The Invention of Catholicism?

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes: the OP does not distinguish between maturation and “invention.”

I never defined “invention” explicitly but we’ve certainly been discussing it implicitly. Maturation implies change of a lesser sort. Another alternative term would be “discover” as in: Catholics discovered Catholic dogma.

In any case, I’ve tried to focus discussion on new beliefs. Was, for example, Real Presence a new belief? Not necessarily that the Christians of Acts thought of the bread and wine as symbolic like Protestants do, they may simply have practiced the ritual without resolving the question, or with each having a different opinion about the nature of it.

Catholics tend to bristle at the word “invention” but it need not be negative in connotation.

 

[ron77nyc]

Why would a non-believing “Catholic” want to receive any Sacraments?

I’ll get back to you on that one after I speak to Vito Coreleone.

 

[mercygate]

I never defined “invention” explicitly but we’ve certainly been discussing it implicitly. Maturation implies change of a lesser sort. Another alternative term would be “discover” as in: Catholics discovered Catholic dogma.

In any case, I’ve tried to focus discussion on new beliefs. Was, for example, Real Presence a new belief? Not necessarily that the Christians of Acts thought of the bread and wine as symbolic like Protestants do, they may simply have practiced the ritual without resolving the question, or with each having a different opinion about the nature of it.

Catholics tend to bristle at the word “invention” but it need not be negative in connotation.

Actually, “discovery” is a very good word, and much more accurately characterizes what we usually call “development.”

I would suggest that while it might have been reasonable not to hold a clearly articulated definition of the Holy Trinity in A.D. 50, by the time varying views started competing for attention, it was necessary for the Church to discern the situation in a way that would set forth clearly her understanding.

Doctrinal development is how the Church, as a Body, lives out Paul’s observation, “When I was a child, spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

As I said earlier, because of the specific promises Our Lord gave to Peter and to the Eleven, we understand that the Church not only will receive the grace to discern doctrine but also has His authority to do so.

 

[elvisman]

Gotta disagree with elvisman, about where Jesus is; there so is the catholic church! How arrogant! It should be, where Jesus is, all are welcome! And, as far as insulting the pope, easy does it; just because we don’t recognize his authority(Matthew 23:9), or agree with him, does not mean we are disrespecting him!

Arrogant? How so?
This quote is from St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a student of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist. This was the view of the Early Church Fathers. If you refuse to accept this - that’s your problem.**

Funny you should quote Matt. 23:9. Are you saying that we should call nobody on earth “father”. You twist the scriptures to your own destruction, my confused friend (2 Pet. 3:16).

What would you say to Stephen in Acts 7:2, where he refers to “our father Abraham,” or to St. Paul in Romans 9:10, where Paul talks about "our father Isaac."

Read the Scriptures in context -Matt. 23:8–10:
**“But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” **

He is talking about placing somebody as father ABOVE God and Teacher ABOVE God.
Do you honestly thing he was talking about your dad or your high school teacher? The man who sired me was my father – same with yours. They, however, are not ABOVE God and neither is the Pope or any priest.

As for calling men teachers, St. Paul says, “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He goes on to say: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28);

As for the role of fathers, Paul, Peter and John claim the role of Father time and time again in the New Testament (Philem. 10, Titus 1:4, 1 Cor. 4:14–15, 1 Pet. 5:13, 1 John 2:13–14).
Did they violate Jesus’ command? NO – you just don’t get what he meant.**

Man – are you confused . . .

 

[ron77nyc]

Why would a non-believing “Catholic” want to receive any Sacraments?

I’ll get back to you on that one after I speak to Vito Coreleone.

I just spoke to Don Corleone. After I assured him no one was listening in on another line he told me this:

“Who is putting all these crazy ideas about faith in your head? It has nothing to do with faith. It was always a family tradition.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Actually, “discovery” is a very good word, and much more accurately characterizes what we usually call “development.”

Note, though, that even with this preferred term the question remains: Was Real Presence, for example, a post-Biblical discovery?

 

[ron77nyc]

Read closely. Child/infant baptism is most defiitely inferred in the scriptures! When people were baptized ans brought into the faith, there is often a reference to “their whole house.” This would imclude the children, and yes, infants. THe progression or evolution you suppose is non-existent.

