The Invention of Catholicism?

[CoachSTL]

What I was arguing here was that Protestants have sought to bypass the post-Acts Church (for the most part, there are obvious exceptions) and link back to the Apostolic Church.

The question might be asked, though, whether Catholicism is simply one of those inventions. After all, Catholics disagree with Protestants just as Protestants disagree among themselves.

Both words are inventions, of course. (The word “Christian” was not invented by Christians but by pagans.)

The interesting thing is that there have always been “heretical teachings”. The Catholic claim is, of course, that it is the true teaching and that all others are false. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is simply whether Catholicism is today what it was in the Apostolic age. Obviously not.

Bubba,

Your comlex questining is only establishing more credibility with what I just wrote to you. The issue is as you ask, “whether Catholicism is today what is was in the apostolic ages” .

First and foremost, Catholicism is not an “invention”. The invention is the word “Catholic”. Christiantiy, the teaching and “invention” of Christ if you will, which is Catholic (meaning universal for all to receive).

The word Catholic, when it was invented, prior to 80 AD, was used to differentiate and distinguish the true teachings and followers of Christ’s teaching.

The true Teachings of Christ have to exist today and they have to be Catholic (universal for all to follow). If it doesn’t exist today, then that means His Teachings were subject to failure.

You can question the authencity of Jesus’ Teachings all day long, go ahead, you have that free will to do so. You can also make claims that the Bible is the authority. Go ahead, you have that free will to do so. But just you question it or make claims doesn’t make your points valid or true.

I think your problem is that you do not fully understand the word Catholic or how it was when it was invented.

Prayerfully,

Coachstl

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The issue is as you ask, “whether Catholicism is today what is was in the apostolic ages” . First and foremost, Catholicism is not an “invention”. The invention is the word “Catholic”.

Do you think it is the same today as in the Apastolic Age? Are you seriously claiming that the only thing new is the world “Catholic”?

The true Teachings of Christ have to exist today and they have to be Catholic (universal for all to follow). If it doesn’t exist today, then that means His Teachings were subject to failure.

Transubstantiation was not a dogma of the Apostolic Church. There may be dogmas added that are not held today. Where is the “failure” in this?

 

[ron77nyc]

Catholic means universal = all Christians who believe in the resurrection

Early Catholics only had Jewish law and tradition and were not required to live under it.

Roman Catholic = Christians who are required to live under Roman law and tradition

 

[look3467]

“The less people use their minds the right way, the more opinionated they become.” I love this saying! It is protestant in a nut shell! It amazes me that poeple can open up a bible and seem to think they know what those poeple are saying without any guidance or real education!

If you knew nothing else, (void of any knowledge of the Catholic Church) and if you were stranded on an island only with a bible in your hand, read it over and over, and died after many years, would you think that there was enough information in the bible to lead you to belief in God?

The question is: Is there enough information in the bible to receive from God the gift of salvation?

But, let’s say that after reading the bible many times over, and instead of dying, you were able to go back to civilization, what do you suppose your thoughts would be about the Catholic Church and or other religious beliefs?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If you knew nothing else, (void of any knowledge of the Catholic Church) and if you were stranded on an island only with a bible in your hand, read it over and over, and died after many years, would you think that there was enough information in the bible to lead you to belief in God?

The question is: Is there enough information in the bible to receive from God the gift of salvation?

But, let’s say that after reading the bible many times over, and instead of dying, you were able to go back to civilization, what do you suppose your thoughts would be about the Catholic Church and or other religious beliefs?

These are very good questions. And notice that they are very different from one another, although many people treat them as equivalent.

Protestants claim (essentially) that all you need is the Bible to be saved (more or less). But they (sometimes seem to) claim further that you don’t really need to think about it too much, that if it’s not explicitly there then it’s not important for salvation. (For example, pergatory is implied, not explicit.)

You might also ask, is it possible to reconstruct Catholicism from the Bible alone? And is there any value beyond indulging our curiosity to exploring questions that are not directly and simply dealt with in the Bible?

This brings us to something that no Catholic has yet brought up in this thread after 621 posts. Your post is the closest to raising this issue. And that is…

 

[jmcrae]

Hey, coachstl, were you a salesman in your previous life? Because it sounds like you’re trying to sell the idea that Protestants are not Christians ! That would reduce us all to Jews and Gentiles, right? Oh wait a minute, you guys claim that your church was started by a Jew; so would that make you Messianic Jews? I am a believer and follower of Christ first, and whatever label you catholics prefer to hang on me second! I choose non-denominational, because that way, I am not “bound” by any religious body, which has rules, rituals and LAWS! Just like being a political independent, free to vote your heart, not the ticket.

