The Invention of Catholicism?

[1beleevr]

Yes, I do believe in the Trinity; but it may be a stretch to compare it with purgatory! And I agree that there are many invented words! But once again, it comes down to interpretation; such as, James 5:16 being used as a basis for confessing our sins to a mortal man; who by the way cannot say," your sins are forgiven". Or Matthew 16:18, being used to show the establishment of the caholic church! You will say that it’s without any doubt true, and we will say, “we’re not so sure”. This is what makes us humans so unique; is our ability to rationalize, discern and search for the answers! Are they here? Is someone wrong because their faith doesn’t match yours? Is Acts 26:4-5 really a basis for saying that Christianity is a religion, or is it Paul rejoicing in the freedom of his once rigid religion(Pharisee)? And does 1John 1:1:9 give us the opportunity to confess our sins directly to the Father, through Jesus(no priest necessary?

 

[elvisman]

Um, I said “Christians of Acts” meaning pre-65AD.

Your assertion that everything went that far off track that early on - while there were still Apostles alive - defies all logic.
Proof, please.

 

[fbl9]

Yes, I do believe in the Trinity; but it may be a stretch to compare it with purgatory! And I agree that there are many invented words! But once again, it comes down to interpretation; such as, James 5:16 being used as a basis for confessing our sins to a mortal man; who by the way cannot say," your sins are forgiven". Or Matthew 16:18, being used to show the establishment of the caholic church! You will say that it’s without any doubt true, and we will say, “we’re not so sure”. This is what makes us humans so unique; is our ability to rationalize, discern and search for the answers! Are they here? Is someone wrong because their faith doesn’t match yours? Is Acts 26:4-5 really a basis for saying that Christianity is a religion, or is it Paul rejoicing in the freedom of his once rigid religion(Pharisee)? And does 1John 1:1:9 give us the opportunity to confess our sins directly to the Father, through Jesus(no priest necessary?

Why? the doctrine of the Trinity is from a fully Catholic interpitation of scripture,so as you reject purgatory bc it come from a fully Catholic interpitation,how can you even begin to accept the doctrine of the trinity?or is it bc you have no depth of understanding of the doctrine that you accept it?(trinity)
nope you are merely saying that only you know the truth bc you can some how read a book to say what you claim.

At what point did the Jewish faith become a religion?

 

[greggy53]

Yes, I do believe in the Trinity; but it may be a stretch to compare it with purgatory! And I agree that there are many invented words! But once again, it comes down to interpretation; such as, James 5:16 being used as a basis for confessing our sins to a mortal man; who by the way cannot say," your sins are forgiven". Or Matthew 16:18, being used to show the establishment of the caholic church! You will say that it’s without any doubt true, and we will say, “we’re not so sure”. This is what makes us humans so unique; is our ability to rationalize, discern and search for the answers! Are they here? Is someone wrong because their faith doesn’t match yours? Is Acts 26:4-5 really a basis for saying that Christianity is a religion, or is it Paul rejoicing in the freedom of his once rigid religion(Pharisee)? And does 1John 1:1:9 give us the opportunity to confess our sins directly to the Father, through Jesus(no priest necessary?

Yes, a question of interpretation, and authority. The old Protestant two step…They love literal interpretations of scripture unless a literal interpretation goes against what they want to believe. Case in point: Jesus specifically gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins…Even your King James version says so…
But watch how they dance around it!

 

[mercygate]

Excellent answer.

Thank you. And “invincible ignorance” is no guarantee of salvation. It offers the possibility that salvation apart from acceptance of Christ and His Church *might – just might – *be possible for those who have no opportunity to know Christ. It’s not a clear pass by any means, since Scripture tells us that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The Church joins to this the promise of Mt. 16:18 and the prayer of John 17:11 “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that theymay be one, even as we are one.”

 

[greggy53]

Thank you. And “invincible ignorance” is no guarantee of salvation. It offers the possibility that salvation apart from acceptance of Christ and His Church *might – just might – *be possible for those who have no opportunity to know Christ. It’s not a clear pass by any means, since Scripture tells us that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” The Church joins to this the promise of Mt. 16:18 and the prayer of John 17:11 “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that theymay be one, even as we are one.”

