The Invention of Catholicism?

[Bubba_Switzler]

I believe I did.

I want to understand you more precisely, then.

Are you saying that, in retrospect, given the Protestant idea of sola scriptura, it would have been better if Ignatius’ writings had been included?

Or are you simply repeating that Ignatius was not certain to have been associated with the apostles and therefore the church erred on the side caution in not including his writings?

There is one criteria that you are not considering: that what was included in the NT was already in wide use. That was probably not the case with Ignatius’ writings. Wide use implies acceptance and agreement.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, second century Protestants.

Even if you take the conservative position on them, that still puts them in the same time frame as the formation of the (distinctive features of the) Catholic Church.

 

[mercygate]

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

Clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Church and not a doctrine. The early church had both married and unmarried clergy. The preference for continence is confirmed in the third canon of the Council of Nicea. The Catholic Church today has married priests in the Eastern Churches and has Ordained married Anglican and Lutheran converts.

 

[mercygate]

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”.

But Protestants believe fundamental propositions of Christianity – the human and divine nature of Christ, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection; Gnostics flunk that test hands down. The Ebionite heresy was based on the substance of the Council of Jerusalem; they seem to have been a second-century start-up operation; there is no indication that they were ever in the church at all.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But Protestants believe fundamental propositions of Christianity – the human and divine nature of Christ, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection; Gnostics flunk that test hands down. The Ebionite heresy was based on the substance of the Council of Jerusalem; they seem to have been a second-century start-up operation; there is no indication that they were ever in the church at all.

As I said, the definition I gave was very crude but I think your evaluation is biased toward the forms of “Protestantism” that prevail today and by what they share with Catholicism. That should not be surprising given that Protestantism arose 1500 years later.

(And, by the way, I’ve met plenty of orthodox Catholics, and Protestants too for that matter, who have no clue about bodily ressurection. They think their destiny is to become angels.)

The Ebionite “heresy” is interesting because it was pertinent to the early debates about keeping the Torah. There was no concensus on this point in Acts but much debate and fumbling about.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Clerical celibacy is a discipline of the Church and not a doctrine. The early church had both married and unmarried clergy. The preference for continence is confirmed in the third canon of the Council of Nicea. The Catholic Church today has married priests in the Eastern Churches and has Ordained married Anglican and Lutheran converts.

True enough. My point, though, was that it arose around the same time, i.e. between the end of Acts and Constantine.

 

[mercygate]

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

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.

Perhaps you would enjoy John Henry Newman’s book, *Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. *He was a Protestant when he wrote it. It delineates our growing understanding of doctrine as the Church has been buffetted by time and culture through the ages. As with the canon of scripture, the Church has not hammered down its teachings until the need has arisen.

So you are right that Catholicism as you see it today looks different from what you think you see in the New Testament. But that is hardly a problem. You stick around for 2000 years and see if your wisdom and understanding do not increase.

 

[mercygate]

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)

Great post!

Glad to know that the Bible was put on the Index more than 300 years before the Index was established (at Trent)!

The Council of Trent did NOT forbid publishing and sale of the Bible. It reprobated the sale of unauthorized versions and unapproved commentary.

Here is the actual quote from Session IV: a far cry from the rant you have pasted into your post.:

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter [of interpreting Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers], also on printers, who now without restraint,-- thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,-- print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible . . . .

(emphasis mine)

 

[Stephen168]

Even if you take the conservative position on them, that still puts them in the same time frame as the formation of the (distinctive features of the) Catholic Church.

But late enough to Protestants.

 

[Stephen168]

I want to understand you more precisely, then.

Are you saying that, in retrospect, given the Protestant idea of sola scriptura, it would have been better if Ignatius’ writings had been included?

Or are you simply repeating that Ignatius was not certain to have been associated with the apostles and therefore the church erred on the side caution in not including his writings?

There is one criteria that you are not considering: that what was included in the NT was already in wide use. That was probably not the case with Ignatius’ writings. Wide use implies acceptance and agreement.

I’m saying that the Bishops selected writings associated with men that knew Christ. Clement and Ignatius were taught by the Apostles, so they knew their teaching, but they did not know Christ.
The very fact we have their letters would demonstrate their acceptance. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was read during Christian services. If acceptance was the criterion for the canon, it would be huge and never ending. Almost every time a Bishop wrote something down it would be in the canon. The documents of Nicea would surely have been included.

 

[mercygate]

True enough. My point, though, was that it arose around the same time, i.e. between the end of Acts and Constantine.

You seem to think that’s a bad thing. That adaptation in practice and the ever-more-detailed definition of doctrine as we come to clearer understanding is unacceptable.

If the Council of Nicea is your problem point, then you would reject the Trinity and the hypostatic union . . . You should also reject the canon of Scripture and go hang out with those Ebionites, since the canon was clinched in the late 4th Century. Or maybe you could accept the undisputed books but ditch Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation.

 

[jmcrae]

Either way,they are variations in belief.

Which doctrine of the faith was being “varied”?

 

[elvisman]

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)

Hooray** for you for getting your information from tainted sources. The anti-Catholic website that you gleaned this information from, “The Roman Catholic Observer” via angelfire.com, is ripe with misrepresentations and half-truths about the Catholic Church.**

---

**The penalties or anathemas related to self-interpretation were aimed at stopping further heresies from spreading because this had become widespread by the Protestant Rebels of the 16th Century. New forms of old heresies such as Manichaenism and Albigensian heresies were rearing their ugly heads because of flawed hermeneutics by prideful and wicked men. You’re failure stems from the refusal to understand that most people at the time were illiterate. **

---

Those in the so-called educated class were the very ones spreading the heresies. This is who these anathemas are aimed at. I think you already knew that but are spreading this lie only to take a position and make a point – no matter how flawed.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You seem to think that’s a bad thing. That adaptation in practice and the ever-more-detailed definition of doctrine as we come to clearer understanding is unacceptable.

