The Invention of Catholicism?

[mercygate]

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.

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.

Christ’s divinity was never disputed by the Church; the Conciliar definitions stated for all time what the Church believed against the heresies concerning the Person of Jesus Christ.

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.)

The real presence is a continuing doctrine always held by the Church as is evidenced in Scripture and in the second century writings of Justin Martyr. No dispute at all. Did we always have the formulation of transubstantiation? No. Not until 1215 when the Council of Florence declared it following nearly 4 centuries of discussion – not of WHETHER Christ is really present in the Eucharist but of HOW He is present. And actually, the definition of transubstantiation does not fully explain the matter (which is transcendent and ineffable) but only clarifies it.

The Churches of the East truly and unequivocally believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist but the culture of the East did not raise the issue in the cerebral and Aristotelian way that the question arose in the West. They leave it in the realm of mystery, which would not have suited the intellectual climate of the age in the West.

 

[catholic_daddy]

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.

History doesn’t lie. The reason the RCC preferred their people don’t read the Bible is that that way they can control how people understand Scripture instead of them seeing it for themselves and asking, “Why does the Bible say this yet you say that?”. Much less messy.

 

[st_lucy]

History doesn’t lie. The reason the RCC preferred their people don’t read the Bible is that that way they can control how people understand Scripture instead of them seeing it for themselves and asking, “Why does the Bible say this yet you say that?”. Much less messy.

So As I stated before even when faced with the truth those who love to spread these lies will continue to.

Answer the questions I posed to you.

When did the printing press get invented?

How many bibles (or books in general) do you suppose where readily available in 1229?

And give me a general number of people who could read.

I have told that in my family alone I can prove that we were reading the bible for at least two hundred years. Do you think I am a liar? Or do you just love to gossip?

The fact is all of your statements are false and have been proven as such. The Church does not ban the book that She gave the world. It is only those with little time on their hands and who love to gossip who will state such things.

 

[mercygate]

History doesn’t lie. The reason the RCC preferred their people don’t read the Bible is that that way they can control how people understand Scripture instead of them seeing it for themselves and asking, “Why does the Bible say this yet you say that?”. Much less messy.

I see you have supported this statement with evidence.

 

[codebilly]

Interesting post, codebilly. I’ve heard a lot about this church in India, but not these particular items.

Two questions:

1. If all believers need to submit to the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome as Catholicism claims and the church founded by Thomas was Catholic-why were they independent of western influence for 3 centuries? Should they not have sent representatives to Rome to ensure their adherence to the true faith?
2. If the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome resolved all major disputes in the early church, why did this church go to Alexandria to resolve the problems it was having?

It seems that this church had a much more Orthodox view of the episcopal hierarchy than a Catholic one.

This thread is about “Invention of Catholicism” not “primacy of Peter” vs. “First Among Equals”. Nor is it about those so uncertain in their faith, the faith handed to them from the Apostle St. Thomas that they need to run back and forth to Rome to make sure that Peter’s church approves.

The fact of the matter is, that the priestly, apostolic, sacramental and liturgical Church was founded by St. Thomas.

So distort as you may, the St. Thomas Church from the earliest is Catholic. No invention necessary.

 

[codebilly]

St. Thomas the Apostle Invented Catholicism!!! Hooray!

.** According to a very ancient tradition, Thomas had ordained two bishops, four rambans, seven priests and twenty-one deacons. That priesthood continued in unbroken succession from generation to generation in the families of Pakalomattam and Sankarapur**i.[18]

Historians are of the opinion that Thomas established the early
liturgy here in Aramaic (Syriac). In those days, Greek was the
chief language of the West; and Syriac, that of the East. On
account of their close contact with the Jews, Aramaic was not
unfamiliar to the Keralites. Numerous Syriac words, e.g.,
(Christ), (Jesus), (Apostle), (holy),
(cross), (sacrifice), (sacrament), (chalice), <Mad’baha> (sanctuary), (teacher),
became current from very ancient times. Aramaic continued to be the language of the liturgy until it was substituted by Malayalam in 1962.

See the proof here

 

[elvisman]

I see you have supported this statement with evidence.

Judging by the conversation I’ve been having with “catholic daddy”, he/she must be allergic to evidence.

 

[Stephen168]

By whom?

These Guys and a few others in the 4th century when the canon was being settled on.

 

[jmcrae]

These Guys and a few others in the 4th century when the canon was being settled on.

That’s not a theory I had ever heard before. It also seems to be contradicted by Luke’s own writings.

 

[Stephen168]

That’s not a theory I had ever heard before. It also seems to be contradicted by Luke’s own writings.

Notice they were all called Apostle making 83 Apostles total.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

I was not establishing a “lineage”, I was showing that opinions varied even from the start. The more radical the departure, the more the point is made.

But actually. I was asking a different question.

I’ll leave that for them. then.

 

[jmcrae]

I was not establishing a “lineage”, I was showing that opinions varied even from the start.

And persons who held heretical opinions were consistenly excommunicated by the Apostles and their lawful successors. You are right that the Protestants were not the first heretics, but that doesn’t make other heretics to be Protestants.

 

[jmcrae]

Notice they were all called Apostle making 83 Apostles total.

In the sense of being eye-witnesses to Christ’s ministry, yes they were. But St. Luke states quite plainly that he was not an eye-witness.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Christ’s divinity was never disputed by the Church; the Conciliar definitions stated for all time what the Church believed against the heresies concerning the Person of Jesus Christ.

