The Invention of Catholicism?

[mercygate]

The question is when, for example, did particular beliefs and practices come about. It is easy enough to identify new beliefs and practices in Catholicism. For example, unil Vatican II mass was conducted in Latin with the priest turning his back to the congregation. After Vatican II the Church instituted new practices. Similarly, belief in the Immaculate Conception was not a (general) belief in the early Church.

Protestants cut themselves off from most the post Acts innovations of the Catholic Church through sola scriptura. What distinguishes Protestans from Catholics are (primarily) the post Acts innovations.

Post Acts? like the canon of the NT? The Holy Trinity?

We distinguish disciplines from dogmas. The Mass has always had different forms in the Eastern Churches from the Latin Church. Even the Latin Church had variations in form before Vatican 2. At Trent, Religious Congregations with a long-established particular use were allowed to keep their forms. The Carthusians, Dominicans and Carmelites all enjoyed this privilege. Interestingly, it was AFTER Vatican 2 that these communities began dropping their own usage.

 

[greggy53]

Here is the problem. I would be curious as to what translation you are using but here is the “New International Version”:

16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17

That sounds more general, less transsubstantial.

You can flip through various translations here:

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:16-17;&version=46;

As with other citations given in this thread, the distinction is subtle and depends on the meaning of the original Greek.

The translation I used is a direct quote from the Douay-Rheims
bible…Never heard of it ? It is the English translation of the original Latin Vulgate translated from the Greek texts by St Jerome in the 4th century…I suppose the translation you use is the one that fell out of the sky and hit Martin Luther on the head in the 14th centrury.

 

[greggy53]

drbo.org/index.htm
Above is the web address for the Douay-Rheims bible on-line. there is a nice introduction that explains the history of the bible.
Enjoy.

 

[PJM]

Hey … good thing that Ron77nyc points that out … now when all those old ladies line up to take God’s quiz on that, they have a chance to get in.

Maybe you’ll be in charge of giving the bible quiz entrance exam when you get to heaven.

Maybe God will have you send the old Italian ladies in your neighborhood to hell.

Because, offering a lifetime of simple prayers or grandmother’s devotion counts for nothing … God wants to test your bible knowledge.

Dear frinds in Christ,

Time does not permit me to read the previous 200+ post on this string.

What John Chapter 1 say’s is that “1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John is saying that God is in His WORD (teachings), so to reject God’s teaching is to defacto; deny God!

2 Tim. 3:16-17 futher explains: “16 All scripture is inspired by God and * profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

taking the two WORDS of God togeather clearly tells us the we to accept ALL of God’s teachings, not simply the ones that suit our personal philosophy and theologies. Amen!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The translation I used is a direct quote from the Douay-Rheims bible…Never heard of it ? It is the English translation of the original Latin Vulgate translated from the Greek texts by St Jerome in the 4th century…I suppose the translation you use is the one that fell out of the sky and hit Martin Luther on the head in the 14th centrury.

I did give the url where you can flip through a variety of translations at least some of which are sanctioned by the Catholic Church. If translations are being determined by theology then citing scripture in English isn’t going to resolve the question.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Post Acts? like the canon of the NT? The Holy Trinity?

Those are good examples of Post-Acts innovations that the Protestants kept. I don’t see Protestants as being hypocrical merely because they didn’t throw out everything Catholic post-Acts.

We distinguish disciplines from dogmas. The Mass has always had different forms in the Eastern Churches from the Latin Church. Even the Latin Church had variations in form before Vatican 2. At Trent, Religious Congregations with a long-established particular use were allowed to keep their forms. The Carthusians, Dominicans and Carmelites all enjoyed this privilege. Interestingly, it was AFTER Vatican 2 that these communities began dropping their own usage.

I don’t want to go off on a Vatican 2 tangent, my point was only that the Church does innovate. Moving back to dogma, I think you gave a couple good examples: NT as scripture (as opposed to mere oral stories) and the Holy Trinity.

 

[johnnydigit]

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.

second century eh? i found it very interesting that St. Ignatius of Antioch (1C AD) and St. Polycarp (1C AD) were close disciples of St. John the Beloved of Jesus Christ our Lord Himself, the Evangelist, the writer of the Gospel of John. they lived and died for the Catholic Church. i wonder if they picked this up from St. John? then of course there are the other Apostolic Fathers (those who knew the Apostles - they must have learned something else?) and Church Fathers.

you probably know more about Christian history than i do, so i guess you hypothesize that the only historical evidence we have are all lies. they must be all lies!

the only evidence you trust is the book written by the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church, for the Mass, for teaching, by teachers. the Bible wasn’t written to prove you wrong. teachers’ manuals weren’t written to prove to the students that the manual is real and that the teacher is legit.

have some faith and your eyes will be opened. keep resisting and you will keep searching and inventing ways to resist until the day you die. just let go for once and trust. you won’t explode in flames.

