The Invention of Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bubba_Switzler

Guest
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.
 
Those would have to be invented before the end of Acts since they are in the Bible. “This is my Body,” for example.

This is my body
This is my body
This is my body

As for the orders, what do you call Titus?
 
G. K. Chesterton once said,
The modern world will accept no dogmas upon any authority; but it will accept any dogmas on no authority. Say that a thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will be dismissed as a superstition without examination. But preface your remark merely with “they say” or “don’t you know that?” or try (and fail) to remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say.
The typical narrative offered (particularly in America, which has always worshipped the future) is that creeds keep the Church mired in the past and unable to progress. In short, they are indicted as fossil remnants of a dead conservatism, when in fact they are living repositories of genuinely creative thinking that creates without innovating. The real reason the Church developed creeds was precisely because she needed to progress, but not jettison what was good nor make up stuff that was bunk. In formulating the creeds, the Church was not a boat freighting herself with barnacles, but a ship doing what all ships must do to remain seaworthy: scraping off rust, patching holes created by boring worms, and mending the wear and tear from sailing the seas of the world.
The Church, as it is a human institution, is always in danger of the sin, stupidity, weakness, and pride of its members – and its enemies. But the insistence of Christ Himself is that that it is not merely a human institution. When He founds it, He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, that He will be with it always, and that His Spirit shall guide it into all truth. The skeptic can quibble over whether all these claims are “interpolations” (that blessed word trotted out to wave away anything in the New Testament not to one’s liking). But the fact remains that this is what the documents have always recorded and (more significantly) they seem to bear out the actual record of what has occurred. Because the Church has an uncanny habit of remaining what she is, of zigging where the culture demands she must inevitably zag, and of continuing her strange ability to sieve out of the most depraved societies, those truths that are essential while avoiding the broad way of destruction proposed to her even by the Best and the Brightest. It’s like she’s guided by God or something.
In short, the great thing about the Creed is that, while you and I may profess it, you and I did not make it. God and humanity made it. It was hammered out on the forge of crisis by human beings in prayerful response to the revelation of God. It has the great virtue of being oblivious to the enthusiasms, scoops, and scares of our present media-driven culture, just as it has been equally oblivious to enthusiasm for the eternity of the Holy Roman Empire, the glory of the English Crown, the triumph of the Enlightenment, the superiority of the Soviet Union, the New Order of Aryan Supremacy, the clear and undeniable common sense of the Sexual Revolution, the splendor of gay sex, and whatever other trendiness washes up from the heaving waves of worldly opinion. It is an authentic summary and crystallization of the thought of the Church.
It manages to be this because the Tradition knows nothing of “progressive” and “conservative.” It knows only Christ Jesus and Him crucified. It focuses only on being true to Him and to making Him known to each generation. That means both conserving and progressing, without worshipping either conservatism or progressivism. And it means, contrary to the common cultural narrative mentioned at the beginning, that the very worst thing you can possibly do is try to find “the real Jesus” by shoving the Church aside and going on some wild goose chase for the “Jesus of history” as though He is somebody other than the “Christ of faith.”
For the truth is this: Jesus, removed from the Apostolic Tradition and preaching of the Church, almost instantly becomes a mirror and projection of whatever our culture happens to be myopically obsessing over right now. {…}
All this present-day conviction that the sure road to the Real Jesus is to take a massive detour around the Church is, I think, largely the Protestant Creation Myth in the last throes of decay into complete imbecility. For, of course, the great boast of the Protestant revolt against the Church was precisely that it proposed to “free” Jesus from the false ideas the Church had imposed on Him and get us back to the pure and original Jesus whose gospel had been so corrupted. Give that notion a head of steam and turn it loose through Western history and you wind up, well, where we are.
The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.
 
Those would have to be invented before the end of Acts since they are in the Bible. “This is my Body,” for example. This is my body
This is my body
This is my body
That’s what Catholis say, but we don’t read in Acts that the apostles were conducting Catholic mass services. In other words, the claim that Catholics find justification for the Real Presence in the NT is consistent with the claim that the justification was invented after the end of Acts.
As for the orders, what do you call Titus?
Titus Flavius Vespasianus? I call him “your majesty”.
 
That’s what Catholis say, but we don’t read in Acts that the apostles were conducting Catholic mass services. In other words, the claim that Catholics find justification for the Real Presence in the NT is consistent with the claim that the justification was invented after the end of Acts.
Jesus said it - it’s in all four gospels. Christian worship services are mentioned in Acts - don’t you know that’s what Mass is? If you mean Communion isn’t in Acts, you might be right, but it’s mentioned in other books especially the gospels.
Titus Flavius Vespasianus? I call him “your majesty”.
I meant Titus, ordained by Paul to be a bishop in Crete. An overseer of other pastors but not an apostle. What else could he be?
 
Jesus said it - it’s in all four gospels. Christian worship services are mentioned in Acts - don’t you know that’s what Mass is? If you mean Communion isn’t in Acts, you might be right, but it’s mentioned in other books especially the gospels.
It is not mentioned in Acts that the apostles celebrated mass in the sense of consecrating the host to create a Real Presence.
I meant Titus, ordained by Paul to be a bishop in Crete. An overseer of other pastors but not an apostle. What else could he be?
He could be a episkopos, one who watches over, i.e. an overseer, supervisor, or guardian.

If I say to you, watch the pot on the stove. You are a watcher. If I create a formal kitchen hierarchy then you will become a Watcher of Stove and wear a funny hat.
 