At some point, you might decide that it’s not really your heart you want to follow, but God’s heart. On that day, you will begin your journey into the Catholic Church.

 

[Ross09]

Jesus brought us a Church, not a book. So why does the question of regenerating Catholicism from the Bible matter? Just about every belief system goes beyond their sacred texts. People meet, they worship and praise in different ways, fast, give, etc. They aren’t just sitting and reading a book.

 

[jmcrae]

These are very good questions. And notice that they are very different from one another, although many people treat them as equivalent.

Protestants claim (essentially) that all you need is the Bible to be saved (more or less). But they (sometimes seem to) claim further that you don’t really need to think about it too much, that if it’s not explicitly there then it’s not important for salvation. (For example, pergatory is implied, not explicit.)

You might also ask, is it possible to reconstruct Catholicism from the Bible alone? And is there any value beyond indulging our curiosity to exploring questions that are not directly and simply dealt with in the Bible?

This brings us to something that no Catholic has yet brought up in this thread after 621 posts. Your post is the closest to raising this issue. And that is…

Well, it is certainly not possible to reconstruct Protestantism from the Bible. If a person were to return to civilization, he would look for the organization that had the Apostles as its leaders (Matthew 28:16-20); he would look for the one that resolves its disputes by means of Apostolic Councils (Acts 15) - and I doubt he would even think of looking for one that didn’t even get started until 1517 or later, or where they resolve their disputes by splitting into two or more organizations, each with its own opinions.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

At some point, you might decide that it’s not really your heart you want to follow, but God’s heart. On that day, you will begin your journey into the Catholic Church.

I started a new thread on this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4863945

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus brought us a Church, not a book. So why does the question of regenerating Catholicism from the Bible matter? Just about every belief system goes beyond their sacred texts. People meet, they worship and praise in different ways, fast, give, etc. They aren’t just sitting and reading a book.

It matters because that is how Protestants approach the question. And the reason that Protestants approach the question that way is because they don’t trust Catholicism. And the reasons for that are found in your history books.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, it is certainly not possible to reconstruct Protestantism from the Bible.

Why not? What’s missing?

 

[Ross09]

It matters because that is how Protestants approach the question. And the reason that Protestants approach the question that way is because they don’t trust Catholicism. And the reasons for that are found in your history books.

Well, I think it is backwards. I’d rather believe in the Church Jesus promised us with all of it’s sacraments than sit alone with a book and try to make that be my only source of communion with Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

Why not? What’s missing?

The various traditions and beliefs on which they disagree, including: the Trinity (not all Protestants believe in the Trinity, because it is not found explicitly in the Bible), the hypostatic union (which is also not explicit in the Bible), various traditions such as “The Romans Road” or “The Four Spiritual Laws” (if you hadn’t at some time been told that these were the most important verses to read in the Bible, would it have ever occurred to you, on your own, to elevate them above the rest of the scriptures?) - the mental gymnastics that allows you to have Altar Calls in buildings that don’t actually have any altars in them, because having an altar would lead to idolotry - stuff like that.

 

[CoachSTL]

Do you think it is the same today as in the Apastolic Age? Are you seriously claiming that the only thing new is the world “Catholic”?

Transubstantiation was not a dogma of the Apostolic Church. There may be dogmas added that are not held today. Where is the “failure” in this?

Bubba,

Your line of answer is questioning and is not in line with what I am asking or telling you. I have answered your questions with straight forward dialogue. I am only trying to understand you. So, let’s first esatblsih what you are arguing about.

You are refuting that the proclamation by the Cathilic Church that, “is it the one true Church established by Christ” is an untrue statement. Correct?

By the way, the Trinity or preaching that the Bible is the only authority of Christianity was not a dogma of the Apostolic Church with either! Yet you proclaim it as the true teaching of Christ. Why do you so?

Prayerfully,

coachstl

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The various traditions and beliefs on which they disagree, including: the Trinity (not all Protestants believe in the Trinity, because it is not found explicitly in the Bible), the hypostatic union (which is also not explicit in the Bible), various traditions such as “The Romans Road” or “The Four Spiritual Laws” (if you hadn’t at some time been told that these were the most important verses to read in the Bible, would it have ever occurred to you, on your own, to elevate them above the rest of the scriptures?) - the mental gymnastics that allows you to have Altar Calls in buildings that don’t actually have any altars in them, because having an altar would lead to idolotry - stuff like that.

I think you are confusing two issues here: 1) The reluctance of Protestants to trust Catholic Dogma, and 2) The reluctance of Protestans to use logical inference when studying the Bible.