This has been a dilemma for theologians all through history.
From what I have learned there are two basic ideas on the matter.

1. A loving father would hold us accountable for what we know,
   and not judge us on what we don’t know, or could not have know.
   OR
2. Our names are either written in the lambs book of life or they are not. As you said: "since Scripture tells us that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” If then we trust in scripture alone we are either pre-destined for salvation, or in the case of those who lived before Christ pre-destined to damnation. Tough luck Plato!
   The latter represents the Protestant heresy proposed by those of the Presbyterian persuasion. For my part a loving father tempers the judgment of his children with mercy, and understanding. The Church in its wisdom has always considered that this grace has an active part in salvation. Pope Benedict in my opinion was re-affirming this position. From what I was taught the idea of Limbo was one way of expressing an option. It is not as far as I know however a doctrine of the Church.

 

[PJM]

JL: Trinity is an invented word also. Do you believe in the Trinity?

Really

Mt. 3:"11 “I (John the baptist) baptize you (Jesus) with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12* His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

13* Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened * and he (JOHN) saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, (God the Holy Spirit)and alighting on him; 17* and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, (God The Father)“This is my beloved Son, * with whom I am well pleased.”

In these verses: v.15=Jesus; v. 16 The Holy Spirit; and v.17 God The Father.

That’s THREE right:shrug: And it’s biblical:clapping: :dancing:

Now friend if you don't believe in God or His Sacred Word, well

that my friend is a he… of a problem. You might want to change your mind.
Love and prayers,

 

[CWBetts]

Really

Mt. 3:"11 “I (John the baptist) baptize you (Jesus) with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12* His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

13* Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened * and he (JOHN) saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, (God the Holy Spirit)and alighting on him; 17* and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, (God The Father)“This is my beloved Son, * with whom I am well pleased.”

In these verses: v.15=Jesus; v. 16 The Holy Spirit; and v.17 God The Father.

That’s THREE right:shrug: And it’s biblical:clapping: :dancing:

Now friend if you don't believe in God or His Sacred Word, well

that my friend is a he… of a problem. You might want to change your mind.

Love and prayers,

Funny. You failde to point out the word “trinity” The Trinity is merely implied. I guess you can pick and choose what implied dogmas you want to believe. Purgatory is Biblical as well. You just choose not to believe it!

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Your assertion that everything went that far off track that early on - while there were still Apostles alive - defies all logic.
Proof, please.

Why would you presume it was off-track? (See Part 2 for a discussion of the catalyst.)

 

[Steve_Van_Horn]

The concept of sola scriptura has always amazed me. More to the point, the arrogance of sola scriptura amazes me. For one to take scripture, the inspired nature of which is dependent upon the determination and proclaimation of the Catholic Church (Council of Carthage - 382 A.D.), and then to turn around and deny the authority of that same Church to interpret its meaning, defering instead to each individual, no matter his level of education or intellectual ability, to make that determination, is laughable. It is analogous to doing away with our Supreme Court in matters of constitutional law and leaving the interpretation of the constitution up to each individual citizen. That is called anarchy, and it is evident among the protestant denominations in that, far from the unity that Christ prayed for, there are now over 50,000 protestant denominations in the United States alone, each of them believing they alone have the “truth”. Sorry, there is but one truth, not many. The nature of Protestantism today is its own worst enemy. It continues to fracture, not unify. Everyone has their own truth because they have no authoritative guide in these matters. The greatest difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, the Bible did not give us the Church.

As far as Tradition is concerned, I’ll be brief. The Church had no Bible, other than the Old Testament, for nearly 400 years. It completely depended on the Tradition of the Chruch during that period. As a matter of fact, when the Church finally determined the canon of scripture, that determination was based upon whether or not a particular document held up under the scrutiny of Tradition. So Tradition came before scripture, not after, and was the standard by which the books of the Bible were determined.

 

[jmcrae]

The concept of sola scriptura has always amazed me. …]

I love G. K. Chesterton’s definition of Protestantism:

The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle. - G. K. Chesterton

 

[elvisman]

Why would you presume it was off-track? (See Part 2 for a discussion of the catalyst.)