Actually, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. In fact, I so don’t think so that I hesitate to criticize Protestants when they do it too.

If the Council of Nicea is your problem point, then you would reject the Trinity and the hypostatic union . . . You should also reject the canon of Scripture and go hang out with those Ebionites, since the canon was clinched in the late 4th Century. Or maybe you could accept the undisputed books but ditch Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation.

This is a bit off-topic but where I think Protestants make their mistake is in trying to draw a rigid line between authentic Christianity and Catholicism. My “problem point” is not this or that council but with the belief that anything is undisputed. Even Christ’s divinity is disputed.

Perhaps you would enjoy John Henry Newman’s book, *Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. *He was a Protestant when he wrote it. It delineates our growing understanding of doctrine as the Church has been buffetted by time and culture through the ages. As with the canon of scripture, the Church has not hammered down its teachings until the need has arisen.

I’ll look for that book. Thanks for the recomendation.

So you are right that Catholicism as you see it today looks different from what you think you see in the New Testament. But that is hardly a problem. You stick around for 2000 years and see if your wisdom and understanding do not increase.

You are implying here that apperances are deceiving, that it was substantially the same. But the debate over Real Presence is not a matter of appearance. It is a core Catholic belief that distinguishes (most of) Protestantism. (And there is some subtle difference with Eastern Orthodox that I’ve never figured out.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Which doctrine of the faith was being “varied”?

In the case of the Ebionites, there were a bunch but for our purposes we can focus on two: they denied the divinity of Jesus and they held that the Torah must be observed in full.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m saying that the Bishops selected writings associated with men that knew Christ. Clement and Ignatius were taught by the Apostles, so they knew their teaching, but they did not know Christ. The very fact we have their letters would demonstrate their acceptance. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was read during Christian services. If acceptance was the criterion for the canon, it would be huge and never ending. Almost every time a Bishop wrote something down it would be in the canon. The documents of Nicea would surely have been included.

Paul did not know Christ, neither did Luke. (Paul encountered the risen Christ but then so have many Saints.) How did Paul get in there?

As for a never ending canon, why would that be a problem?

We still do not have a clear answer: what was special about the books that were included in the NT?

 

[jmcrae]

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

Do you think that the Gideons were passing out New Tesaments to children of catechetical age prior to Pope Innocent’s final declaration of the canon of the New Testament?

The codex that forms the template of those Gideon New Testaments was created by St. Jerome in the years following the declaration of the canon of the New Testament. Prior to that, yes, of course the books existed, but they were under separate bindings; they weren’t yet all bound together into one codex, as they were once St. Jerome got hold of them.

 

[Stephen168]

Paul did not know Christ, neither did Luke. (Paul encountered the risen Christ but then so have many Saints.) How did Paul get in there?

As for a never ending canon, why would that be a problem?

We still do not have a clear answer: what was special about the books that were included in the NT?

Luke is thought to be one of the seventy.
Paul met the risen Christ.
The writings of Clement and Ignatius were accepted (demonstrated by the fact we have them)
I don’t see anything wrong with a never ending canon, but that isn’t the way the Bishops rolled.
I think we have a very clear answer.

 

[jmcrae]

In the case of the Ebionites, there were a bunch but for our purposes we can focus on two: they denied the divinity of Jesus and they held that the Torah must be observed in full.

Interesting.

Especially since, even knowing that, you still hold to them as your spiritual ancestors in the faith, in order to give you a lineage that extends back to Apostolic times. Do you not perceive a serious break in Apostolic doctrine, here? Belief in the divinity of Christ seems like it should be even more “core” than belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

But actually. I was asking a different question. I was responding to this:

Pius V recognized the errors that were being permitted with regard to simony and the entry of the untrained into episcopal office. He worked for a uniform application of the canon law that existed in that period. Recognizing that many of the clergy were lacking the necessary education to carry out their duties Gregory XIII arranged for the creation of new colleges of learning and invested in many that had become unable to function properly due to a lack of funds.

Find any good Catholic reference source on those two people and you’ll see that my facts check out-religious offices were being purchased and many members of the clergy were functionally illiterate before Gregory’s reforms.

There are two errors to start you off.

These are failures in discipline; not errors in doctrine.

Either way,they are variations in belief.

Which is why I asked, Which doctrine of the faith was being “varied,” in this instance of illiterate men being ordained to the priesthood, and men purchasing offices in the Church?

Catastrophic failure in discipline, certainly - no doubt about that. But I don’t see any essential doctrines being changed here.

 

[jmcrae]

Luke is thought to be one of the seventy.

By whom?

The Book of Acts records that he was one of the Gentiles converted by St. Paul in Antioch. Furthermore, he himself states in the opening address of the Gospel of Luke that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel, but is recording what he has been taught by the Apostles.

Paul met the risen Christ.

True. And St. Luke was his companion and physician, as we see in the letter to the Colossians.

The writings of Clement and Ignatius were accepted (demonstrated by the fact we have them)

Actually, demonstrated by the fact that the Church consistently references them in defense of several of her Doctrines. We also have many heretical writings, but the fact that we have these heretical writings doesn’t mean that we approve of them.