Let’s keep (1) for the moment but discard (2). Let’s allow that, in reconstructing Catholic dogma, we can use logical inference. Thus all Biblical arguments are valid no matter how complex. It doesn’t have to be explicit in the Bible, just inferable through reason and logic.

Reconstructing the Trinity is pretty straightforward. God is One but there are multiple “personalities” or manifestations of God, namely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Similarly for Romans Road, etc.

gotquestions.org/Romans-road-salvation.html

campuscrusade.com/fourlawseng.htm

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Your line of answer is questioning and is not in line with what I am asking or telling you. I have answered your questions with straight forward dialogue.

Actually, you haven’t. So let me ask again:

Are you seriously claiming that the only thing new is the word “Catholic”?

You are refuting that the proclamation by the Cathilic Church that, “is it the one true Church established by Christ” is an untrue statement. Correct?

Incorrect. I am pointing out that Christianity (and Catholicism) has evolved over two mellenia. That the Catholic Church of today does not believe the same things that the Apostolic Church believed. And that when Protestants go to the Bible as their authority the cut out a lot of Catholic innovations. I am not commenting here on whether that is good or bad. Merely making what would seem to me to be an obvious observation.

By the way, the Trinity or preaching that the Bible is the only authority of Christianity was not a dogma of the Apostolic Church with either! Yet you proclaim it as the true teaching of Christ. Why do you so?

I havent (in this thread) made any claims about which dogmas are true and which are false. I have limited myself to discussing which were believed by the Apostles and which were invented later.

 

[jmcrae]

I think you are confusing two issues here: 1) The reluctance of Protestants to trust Catholic Dogma, and 2) The reluctance of Protestans to use logical inference when studying the Bible.

Why should these be separated? Both of them are salient aspects of Protestantism.

Let’s keep (1) for the moment but discard (2). Let’s allow that, in reconstructing Catholic dogma, we can use logical inference. Thus all Biblical arguments are valid no matter how complex. It doesn’t have to be explicit in the Bible, just inferable through reason and logic.

Right - and most of them are.

Reconstructing the Trinity is pretty straightforward. God is One but there are multiple “personalities” or manifestations of God, namely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Um - this is a heresy. (I’ve forgotten the name of it.) The Trinity is three distinct Persons (not manifestations), who share one will (they all think with the same mind), and one Divine nature.

 

[CoachSTL]

Actually, you haven’t. So let me ask again:

Are you seriously claiming that the only thing new is the word “Catholic”?

Incorrect. I am pointing out that Christianity (and Catholicism) has evolved over two mellenia. That the Catholic Church of today does not believe the same things that the Apostolic Church believed. And that when Protestants go to the Bible as their authority the cut out a lot of Catholic innovations. I am not commenting here on whether that is good or bad. Merely making what would seem to me to be an obvious observation.

I havent (in this thread) made any claims about which dogmas are true and which are false. I have limited myself to discussing which were believed by the Apostles and which were invented later.

Bubba,

Your indifference is only argumentative, very unattractive and not anything productive. You are constantly creating an argument on top of an argument. And, Jesus warns us against indifferent dialogue and quarrel.

What is your purpose for making accusations that the Catholic Church does not teach what it did in apostolic times?

If you are truly seeking the truth about what Christ taught, which is what I thought you were doing but I do not feel you are anymore, than ask Him to tell you today. He will!

prayerfully,

coachstl

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why should these be separated? Both of them are salient aspects of Protestantism.

If you just want to beat up Protestants, be my guest. But if we’re exploring the question of whether Catholicism can be resoncstructed from the Bible the it makes sense to distinguish these two points. If it turns out that Catholicism can be reconstructed from the Bible through the liberal application of reason then all you need to do to convert a Protestant to a Catholic is convince them to use reason in theology.

Right - and most of them are.

So which are not and why not?

Um - this is a heresy. (I’ve forgotten the name of it.) The Trinity is three distinct Persons (not manifestations), who share one will (they all think with the same mind), and one Divine nature.

Are you thinking of “Manifested Sons of God heresy”?

christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/outlines/outline_00076_manifested_sons_of_god_web.htm

The Trinity is often explained by analogy to water, ice, and steam, for example.

In any case, the Persons of the Trinity are inferrable from the Bible (e.g. Jesus prays to God in the garden).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What is your purpose for making accusations that the Catholic Church does not teach what it did in apostolic times?

Pursuit of truth. I won’t bother to ask the question again, it’s obvious that you don’t want to answer it. Maybe you should ask yourself why you find that question to be so discomforting.