I’m not saying infant baptism is wrong. It was originally meant for parents of faith who want to raise their children in the faith. With the discovery of limbo (not of the apostles) parents were told their children would be cut off from God if not baptized so everyone was compelled to do it and it became a meaningless tradition done by even those without faith.

The lack of faith in our Church, and on ith Prtoestant churches, is problematic, But is less the fault of the Church and more the fault of the individual. Religion and religious education is not just an hour on sunday. It is every day. As for your comment on accepting tradition: It is impossible to accept the fullness of salvation offered by Jesus without accepting the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Mother Church.So much of what Protestants believe is simply the Sacred Tradition they wish to keep.

As Bubba said yesterday, the early church did not have all the traditions we have today so Protestantism was an attempt to go back to the traditions of the early church.

The structure of Christian worship services aren’t in Scriptures, but in the Tradition of the early CHurch. Scripture itself is a result of Tradition. Weddings, Baptisms, Ordinations, Holy Communion are all Tradition deeply rooted in Scripture. Think about this. What parts of your Sunday worship service are explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Everything else is some kind of tradition that has been added on. Once Protestants understand this, we wil be one step closer to true Christian unity.

Those Protestants again…:banghead: everything is their fault.

 

[elvisman]

Those Protestants again…:banghead: everything is their fault.

Not everything.
Just the confusion that has become a modern-day “Tower of Babel” of endless denominations.

 

[ron77nyc]

Not everything.
Just the confusion that has become a modern-day "Tower of Babel" of endless denominations.

And you think the Catholic Church is completely faultless? Read this:
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3838229.ece

Italy professes to be a Catholic nation - but a majority of Italians do not know “even the most basic facts” about the Bible, according to a survey.

The international poll, conducted by Eurisko for the Catholic Biblical Federation, showed that in Italy only 14 per cent of those questioned were able to answer a series of questions about the Bible correctly. They included whether Moses or St Paul featured in the Old Testament, whether Jesus had written any of the Gospels, and whether the Gospels form part of the Bible. Another question which defeated most Italians was: which of the following - Luke, John, Peter and Paul - wrote the Gospels?

Among the respondents 88 per cent of Italians described themselves as Roman Catholics, three quarters said they kept a Bible in their home, and 79 per cent said they felt their lives were “protected by God”. But only 32 per cent described themselves as “regular churchgoers”, and only 28 per cent thought the Bible should be taught in schools.

"In the beginning was the Word - but the Italians don’t read it" said La Stampa. Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, Bishop of Terni and head of the Catholic Biblical Federation in Italy, said the findings “offer a challenge to which we must respond”.

**“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome ** This is your tag line. I think it’s appropriate.

 

[mercygate]

Note, though, that even with this preferred term the question remains: Was Real Presence, for example, a post-Biblical discovery?

Paul says that partaking in the bread and cup “without discerning the body” brings judgment upon the one who does it. So the understanding of the Real Presence is “pre-biblical” since Paul is writing about something he already knows.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

“This IS my body.”

Transubstantiation would be the later discovery but that is more in the order of philosophy and “science” than in the order of faith.

 

[look3467]

Aaaaaah, the “Tower of babel”.

Could it be that it had to do with the same language being divided into many?

Why? Could it be because one language would be similar to one belief system that would threaten the individualistic freedom to that of a collective servitude to the one belief system?

The confusion of tongues first divided into many individual groups the one system of beliefs to many.

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Checks and balances can only be implemented where there are more than one view.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[CWBetts]

A non-Catholic (Protestant or Jewish) who is a Christian is not accepted and not permitted to receive Catholic sacraments which provide grace but a non-believing Catholic is allowed to receive all sacraments. This is clearly placing tradition above faith.

I am a recent convert to Catholicism. I was baptized as a Funadmental Baptist in 1990. I fully understand why I was not permitted to recieve all sacraments immideately. In order to recieve Communion, one must understand what Christ taught about the Eucharist (see John chapter 6). Why should a Christian, who does not agree with the Teachings of the Holy Mother Church be accepted as full members prior to Catechesis? The Sacraments mean more than what you are placing on them, all of which can be found in the Scriptures. And again, Scriptures are a source of Tradition. Without Tradition, we would not have Scriptures. And remember, it is the Church, and not Scriptures which is the “pillar of Truth.”