 

[ron77nyc]

I just looked up 4 different catholic versions and it’s 2-2.

newadvent.org/bible/1co010.htm
16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? Which we bless… Here the apostle puts them in mind of their partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, 1 Corinthians 10:21, that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils by eating of the meats sacrificed to them. 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread. One bread… or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread. For it is by our communicating with Christ, and with one another, in this blessed sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely united together.

drbo.org/
16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=53
16 The blessing-cup, which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ; and the loaf of bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
17 And as there is one loaf, so we, although there are many of us, are one single body, for we all share in the one loaf.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians10.htm
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

second century eh?

That was a bit of sloppiness on my part (Acts ends in 65AD, not 99AD.) We have since focused on the period 65-110AD.

i found it very interesting that St. Ignatius of Antioch (1C AD) and St. Polycarp (1C AD) were close disciples of St. John the Beloved of Jesus Christ our Lord Himself, the Evangelist, the writer of the Gospel of John. they lived and died for the Catholic Church. i wonder if they picked this up from St. John? then of course there are the other Apostolic Fathers (those who knew the Apostles - they must have learned something else?) and Church Fathers. you probably know more about Christian history than i do, so i guess you hypothesize that the only historical evidence we have are all lies. they must be all lies!

These are indeed the fellows around whom this debate circles.

In Part 2 I have put forward the specific hypothesis that the destrution of the Jerusalem Temple was the catalyst for the invention of Catholicism.

the only evidence you trust is the book written by the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church, for the Mass, for teaching, by teachers. the Bible wasn’t written to prove you wrong. teachers’ manuals weren’t written to prove to the students that the manual is real and that the teacher is legit.

If anything, I have less confidence in the Apostles than most Catholics. The NT generally is pretty honest about describing the befuddlment.

 

[greggy53]

I did give the url where you can flip through a variety of translations at least some of which are sanctioned by the Catholic Church. If translations are being determined by theology then citing scripture in English isn’t going to resolve the question.

I’m not sure what you are saying?..That the church back in 384 AD twisted the scriptures to mean what it (the church) wanted them to mean?..If that is the case then how can you trust your modern bible when the scriptures that it originated from are corrupted?

 

[ron77nyc]

Dear frinds in Christ,

Time does not permit me to read the previous 200+ post on this string.

What John Chapter 1 say’s is that “1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John is saying that God is in His WORD (teachings), so to reject God’s teaching is to defacto; deny God!

2 Tim. 3:16-17 futher explains: “16 All scripture is inspired by God and * profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

taking the two WORDS of God togeather clearly tells us the we to accept ALL of God’s teachings, not simply the ones that suit our personal philosophy and theologies. Amen!

I was pointing out not the rejection of the word in the history of catholicism but the “neglection” of it. I just invented a new word. Tell all your friends.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I just looked up 4 different catholic versions and it’s 2-2.

newadvent.org/bible/1co010.htm
16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? Which we bless… Here the apostle puts them in mind of their partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, 1 Corinthians 10:21, that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils by eating of the meats sacrificed to them. 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread. One bread… or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread. For it is by our communicating with Christ, and with one another, in this blessed sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely united together.

The New Advant commentary is most illuminating. It provides the best context and elaboration. Now certainly a Catholic can read into these verses the Real Presence but there is another, simpler interpreation implied by the contrast that Paul is setting up between the eucharist and the food from pagan sacrifices.

Notice, first of all, that (as far as I know) pagans did not believe that they were eathing the flesh and blood of the gods and demons in the practice of eating food sacrificed to them. This was also the Jewish practice.

So Paul is equating the two thus implying that whatever he means by partaking in communion, it is not a literal consumption of Jesus body and blood transubstiantiated by the mass.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m not sure what you are saying?..That the church back in 384 AD twisted the scriptures to mean what it (the church) wanted them to mean?..If that is the case then how can you trust your modern bible when the scriptures that it originated from are corrupted?

No “twisting” is required. If a sentense is ambiguous then it will be read to mean what we expect it to mean. We cannot resolve this question merely be looking at modern translations or even translations of 384AD. Now if you want to claim that the non-Catholic translations have “twisted” the NT then I’m open to exploring that possibility.

 

[greggy53]

The New Advant commentary is most illuminating. It provides the best context and elaboration. Now certainly a Catholic can read into these verses the Real Presence but there is another, simpler interpreation implied by the contrast that Paul is setting up between the eucharist and the food from pagan sacrifices.

Notice, first of all, that (as far as I know) pagans did not believe that they were eathing the flesh and blood of the gods and demons in the practice of eating food sacrificed to them. This was also the Jewish practice.

So Paul is equating the two thus implying that whatever he means by partaking in communion, it is not a literal consumption of Jesus body and blood transubstiantiated by the mass.

Here is the Douay-Rheims interpretation of the same scripture:

16 “Which we bless”… Here the apostle puts them in mind of their partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred mysteries, and becoming thereby one mystical body with Christ. From whence he infers, ver. 21, that they who are made partakers with Christ, by the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament, must not be made partakers with devils by eating of the meats sacrificed to them.

17 “One bread”… or, as it may be rendered, agreeably both to the Latin and Greek, because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread. For it is by our communicating with Christ, and with one another, in this blessed sacrament, that we are formed into one mystical body; and made, as it were, one bread, compounded of many grains of corn, closely united together.