It depends on what you mean by “Christ’s divinity” and “disputed by the Church.” See Arianism.

The real presence is a continuing doctrine always held by the Church as is evidenced in Scripture and in the second century writings of Justin Martyr. No dispute at all.

The NT is ambiguous on the point and later Church Fathers don’t claim that it was a belief from the time of Acts, only that it was a common belief in 2C AD.

 

[mark_a]

You first.

Then that’s a definite “no”?

 

[jmcrae]

It depends on what you mean by “Christ’s divinity” and “disputed by the Church.” See Arianism.

The tradition of the Apostles is that Christ is the Second Person (Son) of God. St. Athanasias (the Bishop of Antioch) clarified this in the Athanasian Creed. Was there confusion in some sectors of the Church (most notably the East; hence Athanasias’ involvement in the issue) - yes. It was cleared up by means of the Council of Nicea (which produced the Nicene Creed in response to this heresy).

The NT is ambiguous on the point and later Church Fathers don’t claim that it was a belief from the time of Acts, only that it was a common belief in 2C AD.

And how would it come to be an established belief of the Church so early on, if it had not been an Apostolic doctrine?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The tradition of the Apostles is that Christ is the Second Person (Son) of God. St. Athanasias (the Bishop of Antioch) clarified this in the Athanasian Creed. Was there confusion in some sectors of the Church (most notably the East; hence Athanasias’ involvement in the issue) - yes. It was cleared up by means of the Council of Nicea (which produced the Nicene Creed in response to this heresy). And how would it come to be an established belief of the Church so early on, if it had not been an Apostolic doctrine?

How could there be confusion if it was established dogma?

Your logic seems to be that whatever the Church believes must have been believed from day one. That is not a reasonable inference.

Why is it that so many Catholics are so anathama to the idea that the Apostles and Church Fathers were figuring things out along the way?

 

[jmcrae]

How could there be confusion if it was established dogma?

Your logic seems to be that whatever the Church believes must have been believed from day one. That is not a reasonable inference.

The seeds of the beliefs were already there. There wasn’t any making it up as they went along - they were developing doctrine; not creating it.

Why is it that so many Catholics are so anathama to the idea that the Apostles and Church Fathers were figuring things out along the way?

And when they examined the Arian heresy, they found that it was not consistent with the Holy Tradition of the Apostles. Instead they found that the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union is what is most consistent with the Apostolic deposit of faith.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

When you can snatch this crucifix from my hand then you will be ready to learn about it.

Thanks. But I’m going to pass on being your grasshopper.
Bubba Switzler:

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.

Why the arbitrary line?
Bubba Switzler:

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?

You don’t answer the question. It’s not fair that you draw such a line. It is fair to concede that what Ignatius was stating in 107 A.D. was the belief of the universal Church. His original writings are not part of sacred scripture because the Church did not acknowledge them as such. But that does not mean his writings cannot be considered for what they are… a good exposition of universal Church dogma in 107, as opposed to some novel invention as you seem to conclude.
Bubba Switzler:

Well, it’s probably fair to say that he is asserting that they were common at that time.

He is asserting the universal teachings of the Church … against the heresies cropping up at the time. St. Ignatius’s writings embody orthodox (old) thinking on the reality of the Eucharist. If you contend that his writings are asserting novel teaching that is contrary christian thought of roughly 50 years prior, then I think you need to point to some sort of contrary teaching.
Bubba Switzler:

That’s not my assertion. My assertion is that it was invented sometime between the end of the NT and Constantine.

The drafting of the NT documents ended roughly 70-90 A.D. You are suggesting that between that time and the time of St. Ignatius’s writings, unique Catholic teachings were somehow “slipped in” without anyone noticing? Why do you not see great fathers of the Church rising up to condemn Eucharistic teaching? Instead, you see heretics (wrong on many ideas) rejecting the notion.
Bubba Switzler:

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.

Giving your argument the best possible light, the bible can be interpreted for or against apostolic succession. But, absent succession of authority you are left with only the writings that were compiled by the very “authority” that one rejects. I see that as a very weak point among SS adherents.
Bubba Switzler:

No, no, no. I’m not presenting the Constantine argument here.

OK. I’ll take you on your word for that.
Bubba Switzler:

The question, though, is whether it is plausible that Catholicism was invented after the NT, after the passing of the apostles who witnessed Jesus.

For this to be true, the conspiracy must have been massive, and highly coordinated. Because it means Catholic theology simultaneously rose up to replace “original” christianity almost entirely, within a very short period of time, with no alarm or cry being raised by those faithful to the original doctrines. I see no evidence of this sort of occurrence.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The seeds of the beliefs were already there. There wasn’t any making it up as they went along - they were developing doctrine; not creating it

I don’t think anyone here has claimed that it was made up out of thin air. In, early in this thread we made the distinction between finding support for a belief in the NT and finding the belief itself in the NT.

(I realize that the title of this thread is a bit loaded but that’s just good marketing. Inventing something doesn’t necessarily mean making it up in contravention to facts.)

And when they examined the Arian heresy, they found that it was not consistent with the Holy Tradition of the Apostles. Instead they found that the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union is what is most consistent with the Apostolic deposit of faith.

Well obviously they made a decision on the issue. The point is that it was a matter of serious debate at the time. Thus it cannot be said to have been “undisputed.”