 

[1beleevr]

Hey, elvisman, my brother in Christ; actually thanks to my Saviour, I am not confused; like the song said, “I Can See Clearly Now”. I too was sired by a father(lower case), but I was deliverd(from sin) by my Holy Father(upper case). Nowhere in my Bible does it instruct me to call a mere mortal man,(pope) Holy Father! Still looking for the story in the New Testament about st,ignatius; mine(NIV) doesn’t mention the child in Jesus’s lap by name, just a child! And I don’t twist scripture to suit my own agenda, as Jesus is referred to as the “Rock”, on many occasions! I guess the bottom line is, that you are a catholic, and I’m not.And with every sunset, the chances of that changing grow dimmer! What a joy to have a personal relationship with Jesus, being able to talk with Him every day. Having my Saturdays free to serve Him and witness to others about his divine grace! Which reminds me; two of the most beautiful examples of grace in the Bible were:1) in the Garden of Eden, when God clothed Adam and Eve, after rebuking them, and 2) when the thief on the cross next to Jesus, recognizing His glory asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus told him he would be in Paradise with Him! One last thing, was talking to a friend who happens to be a catholic, and he said that even though Christ died on the Cross, to forgive all of our sins, we still have to pay! Pay for what?

 

[ron77nyc]

I am a recent convert to Catholicism. I was baptized as a Funadmental Baptist in 1990. I fully understand why I was not permitted to recieve all sacraments immideately. In order to recieve Communion, one must understand what Christ taught about the Eucharist (see John chapter 6). Why should a Christian, who does not agree with the Teachings of the Holy Mother Church be accepted as full members prior to Catechesis? The Sacraments mean more than what you are placing on them, all of which can be found in the Scriptures. And again, Scriptures are a source of Tradition. Without Tradition, we would not have Scriptures. And remember, it is the Church, and not Scriptures which is the “pillar of Truth.”

I was born into Catholicism. I know what the sacraments are. All I’m saying is this: If the Church allows faithless Catholics to receive the sacraments then why not faith filled non-Catholics?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Paul says that partaking in the bread and cup “without discerning the body” brings judgment upon the one who does it. So the understanding of the Real Presence is “pre-biblical” since Paul is writing about something he already knows.

Yes, we spent a great deal of time on this passage (1 Cor 11:23-34). It is suggestive to Catholics but not to Protestants. It is ambiguous in contrast to the writings of Ignatius on the matter which are very clear.

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” “This IS my body.”

Again, though, the question is when did Catholics discover that these passages mean Real Presence.

Transubstantiation would be the later discovery but that is more in the order of philosophy and “science” than in the order of faith.

While I think Ignatius is clear enough on the matter, I would not dismiss transubstantiation as mere philosophy and science. One could imagine practical questions that might be put to Christians of different eras and persuasions and from their answers arrive at a map of proximate beliefs. Belief in transubstantiation takes the matter entirely out of the symbolic sphere and into the actual sphere. (Your senses are deceiving you, that is the body and blood of Christ.) Is that what the Christians of Acts believed? I remain most skeptical.

 

[mercygate]

I was born into Catholicism. I know what the sacraments are. All I’m saying is this: If the Church allows faithless Catholics to receive the sacraments then why not faith filled non-Catholics?

How would a pastor know whether a person who presents himself for Communion is “faithless?” Unless he has a personal relationship with that person, he will not.

However, even a “faith-filled” non-Catholic does not believe things that are part of the Catholic faith and is, by his own public profession, not “faith-filled” as Catholics understand the term. He may be “full” of his own faith but he is not in Communion with the Church. In the early Church the period of catechesis was 3 years.

 

[jake23]

before I converted to Gods church I was a protestant studying to be a pastor at Liberty University. I was amazed how blind protestants where when it came to the history, language, and the there meanings in the bible. Everything pointed to the catholic church! Majority of the new testament was written by catholic bishops. Catholic means universal church which belonged to the first christians. The original languages and there meanings in the bible are not even close to the interpretations of the protestant beliefs! It amazes me how people cannot take christ seriouse enough to study the history of the bible because there lives and expressions are nothing like americans and it is ignorant for those to judge Gods church aka the catholic church. Rituals practiced int he church already existed before the Bible was written down and the church needed not to put them in the scriptures, instead practice them through the church handed down from Christ to Peter the first pope. The protestant beliefs are onlya couple of hundred years old and is foreign to the history of christians! Educate yourselfs as I have with an open heart and you will find your way home to the catholic church! God Bless!

