B
BSHoop96
Guest
This is great. Do you know which of his writing this is from???
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
Here is a thought: Christianity came out of Judaism. What similarities can we find between Protestant And Jewish liturgires? Catholic and Jewish? Which pairing is closer? The structure of the CAtholic Liturgy is much more similar to the Jewish liturgy. Since the earliest Christians were Jews, does it not make sense that the early Christian liturgy would bear a closer resemblance to the Jewish practices, rather than something with no similarity?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Yes, gnostics are among the oldest “denominations”. Similarly for the ebionites.
As for the EO, are you seriously claiming that the EO rituals were invented in 1000AD?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not sure, although it sounds a lot like Orthodoxy. I’m stealing it from a friend of mine, who stole it from Mark Shea’s blog. The Mark Shea piece is called Finding Christ in the Church.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
“The body” does not have to be a reference to the Real Presence since “the body” could simply mean the original body, the body of the Church, or any other similar usage of the term.What body, if it’s only a symbol?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
This, though, raises another interesting issue: the dejudization of Christianity, which occured in the same period under discussion. In Acts, etc., Christians are Jews and keep the Torah. By the time of Constantine, Christians are persecuting Jews.
L
look3467
Guest
A child was born at Golgotha and has been growing ever since.
This child is the spirit child Jesus growing in each one of us individually and collectively.
As Christianity began, there was no clear direction of structure other than a clear understanding of what Jesus came to establish, and that was a spiritual church in the hearts of mankind.
It became an ad lib type of Christianity where the heart rules over prescribed laws.
Now, what mankind does with it can either aid or abate the growth collectively.
The group of believers constituting the church physical, met in homes and through the dispersion to later an establishment of an organization called the Catholic church via Constantine attempts to unite both pagan and Christianity.
The bible came via that establishment but the works held from the people for a long period.
The bible was born as a child to, because it had its beginnings and through trial and tribulations has grown to a complete book.
This book has been under fire to be eliminated, but has with stood all attempts.
God also raised another child, protestantism.
Through time and prosecution, strength in numbers begin to arise in the form of different denominations.
The spirit of the Gospel is to save all mankind by reaching the masses with the Gospel and not isolation due to individual group beliefs.
When we can come together because of Christ and not any thing else, then we shall be as one in Christ as how Christ prayed.
Father: Joh 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
…“I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world”…
Meaning that the world is full of divisions, yet in Him, we can become one as He and the Father are one.
To argue that the Catholic church is the oldest is like two siblings arguing as to who is closer to their father when their father loves them both the same.
Rather, discussion of the varying faiths and beliefs, may lead some to a better understanding of who Jesus really is without compromising the spirit of love which is in Jesus.
The method, the matter is left up to the individual to be lead in how to best worship God.
My views, AJ
This child is the spirit child Jesus growing in each one of us individually and collectively.
As Christianity began, there was no clear direction of structure other than a clear understanding of what Jesus came to establish, and that was a spiritual church in the hearts of mankind.
It became an ad lib type of Christianity where the heart rules over prescribed laws.
Now, what mankind does with it can either aid or abate the growth collectively.
The group of believers constituting the church physical, met in homes and through the dispersion to later an establishment of an organization called the Catholic church via Constantine attempts to unite both pagan and Christianity.
The bible came via that establishment but the works held from the people for a long period.
The bible was born as a child to, because it had its beginnings and through trial and tribulations has grown to a complete book.
This book has been under fire to be eliminated, but has with stood all attempts.
God also raised another child, protestantism.
Through time and prosecution, strength in numbers begin to arise in the form of different denominations.
The spirit of the Gospel is to save all mankind by reaching the masses with the Gospel and not isolation due to individual group beliefs.
When we can come together because of Christ and not any thing else, then we shall be as one in Christ as how Christ prayed.
Father: Joh 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
…“I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world”…
Meaning that the world is full of divisions, yet in Him, we can become one as He and the Father are one.
