The Invention of Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba_Switzler said:
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.
Click to expand...
**Hey, Bubba - **
Why won’t you answer jkarp’s post, #8??
 
CWBetts said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that was my point.
 
elvisman said:
Hey, Bubba -
Why won’t you answer jkarp’s post, #8??
Click to expand...
Sorry, missed that one (and #9). So here goes:
jkarp said:
Interesting . . . which scriptures were the early Christians using for their sola scripture?
Click to expand...
That would be the OT plus early versions of the NT that at the earliest time the NT was probably still oral stories.
jmcrae said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are a number of ways to answer this. First of all, the Bible didn’t suddenly come into existence in 405. Canonization was simply a blessing of preexisting texts. Sola scriptura at its simplest merely cleaves some traditions away from others. The fact that Protestants accept more than sola scriptura is at best a quibling inconsistency of the term. That Protestants are not literally adherent to sola scriptura doesn’t invalidate the concept.
 
jmcrae said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see Protestants laying hands all the time on TV. And laying hands is a pre-NT Jewish tradition that is a manner of blessing.
jmcrae said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds like they were looking for moral men to lead. That doesn’t imply an administrative position. What you need to show is something about the context that would invalidate the informal interpretation and affirm only the formal interpretation.
 
cthulhubryan said:
#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.
Click to expand...
Not really. He was certainly not the pope at that time. He and Paul appealed to Jerusalem to settle the question of whether gentiles had to convert to Judaism.
cthulhubryan said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Right, but the critical question is whether they did this in a way that uniquely reflects the Catholic Mass as opposed to a non-denominational practice.
cthulhubryan said:
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!)
Click to expand...
But that’s a long way short of Real Presence. It says nothing more than don’t hog the food at Church.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Sorry, missed that one (and #9). So here goes:

That would be the OT plus early versions of the NT that at the earliest time the NT was probably still oral stories.

There are a number of ways to answer this. First of all, the Bible didn’t suddenly come into existence in 405. Canonization was simply a blessing of preexisting texts. Sola scriptura at its simplest merely cleaves some traditions away from others. The fact that Protestants accept more than sola scriptura is at best a quibling inconsistency of the term. That Protestants are not literally adherent to sola scriptura doesn’t invalidate the concept.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Nice try - but wrong.**
The Jews never taught Sola Scriptura, so there goes your OT example.

As for the earliest Christians, NOTHING was written down about Jesus for them to adhere to. It was ALL oral Tradition.

Sola Scriptura was impossible because “Scriptura” itself means that it was written down. Also, there were many texts floating around before the canonization of the New Testament - most of which were determined to be UN-inspired works. Sola Scriptura only works if the texts are the inspired Word of God.

Sorry, pal. :rolleyes:
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Sounds like they were looking for moral men to lead.
Click to expand...
If they were looking for men to lead, then the leadership wasn’t an ad hoc random thing. They were looking to fill actual existing positions of leadership. But if the leadership positions did not actually exist, then there would be no need to seek out men to fill them, nor to establish criteria to discern which men were fit to fill them.
That doesn’t imply an administrative position.
Click to expand...
It certainly does imply that, since if the positions did not exist, there would be no need to fill them.
What you need to show is something about the context that would invalidate the informal interpretation and affirm only the formal interpretation.
Click to expand...
I already have - the formal installation ceremony (laying on of hands) and the list of criteria for being a Bishop. Neither of these would exist, if the position were just an informal thing that people did on an occasional ad hoc basis, to fill a temporary need.
 
elvisman said:
The Jews never taught Sola Scriptura, so there goes your OT example.
Click to expand...
In fact, they had their own version of this debate: The Saducees vs. the Pharisees with the fomer playing the role of sola scripturists.
elvisman said:
As for the earliest Christians, NOTHING was written down about Jesus for them to adhere to. It was ALL oral Tradition.
Click to expand...
Well, when Jesus taught it was oral. So the question is simply when was it written down, by whom, and for what purpose. The early Christians lived in a time when the memory of Jesus was still close to first-hand.
elvisman said:
Sola Scriptura was impossible because “Scriptura” itself means that it was written down.
Click to expand...
According to this interpretation, Protestants would ignore Jesus if he spoke to them. They don’t (or at least say the don’t). So there must be a problem with your interpration of sola scriptura.
 
jmcrae said:
If they were looking for men to lead, then the leadership wasn’t an ad hoc random thing. They were looking to fill actual existing positions of leadership. But if the leadership positions did not actually exist, then there would be no need to seek out men to fill them, nor to establish criteria to discern which men were fit to fill them.
Click to expand...
You are posing a false dichotomy between chaos and administrative hierarchy.
jmcrae said:
I already have - the formal installation ceremony (laying on of hands) and the list of criteria for being a Bishop. Neither of these would exist, if the position were just an informal thing that people did on an occasional ad hoc basis, to fill a temporary need.
Click to expand...
Right, but the question is: what is a “bishop”? There is nothing in the laying on of hands to suggest the administrative position that we understand of bishops in the Catholic Church.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
According to this interpretation, Protestants would ignore Jesus if he spoke to them.
Click to expand...
In debates around Matthew 16:18, I have actually seen Protestants write that it does not matter what language Jesus was speaking when He said those words, since it is the Greek written text (petros/petra)that was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not Jesus’ spoken words in the Aramaic language (Kephas/kephas).

So, there are at least some Protestants who put the written text of the Scriptures ahead of Christ’s actual spoken words.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
In fact, they had their own version of this debate: The Saducees vs. the Pharisees with the fomer playing the role of sola scripturists.

Well, when Jesus taught it was oral. So the question is simply when was it written down, by whom, and for what purpose. The early Christians lived in a time when the memory of Jesus was still close to first-hand.

According to this interpretation, Protestants would ignore Jesus if he spoke to them. They don’t (or at least say the don’t). So there must be a problem with your interpration of sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
MY interpretation of Scriptura?? It IS what it IS.
That’s like saying “my interpretation of the sun”. It IS what it IS.

As for the Earliest christians having a memory of Jesus - not necessarily. When Peter spoke to the crowd in Acts 2, the people came from all over. Acts 2:9-11 says clearly:
***"We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, ***Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God."
**It goes on to say that about 3,000 were added that day. Most of these people had never seen or heard of Jesus before. they had no bible - NOTHING written down. **
NO Scriptura.

While we’re talking about people having known Jesus - the is a tradition that says that Ignatius of Antioch was the child that Jesus touched in Matt 19:13-15 when he said:
"Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Ignatius was the Catholic bishop one who went on to write at the end of the 1st Century in his Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2:

"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church."

Shall I go on, Bubba?
 
I Love our church. For two thousand years now, she remembers those who have gone before us. They had something to say **BUBBA. ** Ignatious of Antioch was mortered for the truth he spoke.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
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.
Click to expand...
IF Protestants really want to make a true effort to get to the first century church that Jesus Christ instituted then **Protestants will have to it without the bible or Sola Scriptura **that the Catholic church gave the World. For one their was no New Testament to adhere to in the rooted church only Apostles, bishops, Presbetyrs and deacons, who already had the teachings set in stone about Christian worship in the Mass here is
Acts 2:42
8 **They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. **43
Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44
All who believed were together and had all things in common;

What is more telling how the oral teachings of the apostles about the Sacraments were practiced and then recorded in the Epistles and the Catholic letters which are the last 7 books of the New Testament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top