The Invention of Catholicism?

[Stephen168]

All 1C AD. I really couldn’t tell you anything more about them than wikipedia.

Even though you have not defined the universal Protestant, when you suggest that Catholics, Coptics, and Orthodox were all different groups in the first century, I think you are making a distinction without a difference (from the mythical universal Protestant point of view)

 

[Non_Serviam]

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.

Other than the fact that I would use small “c”'s on the catholic references, this makes a great deal of sense-the various churches who had received Epistles vouched for their authenticity and traded with each other.

Bubba has made a good point that canonization was simply “officializing” what was already acknowledged, the same argument Catholics make for dogmas like the Assumption or Papal Infallibility.

A number of years ago F.F. Bruce wrote a wonderful book on the topic called The Canon that did a tremendous job of collecting the relevant information of the various references and lists that led up to canonization as well as the disputes that arose.

 

[mercygate]

You mean to tell me that the Apostles made it to every single church that formed after Pentecost to give instructions for the Mass? I don’t think so.

Ah, but it is clear that there was much hands-on formation. In a culture of oral tradition, everything got passed on from hand to hand – or rather, from hand to head by the laying on of hands. In one of his epistles, Paul writes to correct misunderstandings (I have brain fuzz: I just read this less than a month ago but can’t remember which letter). In 3 John we see the complaint that people are accepting false leadership . . . Where churches started up without strong Apostolic initiative, there was subsequent reinforcement. In Acts, apostles are sent to align independently started churches.

 

[elvisman]

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?

**Yup. **
Not only is that revisioinist - it’s a bald-face lie spread by ignorant anti-Catholics.

First of all - bibles weren’t readily available as they are now. They were handwritten and were chained to the pulpits to prevent them from being stolen. On top of this - most people were illiterate and COULDN’T read. That’s why religious paintings were so prevalent.

Do yourself a favor - stop embarrassing yourself and do some homework on the subject before making such ridiculous claims.

 

[Stephen168]

Bubba has made a good point that canonization was simply “officializing” what was already acknowledged, the same argument Catholics make for dogmas like the Assumption or Papal Infallibility.

I’m not sure I would use the word ‘simply’ for a 200 year process. If by ‘acknowledge;’ you mean they acknowledged them as having Apostolic origins; then yes I agree.

 

[elvisman]

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.

Ahhh - I see. You produce nothing but angry opinion and when history has you backed up against a wall, you quit the conversation.

**Well - good luck to you, too my friend. I hope you find what you’re looking for. **

 

[catholic_daddy]

Yup.
Not only is that revisioinist - it’s a bald-face lie spread by ignorant anti-Catholics.

First of all - bibles weren’t readily available as they are now. They were handwritten and were chained to the pulpits to prevent them from being stolen. On top of this - most people were illiterate and COULDN’T read. That’s why religious paintings were so prevalent.

**Do yourself a favor - stop embarrassing yourself and do some homework **on the subject before making such ridiculous claims.

Actually you need to check the facts. I know it has to be very embarrassing for the RCC and makes one wonder about infallability and such, but the Bible was on the list of banned books for hundreds of years and you were cursed if you read from that list.
Read it and weep (or better, repent)–
FACT 1: Until the present generation, the Roman Catholic Church forbade her people to read the Bible for themselves under pain of ‘mortal sin.’ That is, the Catholic who owned or read the Bible was de facto condemned to Hell.

Evidence:

The Bible was placed on Rome’s Index of Forbidden Books list by the Council of Toulouse/Toledo in the year 1229. It remained there until the index was discontinued at Vatican Council II. Anyone reading or owning a ‘forbidden’ book was anathematized, or cursed and remanded to hell for doing so.

Cannon 14 from the Council of Toulouse says that the Roman Catholic Church:

“Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament… and most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.”

Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating confirms this fact when he writes that, “the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the [Albigensian] heresy was ended.” (Page 45, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating). The peculiar thing is that the Bible remained on the Index of Forbidden Books for another 730 years! In his dance with truth, Mr. Keating takes care to omit this little fact.

Still More Evidence. This teaching was confirmed at the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8, 1546 Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures). The Council of Trent went further, stating that anyone who dared study Scriptures on their own must “be punished with the penalties by law established.” With incredible audacity, the Council of Trent went so far as to forbid even the printing of and sale of the Bible! Anyone daring to violate this decree was anathematized, or cursed and damned to Hell for it. (Dogmatic Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent…, pages 11-13; Copyright 1977, 1912, with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Tan Books and Publishers, P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

Yes, we looked at that earlier and it is ambiguous at best.

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.

I don’t think anyone (seriously) disputes that they “broke bread” at this time. The question is whether they believed in Real Presence. In other words, Protestants could well claim that they are “breaking bread” as the apostles did in Acts.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

I believe that’s the very gauntlet that I’ve thrown down here. Thanks for stating it so directly.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

Right, but you’ve not really answered the question. Why distinguish between the writings of the apostles (which, for whatever reason, includes Paul), and those who came close on their heels?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

I think it would be useful if you could draw from there to answer this:

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.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, Peter had been married at some point in time. He does not appear to have been married when he was an Apostle.

