The Invention of Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Either way,they are variations in belief.
No - they’re not.
Wicked acts by some within the Church have nothing to do with doctrine.

The Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent had absolutely nothing to do with doctrines held by the Church. They had more - much more to do with the heresies being spread by the Protestant Rebels.

You can write all of the revisionist history you want but it will never change the facts, my confused friend.
 
When you two are done being self-congratulatory, tell me whether you think Paul, John or Peter would have been content to note the difference or whether they would have recognized that Jesus’ mandate to them wasn’t being fulfilled-the phrasing in Matthew was “teaching them to observe all things”

It’s not enough to teach, the recipients need to observe them and the Catholic church wasn’t doing that.

The Catholic church was content with the status quo until the Reformation and then it realized that cleanup had to occur to avoid further losses. Pius and Gregory changed the church’s direction in spite of opposition from a number of others in church leadership.
As I already told Bubba (and you) - the Counter Reformation and Council of Trent had more to do with the heresies being spread at the time by Protestant Rebels.

An ounce of truth is worth more than a pound of revisionism, my angry friend.
 
Right. But the key point with respect to sola scriptura is that the scriptures already had widespread legitimacy before canonization. Indeed, it would not be a great exageration to say that later canonization was in most part simply a legalization of an earlier de facto canonization.
I can understand that but it depends on what you mean by "widespread legitimacy?
 
Right. But the key point with respect to sola scriptura is that the scriptures already had widespread legitimacy before canonization. Indeed, it would not be a great exageration to say that later canonization was in most part simply a legalization of an earlier de facto canonization.
Sola Scriptura is not acceptable. No one believed it before it was invented by Martin Luther. If it was accepted where is your evidence, from Scriptures only, of course.
 
I can understand that but it depends on what you mean by "widespread legitimacy?
Sola Scriptura is not acceptable. No one believed it before it was invented by Martin Luther. If it was accepted where is your evidence, from Scriptures only, of course.
The most charitable interpretation of sola scriptura would be that it is a recognition that certain writings were widely regarded as authentic descriptions of the events of interest.

But while I agree with you that sola scriptura is not acceptable it is for a different reason. If you read Acts you see that the apostles were groping for the truth just as we are now. There was confusion. There were differences of opinion. There was a preference for pragmatism, a tendency to accept what worked and reject what didn’t.

I don’t find Paul to be any more confident than, say, NT Wright.

(By the way, another marker for the invention of Catholicism is the introduction of celibacy as a requirement of holy order. You won’t find that requirement in the NT. Peter, the “first pope”, was married.)
 
No - they’re not.
Wicked acts by some within the Church have nothing to do with doctrine.

The Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent had absolutely nothing to do with doctrines held by the Church. They had more - much more to do with the heresies being spread by the Protestant Rebels.

You can write all of the revisionist history you want but it will never change the facts, my confused friend.
All right…is it revisionist to say that for hundreds of years the popes and the Magesterium thought God told them He didn’t want people reading the Bible?
 
The most charitable interpretation of sola scriptura would be that it is a recognition that certain writings were widely regarded as authentic descriptions of the events of interest.

But while I agree with you that sola scriptura is not acceptable it is for a different reason. If you read Acts you see that the apostles were groping for the truth just as we are now. There was confusion. There were differences of opinion. There was a preference for pragmatism, a tendency to accept what worked and reject what didn’t.

I don’t find Paul to be any more confident than, say, NT Wright.

(By the way, another marker for the invention of Catholicism is the introduction of celibacy as a requirement of holy order. You won’t find that requirement in the NT. Peter, the “first pope”, was married.)
Yeh, not so much! That is completely incorrect. But let me ask you: If the RCC had just stuck to the Scriptures, do you think they would have avoided the unbiblical…gosh, let’s call it antibiblical…doctrine of PENANCE–getting assigned to do something other than confession to gain forgiveness for a sin–a sin which Jesus paid for with His own blood? Hmmm?
 
Yeh, not so much! That is completely incorrect.
What is “not so much?” (You quoted a bunch of stuff.)
But let me ask you: If the RCC had just stuck to the Scriptures, do you think they would have avoided the unbiblical…gosh, let’s call it antibiblical…doctrine of PENANCE–getting assigned to do something other than confession to gain forgiveness for a sin–a sin which Jesus paid for with His own blood? Hmmm?
I’m not actually advocating sticking to the scriptures, merely defending the Protestant idea that the distinctive features of Catholicism where invented after the end of Acts and that those books that are termed the NT are treated differently not just by Protestants but also by Catholics.

Obviosly, then, if you go solo scriptura you can throw out a lot of Catholicism.

The question then arises, if you read the NT and make inferences from it, do you then reconstruct Catholicism? (That would be the case if, as Catholics claim, Catholicism is based on the NT. E.g. “This is my body.” Or your example of penance.)
 
Well, since Protestants don’t seem to be up to defending their faith here, let me give it a try.

RESOLVED: That the elements of Catholicism that distinguish it from other Christian denominations were invented sometime in 2C AD after the end of Acts and before it was legalied by Constantine when Christianity was persecuted by the Romans.

Such elements include: Real Presence, the hierarchy of leadership (fathers, bishops, etc.), as well many elements common to most Christian denominations such as the de-Judization of Christianity.

Protestantism is, therefore, a valient and honest effort to return Christianity to its roots by sola scriptura and the avoidance of traditions invented by the Church after the end of Acts.
The problem is that there is not one faith “Protestant”.