To argue that the Catholic church is the oldest is like two siblings arguing as to who is closer to their father when their father loves them both the same.
Rather, discussion of the varying faiths and beliefs, may lead some to a better understanding of who Jesus really is without compromising the spirit of love which is in Jesus.
The method, the matter is left up to the individual to be lead in how to best worship God.
My views, AJ
C
CWBetts
Guest
Your point? The issues in acts were exclusively about circumcision, nit liturgical form. The joy of trying to discuss early Church history with thise who have no concept of historical context
J
jmcrae
Guest
You realize that the Gnostics were condemned by the Apostles, right? In fact in the Letter to the Romans, in the Latin translation St. Paul actually says to them, “Anathema sit.”
(It’s somewhere in Romans 12, I think,)I actually have never heard of them, but I’ll take your word for it.
There are no such things as “EO rituals” - they retained their Catholic rituals, and continue to retain them to this very day, which is why (unlike Protestants) they don’t have to undergo a “continuing conversion” process when they enter the Catholic Church - because all of their rituals are already Catholic, and (as a consequence of that) all of their Sacraments are already valid.
Their Divine Liturgy is exactly the same in every detail as that of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. The only difference between them and us is that they deny the authority of the Pope. They only began to deny the authority of the Pope in the 1000s AD - prior to that, they were his greatest defenders. (You should read the Sermon for Pentecost of St. John Chrysostom.)
E
elvisman
Guest
**That’s your answer??? **Peter was there?? That’s the best you can do???
Uh - hello! ALL of the Apostles were there - there was still NO New Testament Scripture. The crowd didn’t know Jesus, yet became Christians.
You really haven’t done your homework, friend.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello Bubba and welcome. As an aside, what is a “Zen Catholic?”
BubbaSwitzler:
Therefore, if it can be shown that any of these “elements” of Catholic Christianity (defined below) pre-date the second century, then your resolution is incorrect.
Bubba Switzler:
(1) The Real Presence - you seem to acknowledge that, at the very least, a Catholic interpretation in support of the Real Presence is contained in the Scriptures. That alone should be sufficient evidence that the teaching pre-dates the 2d century - i.e.: [27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:27)
But even in 107 A.D St. Ignatius of Antioch was proclaiming: “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Epistle to the Romans 7:3)
And in his Epistle to the Smyrneans (6:2-7:1), St. Ignatius states… “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”
These are not novel concepts being professed by St. Ingatius. These are bedrock christian principles being presented in a manner that suggests long acceptance… i.e. “we all *know *that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ…”
Given the historical record, how can you conclude the doctrine of the Real Presence was invented some time around the 300s?
(2) Church hierarchy - Again, there is clear biblical support for a hierarchy of Church structure. Your objection seems to be one of form over substance. You seem to be objecting to the formal attire and administrative duties of later cardinals, bishops and priests. These are secondary to the role these men play with respect to their magesterial authority. Theologically, the size and shape of their hats, and their manner of dress mean nothing. The issue is whether they have authority to teach. This seems explicit in scripture and consistent from the very beginnings of the Church. Hence, Augustine can name the successors of Peter down to his own time. Why would this be necessary if authority were not part of the charism of the Church?
(3) de-Judization of Christianity - again, this is occurring in Acts. No authority here to support your resolution that Christianity somehow changed with the Donation of Constantine.
Bubba Switzler:
For the sake of argument, I would concede that those who accepted a conclusion similar to your “resolution” would perceive the protestant reformation as a valiant and honest good faith effort to return to “pure” Christianity. But even the best of intentions does not make a false presumption true.
Peace,
Robert
J
jkarp
Guest
I see, that makes sense; they would have held fast to the old testament scriptures because Christ came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. Also, with regard to the new testament, as you said, they probably told the stories from one person to another, and passed them down from generation to generation for several hundred years. My family has some really neat traditions like this also.
F
fbl9
Guest
Bubba this nets you a warning if i read anything else by you that comes this close to insulting the pope you will be reported…:tsktsk:
M
MrS
Guest
what the heck is a
zen catholic??