 

[elvisman]

Hey, elvisman, my brother in Christ; actually thanks to my Saviour, I am not confused; like the song said, “I Can See Clearly Now”. I too was sired by a father(lower case), but I was deliverd(from sin) by my Holy Father(upper case). Nowhere in my Bible does it instruct me to call a mere mortal man,(pope) Holy Father! Still looking for the story in the New Testament about st,ignatius; mine(NIV) doesn’t mention the child in Jesus’s lap by name, just a child! And I don’t twist scripture to suit my own agenda, as Jesus is referred to as the “Rock”, on many occasions! I guess the bottom line is, that you are a catholic, and I’m not.And with every sunset, the chances of that changing grow dimmer! What a joy to have a personal relationship with Jesus, being able to talk with Him every day. Having my Saturdays free to serve Him and witness to others about his divine grace! Which reminds me; two of the most beautiful examples of grace in the Bible were:1) in the Garden of Eden, when God clothed Adam and Eve, after rebuking them, and 2) when the thief on the cross next to Jesus, recognizing His glory asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus told him he would be in Paradise with Him! One last thing, was talking to a friend who happens to be a catholic, and he said that even though Christ died on the Cross, to forgive all of our sins, we still have to pay! Pay for what?

Good. As long as you understand that Jesus wasn’t forbidding us to call people “Teacher” or “Father”. Just as long as we understand that God is FIRST and ABOVE them all.

As for our “paying for our sins” - your friend’s statement is not exactly accurate, but let me try to explain.

In the Old Testament, David had Uriah killed, then took his wife Bathsheba. For this, David wept and repented to God - but the sword never left his house. David paid for this sin.

Similarly, if you were gto embark on a life of promiscuity then repented - you’re forgiven, right? How about the person who repents but still pays for the sin for the rest of his life because he has contracted AIDS? Is he forgiven - absolutely, but he is paying a temporal punishment for his sins.

Same with the guy who robs a bank and goes to prison. Same with the kid who breaks his mom’s favorite vase. She forgives him - but punishes him because she loves him.

According to Revelation 21:27, nothing unclean can enter heaven. Purgatory is state of final cleansing so that we may enter heaven. It’s not a “second chance” as some people claim.

Paul tells us clearly in 1 Cor. 3:12-15:
***If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, ****the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. *
*If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. *
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

---

The person will be saved, so this fire isn’t hell.
It’s not heaven either - so what is it?
Can you tell me?

 

[mercygate]

Yes, we spent a great deal of time on this passage (1 Cor 11:23-34). It is suggestive to Catholics but not to Protestants. It is ambiguous in contrast to the writings of Ignatius on the matter which are very clear.

Again, though, the question is when did Catholics discover that these passages mean Real Presence.

While I think Ignatius is clear enough on the matter, I would not dismiss transubstantiation as mere philosophy and science. One could imagine practical questions that might be put to Christians of different eras and persuasions and from their answers arrive at a map of proximate beliefs. Belief in transubstantiation takes the matter entirely out of the symbolic sphere and into the actual sphere. (Your senses are deceiving you, that is the body and blood of Christ.) Is that what the Christians of Acts believed? I remain most skeptical.

You don’t have an evidence problem. You concede that scripture arises from the Church and not the other way around. Yet some nagging reservation keeps you from acknowledging that belief in the Real Presence is *consistent *withScripture, *very early *and continuous. I find it compelling that Ignatius of Antioch, who was Evangelized by the man who wrote the Bread of Life Discourse (!) believes that “This is my body” means “This IS my body.”

“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.” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110])

 

[look3467]

The main urgency I see in this threads argument is about conversion to the Catholic church (obviously being a Catholic forum) rather than the object being to reaching the world to Christ via Christ Himself.

It is the contents and not the container which affects the consumer.

Peace>>>AJ