Not all protestants believe what you label as “RESOLVED”.
 
As I already told Bubba (and you) - the Counter Reformation and Council of Trent had more to do with the heresies being spread at the time by Protestant Rebels.

An ounce of truth is worth more than a pound of revisionism, my angry friend.
I see that you aren’t willing to even read the materials produced by your own church on the topic, preferring the infallible magisterium of your own opinion regarding events.

If you won’t accept the work of faithful Catholics and the writings of Popes then you doubt Catholic testimony more than I do, so I’ll bring our discussion to an end, as it has no hope of progress.

Good luck to you. 🙂
 
Actually it is a sin to willingly omit an important ancient part of Christian history to promote your agenda above.

There has been a recurring theory among so called religious historians and bible scholars of either “Paul invented Catholicism” , “Paul invented Christianity” or “Catholicism was invented in the 2nd century AD”.

All of these “scholars” completely ignore the history of the Catholic and church founded in India by St. Thomas the Apostle in 52AD.

see this article

The liturgical church, its sacraments, and its Apostolic priesthood was established independent of western influence for nearly 3 centuries (post 52AD)

Therefore, all theorist claim Paul invented Catholicism or Christianity, or all evangelical protestant theories claiming the Catholic Church is a post 2nd century AD invention, are UTTERLY DESTROYED BY THE MISSION, HISTORY, TRADITION, AND LEGACY OF ST. THOMAS THE APOSTLE.

That is all.
Interesting post, codebilly. I’ve heard a lot about this church in India, but not these particular items.

Two questions:
  1. If all believers need to submit to the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome as Catholicism claims and the church founded by Thomas was Catholic-why were they independent of western influence for 3 centuries? Should they not have sent representatives to Rome to ensure their adherence to the true faith?
  2. If the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome resolved all major disputes in the early church, why did this church go to Alexandria to resolve the problems it was having?
It seems that this church had a much more Orthodox view of the episcopal hierarchy than a Catholic one.
 
Such elements include: Real Presence, the hierarchy of leadership (fathers, bishops, etc.), as well many elements common to most Christian denominations such as the de-Judization of Christianity.
I’d like to refer you to scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html . It has a very thorough scriptural explanation of the Eucharist and why Catholics believe in the Real Presence. You might never agree with us, but at least acknowledge that we do have a Biblical basis for it.

I will high light some of what I find to be helpful in the discussion of the real presence.

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

Now, my favorite from St. Paul is 1 Cor. 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
 
You might never agree with us, but at least acknowledge that we do have a Biblical basis for it.
Right, but the question I put forward here was not about the biblical basis (i.e. is the belief justified by the NT) but whether the belief and practice began after the end of Acts. One might argue that the Real Presence is a logical inference from the NT and still concede that the inference was not made in the time of Acts.
 
That is why I added the verses from 1 Corinthians. If they didn’t believe in the Real Presence, then why would St. Paul say that you would be eating condemnation on yourself for doing it unworthily.

As for what they believed and when, I have been reading a good book on that called The Story of the Mass From the Last Supper to the Present Day**By Pierre Loret. The 1st chapter is The Mass in the Time of the Apostles. From page 19, “Luke tells us: ‘They went to the temple area together every day, while in their homes they broke bread’ (Acts 2:46 - In Saint Luke’s writings the ‘breaking of bread’ refers to the Eucharist.)”

So, it is in Acts. It is just not there in a way that you recognize, maybe since you are not in a church that believes in the Real Presence.
 
Also, please do check out www.scripturecatholic.com and let me know what you think about his explanation about it. I have many Christian friends who have questions about Catholicism. This is one of the sites that I reference when seeking answers to their questions. It would be nice to hear what a non-Catholic thinks of it. I really want to be able to direct people to good sources of information and answer their questions with charity and honesty.
 
What is “not so much?” (You quoted a bunch of stuff.)

I’m not actually advocating sticking to the scriptures, merely defending the Protestant idea that the distinctive features of Catholicism where invented after the end of Acts and that those books that are termed the NT are treated differently not just by Protestants but also by Catholics.

Obviosly, then, if you go solo scriptura you can throw out a lot of Catholicism.

The question then arises, if you read the NT and make inferences from it, do you then reconstruct Catholicism? (That would be the case if, as Catholics claim, Catholicism is based on the NT. E.g. “This is my body.” Or your example of penance.)
I guess I’ll state the obvious–that the reason they rail at Sola Scriptura so much is that you CANNOT reconstruct Roman Catholicism from the NT without off-the-charts eisegesis.
 
Stephen168;4795405:
Seeing as how none of us were privy to the discussions, on what was or was not to be included, what kind of answer do you want?
By the mid second century when the idea of a canon of scripture first entered the mind of the Christian community, there was a lot to choose from. Over the following 200 years or so, we know that the Catholic Bishops selected their favorites until late in the 4th it seem to settle on the list we have now. Also written in the second century is the oldest known description of a Christian worship service. In the writing, Justin Martyr tells us when they gathered on Sunday they read the writings of the prophets and the memoirs of the Apostles. Now, considering what we have now, I would suggest the Catholic Church selected writings by the Apostles at least thought to be associated with the Apostles. So as meaningful as Ignatius and Clement were, they were out. We can still use Clement and Ignatius to understand what the first Christian believed, they just didn’t make the cut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top