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.
Bubba, no question that Protestants are sincere in their desire to return to the ‘primitive Chruch’ however elements of Catholic ecclesiology are present in the New Testament. For instance the structure of bishops and elders is present in the New Testament, as is the centrality of the eucharist, along with reading scripture, during weekly services. All of those elements are preserved in the RCC well. It’s oversimplistic to imply that everything was ‘invented’ out of nowhere after the first couple of generations of Christians.
 
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.
Interesting . . . which scriptures were the early Christians using for their sola scripture?
 
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.
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.
 
Interesting . . . which scriptures were the early Christians using for their sola scripture?
No one believed in the idea of Sola Scriptura until Martin Luther INVENTED it in the 16th Century. The Scriptures themselves never reference it, and actually give a great deal of weight to the authority of the Church. So can we please put the Sola Scriptura nonsense to rest!!
 
Bubba, no question that Protestants are sincere in their desire to return to the ‘primitive Chruch’ however elements of Catholic ecclesiology are present in the New Testament. For instance the structure of bishops and elders is present in the New Testament,
In fact, though, what you find in the NT are not formal offices but general (Greek) terms. As noted above, bishop simply meant someone who watches over, not someone with administrative authority much less infallible teaching…
…as is the centrality of the eucharist,…
What you find in Acts is the centrality of the meal that could as easily be a Protestant service. There is nothing to suggest a belief in Real Presence.
…along with reading scripture, during weekly services. All of those elements are preserved in the RCC well. It’s oversimplistic to imply that everything was ‘invented’ out of nowhere after the first couple of generations of Christians.
There are really two questions that must be distinguished:
  1. When did the distinctive features of Catholicism come into practice? I.e. when did the traditions start?
  2. Are the distinctive features justified from the NT? I.e. what is the basis of the traditions?
 
In fact, though, what you find in the NT are not formal offices but general (Greek) terms. As noted above, bishop simply meant someone who watches over, not someone with administrative authority much less infallible teaching…

What you find in Acts is the centrality of the meal that could as easily be a Protestant service. There is nothing to suggest a belief in Real Presence.

There are really two questions that must be distinguished:
  1. When did the distinctive features of Catholicism come into practice? I.e. when did the traditions start?
  2. Are the distinctive features justified from the NT? I.e. what is the basis of the traditions?
Bubba,

You’re really stretching hte term bishop since if you look at the verses in question it’s clear an office is intended (bishop not pastor not elder).

No, most Protestants do not have the eucharist in any form as a central point of their services- at least these days, so that factor goes for the RCC camp.

Your last questions are loaded.
 
You’re really stretching hte term bishop since if you look at the verses in question it’s clear an office is intended (bishop not pastor not elder).
Perhaps you might quote us the relevant passage and indicate why you believe that it is indicating an administrative office as opposed to an informal role.
No, most Protestants do not have the eucharist in any form as a central point of their services- at least these days, so that factor goes for the RCC camp.
I’ve been to some (though not recently) and they pass around bread and wine (or grape juice in some cases). There are a few that do something more like a sedar (i.e. home churches).
Your last questions are loaded.
I hope that’s not a crime.
 
Perhaps you might quote us the relevant passage and indicate why you believe that it is indicating an administrative office as opposed to an informal role.

I’ve been to some (though not recently) and they pass around bread and wine (or grape juice in some cases). There are a few that do something more like a sedar (i.e. home churches).

I hope that’s not a crime.
lol, no, it’s not a crime, but I won’t waste my time with loaded questions.

Is that really all you have by way of arguments? I don’t think many would disagree that the RCC takes the “lord’s supper” much more seriously than most Protestants, and Seders are not the same thing.
 
Is that really all you have by way of arguments? I don’t think many would disagree that the RCC takes the “lord’s supper” much more seriously than most Protestants, and Seders are not the same thing.
It would be nice if the Protestants in these forums would take up the defense of their faith but since they are reluctant, I’ll do my best.

So tell me about the supposed “context” of the bishop references.
 
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.
Hey there Bubba, thanks for the post. Let me start by saying that I am currently Methodist and have been for 43 years.

I think that to support such a position as you have staked out here we need to look at certain things.

#1. What do we know about the Church in the times of Acts? If you do not mind, let’s expand that time to include the entire New Testament, so until about AD 70.
We know that Peter took charge, as is appropriate from Christ’s charge that upon Peter He would build His Church.

We know that they prayed and had communion (Acts 2:42: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.)

We know that communion was vitally important and was the focus of the Church (1 cor 11:17-22 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!)

to be continued
 
It would be nice if the Protestants in these forums would take up the defense of their faith but since they are reluctant, I’ll do my best.

So tell me about the supposed “context” of the bishop references.
In the letters to Timothy (there are two; you find them just after the middle of the New Testament), St. Paul describes how Timothy himself was ordained by St. Paul by means of the laying on of hands. This seems to signify a formal process of ordination, and not just a “Hey, Tim, can you come on over to my Church and do a bit of preaching on Sunday?” kind of an arrangement.

Secondly, we see lists of criteria for Bishops - can’t be married in his life more than once; that sounds like a whole-life commitment (why care if he takes a second wife after his current wife dies, if he is only going to be doing this Bishop stuff on an ad-hoc basis?); again, not just a “Hey, can you come on over to my Church and do a bit of preaching on Sunday” kind of a thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top