looking at the Apostolic and Church Fathers for proof of the RCC’s authority, except i was convinced pretty early on and relied on faith for the rest, where he is still pursuing it, above and way beyond.

one thing that i pondered - what Jesus taught the Apostles during the 40 days before Pentecost. was any of it Catholic specific?

Bubba, your discussion is going way out of my league, but may i suggest that if you are Catholic(?), you may waste the rest of your life trying to figure out where you’re supposed to be as far as who has the authority, if any. there is so much you are missing out on, so much growth in spirituality and sanctity that you could be reaching with the immeasurable deposit of faith we have in the RCC. instead of moving forward, you remain stagnant, tearing out your hairs, even moving backwards, just as the one downstairs wants.

might i suggest reading the Lives of the Saints by Fr. Butler, and i hear The Imitation of Christ is pretty good too… both guaranteed to inspire and move you forward with Christ.

 

[Lapell]

In the first thread we discussed Real Presence as a post-Acts innovation. I would suggest the institutional priesthood, clergy, and hierarchy, generally. And the concept of the Church as the new Israel.

Were the Last Supper as recorded in the four Gospels a part of the discussion? You can’t just push it aside as though it were not in the Gospel…
As for the “institutional” priesthood, you seem to brush aside the quotes already brought here from Jesus Himself…
You sound like someone who, seeing that it’s sunny outside, pulls down the blinds and closes the dark curtains and states: “There is no sun outside!!!”
I’d rather hope I am exaggerating in saying this… for it would be a great tragedy!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Were the Last Supper as recorded in the four Gospels a part of the discussion? You can’t just push it aside as though it were not in the Gospel…

In both threads I was avoiding the question of whether Catholic practices and beliefs had Biblical justification and simply focused instead on whether they were believed and practiced by the end of Acts or where subsequent innovations. (It might be, for example, that belief in Real Presence is justified by, e.g., the Last Supper, but that the Apostles did not grasp it until after 65AD.)

As for the “institutional” priesthood, you seem to brush aside the quotes already brought here from Jesus Himself…You sound like someone who, seeing that it’s sunny outside, pulls down the blinds and closes the dark curtains and states: “There is no sun outside!!!” I’d rather hope I am exaggerating in saying this… for it would be a great tragedy!

If you asked Paul who the priests were would he have said “us” or would he point to the Jewish Priests in the Temple? There is simply no evidence that the Apostles thought of themselves as priests in Acts.