.
zen catholic??
.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
When you can snatch this crucifix from my hand then you will be ready to learn about it.
This is not the issue as I’ve argued it, anyway.
This is indeed close enough to Catholic eucharistic dogma. And 107AD is very early church, indeed. But it is not within the lifetimes of the apostles and thus of Acts and Epistles.
It’s a fair question why we would draw the line there but note that Ignatius’ writings are not included in the NT. Why not?
Well, it’s probably fair to say that he is asserting that they were common at that time.
That’s not my assertion. My assertion is that it was invented sometime between the end of the NT and Constantine.
Well, I certainly want to congratulate on getting to the point that others have stumbled on so far. But then the question is whether Paul’s appointment of Titus was an appointment of theological authority (e.g. infallible instruction) or something more general in nature. The NT is ambiguous, at best, on these points.
No, no, no. I’m not presenting the Constantine argument here. I’ve elsewhere argued that is a dead end for Protestants and that the Catholic traditions were established before him. (One might argue that Constantine gave the CC the power to crush heretics but that is another matter.)
The question, though, is whether it is plausible that Catholicism was invented after the NT, after the passing of the apostles who witnessed Jesus.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I"m not arguing for gnosticism, merely pointing out that there were varieties of Christianity from the start.You realize that the Gnostics were condemned by the Apostles, right? In fact in the Letter to the Romans, in the Latin translation St. Paul actually says to them, “Anathema sit.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
Yes, EO follow eastern rites which was not invented in the 1000s.
B
Bry
Guest
Bubba,
Perhaps you could start by answering a couple of questions:
- How did the scriptures come into existence?
My understanding of history is that a group of church leaders (Bishops?) decided which books were inspired by God and which were not. This created the canon. How can you, as a Protestant, accept the canon created by the authority of the Catholic Church as acceptable. How do you know you aren’t missing books or adding them? - Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?
The Bible itself nowhere claims to be sufficient for understanding and receiving God’s revelations. Oral Traditions were the common method of learning and passing knowledge, so why do you believe that everything was written down? - If you read the writings of the early Church Fathers, like Ignatius of Antioch- who was a follower of the Apostle John, you will find some very Catholic ideas. Ignatius is only one example, but let me focus in on him. He learned from John and he claimed that authority comes from Rome, he called those who do not believe in the real presence heretics, but you think he listened to the Apostle John, became a well known martyr for the faith (he was devoured by lions) and contradicted his mentor this badly? How could he be so far off base?
Thanks,
Bry
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Gladly.
I’m not Protestant (though perhaps protestant).
You are confusing two different issues here. The answer to the question is that those who witnessed the events told stories and these stories were repeated creating an oral tradition. At some point, most agree sometime in 1C AD, they were all written down, and these writings (and perhaps others, see Q), began to pass among the Christian communities. Now it does happen that many centuriles later the Catholic Church canonized these writings and declared them to constitute The Bible, and hence, “scripture”, but they existed long before that. Indeed, canonization was essentially a recognition of their centrality to Christianity.
In answer to the question, I don’t. Nor have I argued here that Catholic dogma is without foundation in scripture. The question before us here is whether the traditions that constitute the distinctive features of the Catholic Church existed at the time of the NT or were invented later (perhaps reasonably). Catholics have a tendency to argue against a straw man Sola Scriptura, as I showed in several posts here (not that there are not Protestants who are pretty extreme on this but it does not reflect well on Catholics to attack the weakest form of the argument).
Absolutely, we already discussed his beliefs on Real Presence. But he is not in the NT.
Questions for you:
Why were the writings of the early church fathers such as St. Ignatius included in the NT?
If it is reasonable for the early church fathers to introduce traditions in 2C AD, why not Martin Luther in 15C AD?
B
BSHoop96
Guest
Thanks!
Stephen168
New member
when were they? How are they distinctive?
- Status