And married “bishops” and “deacons” were being appointed.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Even though you have not defined the universal Protestant, when you suggest that Catholics, Coptics, and Orthodox were all different groups in the first century, I think you are making a distinction without a difference (from the mythical universal Protestant point of view)

Hmmm. That would probably deserve a thread of its own. For purposes of this thread, let’s define a Protestant as one who a) rejects the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (as opposed to rejecting everything that the Catholic Church says) and b) forms a seperate church of like-minded individuals who share one or more “heretical” beliefs.

By this definition, Gnostics and Ebionites would certainly be “Protestant”.

 

[st_lucy]

Actually you need to check the facts. I know it has to be very embarrassing for the RCC and makes one wonder about infallability and such, but the Bible was on the list of banned books for hundreds of years and you were cursed if you read from that list.
Read it and weep (or better, repent)–
FACT 1: Until the present generation, the Roman Catholic Church forbade her people to read the Bible for themselves under pain of ‘mortal sin.’ That is, the Catholic who owned or read the Bible was de facto condemned to Hell.

Evidence:

The Bible was placed on Rome’s Index of Forbidden Books list by the Council of Toulouse/Toledo in the year 1229. It remained there until the index was discontinued at Vatican Council II. Anyone reading or owning a ‘forbidden’ book was anathematized, or cursed and remanded to hell for doing so.

Okay we need to seriously stop and think about this. When was the printing press invented? How many books were in circulation in 1229? And exactly how many lay people knew how to read in 1229?

Cannon 14 from the Council of Toulouse says that the Roman Catholic Church:

“Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament… and most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.”

Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating confirms this fact when he writes that, “the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the [Albigensian] heresy was ended.” (Page 45, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating). The peculiar thing is that the Bible remained on the Index of Forbidden Books for another 730 years! In his dance with truth, Mr. Keating takes care to omit this little fact.

Still More Evidence. This teaching was confirmed at the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8, 1546 Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures). The Council of Trent went further, stating that anyone who dared study Scriptures on their own must “be punished with the penalties by law established.” With incredible audacity, the Council of Trent went so far as to forbid even the printing of and sale of the Bible! Anyone daring to violate this decree was anathematized, or cursed and damned to Hell for it. (Dogmatic Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent…, pages 11-13; Copyright 1977, 1912, with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Tan Books and Publishers, P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105)

The TRUTH is my Grandmother (born 1921) grew up reading the bible and where did she learn it from her parents born in the mid and late 1800’s and they in turn learned it from their parents. I have a friend who owns a bible that was given to her mother from her mother. Which dates back to the early 1800’s, It looked very read to me.

This ridiculous claim that Catholics where not allowed to read the bible until the last few generation is totally bunk and when those who tend to fall for this lie continue to make such claims even when proven other wise are in turn lairs and gossips nothing more

I mean really why on earth would the Catholic Church ban reading a book that She herself gave the world? Really the Church has nothing to hid.

 

[mercygate]

That’s what I asked. Why Paul and Luke and not Ignatius?

One of the criteria was that the writing was from an Apostle or (as with Mark & Luke) someone at the right hand of an Apostle. Ignatius’ letters were considered for inclusion but didn’t make the cut. Nor did the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, written before the death of John.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One of the criteria was that the writing was from an Apostle or (as with Mark & Luke) someone at the right hand of an Apostle. Ignatius’ letters were considered for inclusion but didn’t make the cut. Nor did the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, written before the death of John.

A distinction was made for a reason. (Or are you arguing that it was an arbitrary cutoff?)

The reason that we are discussing Ignatius is that he did, indeed, believe in the Real Presence and (it is commonly believed but uncertain that) he studied under John the Apostle.

A great deal of what distinguishes Catholicism from Protestantism begins with Ignatius.

 

[Contarini]

How can there be sola scriptura, if the pre-Biblical Church was already corrupted? Because if you say that the Nicene Creed was “invented” in 325 AD, then you also have to say that the Bible was “invented” 80 years later, when the canon of the New Testament was promulgated to the Catholic Church by Pope Innocent I.

Oh come on. You spoil a good case by this silly and tired argument.

The New Testament did not come into existence at the end of the fourth century, just because disputes over the NT canon more or less ended at that point. The identification of a fairly authoritative declaration regarding the canon with the “creation” of the New Testament is simply absurd and only discredits Catholic apologists who use it.

Edwin

 

[Stephen168]

Right, but you’ve not really answered the question. Why distinguish between the writings of the apostles (which, for whatever reason, includes Paul), and those who came close on their heels?

I believe I did.

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.

 

[Stephen168]

And married “bishops” and “deacons” were being appointed.

Yes, as well as single Bishops and Deacons. I wonder what the Orthodox and Coptic take is on single clergy.

 

[Stephen168]

Hmmm. That would probably deserve a thread of its own. For purposes of this thread, let’s define a Protestant as one who a) rejects the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (as opposed to rejecting everything that the Catholic Church says) and b) forms a seperate church of like-minded individuals who share one or more “heretical” beliefs.

By this definition, Gnostics and Ebionites would certainly be “Protestant”.

Yes, second century Protestants.