The Invention of Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba_Switzler said:
It depends on what you mean by “Christ’s divinity” and “disputed by the Church.” See Arianism.
Click to expand...
Um. That’s a heresy. The one great thing about being in the Apostolic Church is that we don’t have to live through old heresies every time they spring up. We recognize orthodoxy and we recognize heresy because we have the paer trail.

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.
I find that quite convincing. Second century evidence with and unbroken history thereafter is pretty strong.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Why the arbitrary line?
Click to expand...
That’s one of the questions we’ve been tossing back and forth in this thread. But note that I didn’t invent the line. And Protestants didn’t invent the line. The CC Church did when they decided that Paul and Luke’s writings were Holy Scripture and Ignatius’ were not.
Robert_in_SD said:
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.
Click to expand...
Obviously the CC thought less of them than it did Paul’s writings.
Robert_in_SD said:
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.
Click to expand...
So where does Ignatius claim that Real Presence was a belief in Paul’s day?
Robert_in_SD said:
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.
Click to expand...
The “drafting” of the NT documents is when they were committed to paper. And obviously that does not include Paul’s letters. The Gospels, for example, were oral tradition long before that time.
Robert_in_SD said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I know you mean well by this but it just doesn’t pass the smell test. We don’t need to believe in apostolic succession to recognize that the CC made a very reasonable choice as to which Gospels were most relaible. You are presenting a false dichotomy between submission to CC authority and rejecting everything that the CC declares as dogma.
Robert_in_SD said:
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.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t require that at all. It requires only that CC dogma took a particular path over time and made decisions along the way that Protestants don’t agree with. “Original” Christianity in this case is not something contrary to Catholicism but something less dogmatic.

If, for example, the CC Church decided sometime around 100AD that the eucharist was the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus it may only be that before then there was no unified opinion on the matter and for Protestants to decide otherwise is not to invent a conspiracy of the CC clergy.
 
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...
Before you go throwing false accusations around,** you ought to spend a year immersed in the writings of all of the Christians, especially those who were Martyred for their faith and testimony of Jesus from 33ad through to the 2nd century**.

After spending time actually reading what the Christians believed and died for during that time, you will know without a doubt in your heart that the Church was Catholic, very Catholic on it’s beliefs and teachings regarding the Eucharist being the Real Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Pope of Rome is in charge of the entire Church, etc.
 
catholic_daddy said:
I guess I’ll state the obvious–that the reason they rail at Sola Scriptura so much is that you CANNOT reconstruct Roman Catholicism from the NT without off-the-charts eisegesis.
Click to expand...
The reason we rail at sola scriptura is because it is self refuting.
 
Stephen168 said:
We are asking why YOU, Bubba, have drawn an arbitrary line. Ignatius and Clement were first century men. Why do you exclude them?
Click to expand...
That’s one of the questions we’ve been tossing back and forth in this thread. But note that I didn’t invent the line. And Protestants didn’t invent the line. The CC Church did when they decided that Paul and Luke’s writings were Holy Scripture and Ignatius’ were not.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
That’s one of the questions we’ve been tossing back and forth in this thread. But note that I didn’t invent the line. And Protestants didn’t invent the line. The CC Church did when they decided that Paul and Luke’s writings were Holy Scripture and Ignatius’ were not.
Click to expand...
So you refuse to answer the question. Why?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
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.”
Click to expand...
The divinity of Christ was found to be the teaching of the Church - an article of the Holy Tradition. Those disputing this teaching were found to be heretics, and were either converted or else expelled from the Church. They did not “come up with” the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in response to Arianism, as a “new doctrine” - rather, they looked to the Holy Tradition of the Apostles for an answer to whether the Arian teaching was true (that is, they compared the Arian doctrine to the Holy Tradition) and formulated the Nicene Creed to better articulate the teaching of the Holy Tradition, so that future generations would avoid falling into the same error. But it was not a matter of “coming up with” the doctrine; it was a matter of clarifying it and articulating it, and studying it to understand it better.
 
Stephen168 said:
Cool, so the writings of Ignatius and Clement are valid for first century Christian teaching.
Click to expand...
The question was whether I drew a line between Paul’s letters and Ignatius’. As it so happens, the Catholic Church says that Paul’s letters are the Word of God and Ignatius’ are not.

Now if you want to ask about Catholic Church teachings, that’s a different question. The Catholic Church teaches from many sources. That does not make all sources that the Catholic Church teaches from equal.
 
jmcrae said:
The divinity of Christ was found to be the teaching of the Church - an article of the Holy Tradition. Those disputing this teaching were found to be heretics, and were either converted or else expelled from the Church. They did not “come up with” the doctrine of the divinity of Christ in response to Arianism, as a “new doctrine” - rather, they looked to the Holy Tradition of the Apostles for an answer to whether the Arian teaching was true (that is, they compared the Arian doctrine to the Holy Tradition) and formulated the Nicene Creed to better articulate the teaching of the Holy Tradition, so that future generations would avoid falling into the same error. But it was not a matter of “coming up with” the doctrine; it was a matter of clarifying it and articulating it, and studying it to understand it better.
Click to expand...
If you read the history, you’ll find that it was much more complex than you imply here. In fact the CC went back and forth on its declaration of heresy. It was a subject of genuine debate, not merely the slapping down of a kook.

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church actually had real debates about theology form time to time. It was not merely a process of consulting Holy Tradition like opneing up the CCC to find the correct answer.
 
st_lucy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that your family read it. But prior to Vatican II it was against the church’s wishes.
 
catholic_daddy said:
I don’t doubt that your family read it. But prior to Vatican II it was against the church’s wishes.
Click to expand...
That is hogwash. This is a misunderstanding of non-Catholic’s understanding that Thye Chyrch teaches that there should be no private interpretation of the scripture. Private revelation is a part of our tradition, but we were always encouraged to read the Bible.

During the Dark and Middlke Ages - there was no Bible available to the masses of Christians who wanted it. In point of fact, the whole (or almost) of society was illioterate and personal versions of the Bible were not available. When they did become available through the invention of the prionting press, The Church simplyy cauytioned its members to not read their opwn understanding into the words they read - but rather to understand them in sight of Apostolic tradition and the teaching of the Church.

If that is not something you believe, then fine. But this site is for understanding the Church as it*** is*** and not what you think it is.

So – if you do not agree then fine. But do not propogate what you think things are as what the Church is. It is not logical, sound, or charitable when entering such discussions with fellow Christians or anyone desirous of intellectually sincere debate.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
If you read the history, you’ll find that it was much more complex than you imply here. In fact the CC went back and forth on its declaration of heresy. It was a subject of genuine debate, not merely the slapping down of a kook.

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church actually had real debates about theology form time to time. It was not merely a process of consulting Holy Tradition like opneing up the CCC to find the correct answer.
Click to expand...
We call the final decision the work of the Holy Spirit. If everything remains up for grabs forever we won’t get very far.

I did not understand jmcrae’s post to imply that nobody quibbled about big theological issues. I took it to mean that those who discerned the Catholic position were merely looking to the Apostolic fount in concluding things like the hypostatic union.
 
catholic_daddy said:
I don’t doubt that your family read it. But prior to Vatican II it was against the church’s wishes.
Click to expand...
Not prior to Vatican II. Perhaps for some centuries prior to the 19th century (though even there the picture is more complex than you’re making it). But Leo XIII in 1898 explicitly encouraged Bible reading by laity and attached indulgences to the practice.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top