So, it boils down to who’s interpretaion is correct?
It comes down to who has the authority to determine, and interpret sacred Scripture.

1. the individual, OR
2. Church teaching reinforced by 2000 years of study, prayer, and the authroity given to it by Jesus himself.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It comes down to who has the authority to determine, and interpret sacred Scripture.

Or perhaps it comes down to who actually translated it correctly. (If you leave it to the Church to interpret scipture for you there is not much purpose in investigating the scripture in the first place.)

 

[PJM]

Here is the problem. I would be curious as to what translation you are using but here is the “New International Version”:

16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17

That sounds more general, less transsubstantial.

You can flip through various translations here:

As with other citations given in this thread, the distinction is subtle and depends on the meaning of the original Greek.

Please excuse me not being Greek,

But what paul is sharing here is Theologically sound, and supports fully the RCC Dogma on Transsubstantion.

"14Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation * in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation * in the body of Christ? 17* Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. FROM THE NIV…

Clearly Paul is STATING … This IS the Blood of Christ…
This IS the Body of Christ! It is not a question, it is a ststement of FACT! How do we know this?

1 Cor. Chapter 11 (NIV Bible) "23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

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. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks ***without discerning ***the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself"

Would eating ordinary bread, drinking ordinary wine, bring JUDGEMENT? of couse not!

So I’m not sure what your point is:blush:

 

[greggy53]

Or perhaps it comes down to who actually translated it correctly. (If you leave it to the Church to interpret scipture for you there is not much purpose in investigating the scripture in the first place.)

Nonsense! we investigate and meditate upon the scriptures for the benefit of our salvation, to be closer to God. It’s hard to do that when scripture becomes “ambigious” by our limited understanding. If 10 men read the verses we spoke of and come away with 10 different inerpretaions who is right?..they can’t all be right? they can’t all be guided by the holy Spirit, and yet disagree?
That is why St Paul taught us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The scriptures are the tool of the Church.
The bottom line is one of Authority…something our Protestant bretheren have problems with.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Nonsense! we investigate and meditate upon the scriptures for the benefit of our salvation, to be closer to God. It’s hard to do that when scripture becomes “ambigious” by our limited understanding. If 10 men read the verses we spoke of and come away with 10 different inerpretaions who is right?..they can’t all be right? they can’t all be guided by the holy Spirit, and yet disagree?
That is why St Paul taught us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The scriptures are the tool of the Church.
The bottom line is one of Authority…something our Protestant bretheren have problems with.

Certainly Church authority is one resolution to the problem of disagreement and ambiguity. So maybe we should meditate on the authority of the Church instead since the scriptures are just a tool of the Church and mean whatever the Church says they mean.

But assuming that we seek to understand it, I think it would be better to investigate the translation of the verse more closely.

 

[1beleevr]

“Sweet Jesus, my Saviour, you are my Faithful friend; You know me, You made me , You see my every sin.” Beautiful lyrics, don’t you think? I just love worshipping and praising my Lord!!!(Psalms100:1) Whether with voices only, or with guitars, drums and organs! Hey, elvisman, my brother from another mother; how are you? Just finished reading your reply, and must say that Matthew 7:1, and Romans 8:1 came to mind! Let me give you a brief recap of how this whole thing started: In talking to a friend of mine, who just happens to be catholic, he said," the pope is the holy father." And I replied, “Only to catholics; other evangelical people do not refer to him by that title; he’s just a pope” And Jesus also told the Pharisees that Satan was their father. And I guess when you meet the pope, there’s something about kissing his ring, which I could never lower myself to do! So, basically, our discussion is a matter of semantics and differences of opinion and interpretation. I have not accused any of you, of twisting verses; just asking you the basis for your belief in them.

 

[mercygate]

“Sweet Jesus, my Saviour, you are my Faithful friend; You know me, You made me , You see my every sin.” Beautiful lyrics, don’t you think? I just love worshipping and praising my Lord!!!(Psalms100:1) Whether with voices only, or with guitars, drums and organs! Hey, elvisman, my brother from another mother; how are you? Just finished reading your reply, and must say that Matthew 7:1, and Romans 8:1 came to mind! Let me give you a brief recap of how this whole thing started: In talking to a friend of mine, who just happens to be catholic, he said," the pope is the holy father." And I replied, “Only to catholics; other evangelical people do not refer to him by that title; he’s just a pope” And Jesus also told the Pharisees that Satan was their father. And I guess when you meet the pope, there’s something about kissing his ring, which I could never lower myself to do! So, basically, our discussion is a matter of semantics and differences of opinion and interpretation. I have not accused any of you, of twisting verses; just asking you the basis for your belief in them.

The Catholic Church has the disadvantage of 2000 years of history, during which it acquired features of the cultures through which it passed. Catholics view it as a Kingdom, as did St. Matthew. The Church today retains aspects of its royal priesthood in her practices.

American Protestants tend to view the Church as a democratic or perhaps a Federalist proposition. The idea of “kingdom” and “royalty” is offensive to the Americanist view.