So it’s all based on Bubba’s Theory? yawn
And I thought this was a legitimate discussion about the facts . . .

 

[ron77nyc]

The concept of sola scriptura has always amazed me. More to the point, the arrogance of sola scriptura amazes me…
As far as Tradition is concerned, I’ll be brief. The Church had no Bible, other than the Old Testament, for nearly 400 years. It completely depended on the Tradition of the Chruch during that period. As a matter of fact, when the Church finally determined the canon of scripture, that determination was based upon whether or not a particular document held up under the scrutiny of Tradition. So Tradition came before scripture, not after, and was the standard by which the books of the Bible were determined.

The Bereans confirmed everything with scripture.
Acts 17:10 But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

Paul tells Timothy to teach the scriptures.
2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in mind, charging them before the Lord. Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they grow much towards ungodliness.

When the New Testament was complete the early church fathers used it as a rule.

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):
**The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the **proclamation of the truth.

(Against the Heathen, I:3, quoted in Carl A. Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983], p. 147.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):
…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa:
Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

St. John Chrysostom:
They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.(Homily 13 on Genesis.)

St. Basil the Great:
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)

St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):
It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37

 

[elvisman]

The Bereans confirmed everything with scripture.

Paul tells Timothy to teach the scriptures.

Uh - not so fast there Ron.

Athanasius
The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, ‘ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you’ (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they [the Arian heretics], as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.'

For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the Fathers, if we be not spurious children, but have received the traditions from them, and the lessons of religion at their hands.**(Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 47)

And many other things he [Gregory of Alexandria, Arian heretic] did, which exceed the power of language to describe, and which whoever should hear would think to be incredible. And the reason why he acted thus was, because he had not received his ordination according to ecclesiastical rule, nor had been called to be a Bishop by Apostolical tradition; (History of the Arians II, 14)**

But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so ye hold them fast .’** (To the Bishops of Africa 10)**

’And as I have delivered to you traditions, hold them fast.’ That means, indeed, that we should think not otherwise than as the teacher has delivered.** (Festal Letter 2.5)**

2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

2 Tim. 12:14
Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me**, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. **

Jerome
**Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 A.D. 382]).

Basil
**Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. (On the Holy Spirit 27 A.D. 375]).

Theodoret
**I have ever kept the faith of the Apostles undefiled… So have I learnt not only from the Apostles and the Prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance [styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees] (*Letters *no. 89 [circa **A.D. 443]).

And you claim to be Catholic??
Maybe you should read this article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

(I deleted most of your post to fit my text)

 

[ron77nyc]

Maybe you should read this article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

(I deleted most of your post to fit my text)

I did not say I believed in sola scriptura. I go back to what I said before and that is throughout the history of the church scripture was neglected and man made traditions and fables became the rule of faith although it was never the official teaching of the church. Catholicism went to one extreme and Protestantism went to the other.

 

[ron77nyc]

Maybe you should read this article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

I did not say I believed in sola scriptura. I go back to what I said before and that is throughout the history of the church scripture was neglected and man made traditions and fables became the rule of faith although it was never the official teaching of the church. Catholicism went to one extreme and Protestantism went to the other.

Here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

From what I was taught the idea of Limbo was one way of expressing an option. It is not as far as I know however a doctrine of the Church.

If you tell people that their unbaptised baby will be eternally separated from God and it’s parents for all eternity you don’t have to say whether it’s a doctrine or not. You place fear in their hearts and give them no other choice than to do it. If this is really true then why not have a priest present at their birth just in case something happens? Then there is the baptism of the dead in the scriptures. Why doesn’t the church practise that if we take the hints about purgatory seriously? Now don’t get too mad at me. I’m just asking.

 

[Stephen168]

So it’s all based on Bubba’s Theory? yawn
And I thought this was a legitimate discussion about the facts . . .

As far as Bubba is concerned this has never been a legitimate discussion.(review post 296)

 

[mercygate]

As far as Bubba is concerned this has never been a legitimate discussion.(review post 296)

Actually, I have found Bubba to be quite respectful when treated with respect.

 

[elvisman]

I did not say I believed in sola scriptura. I go back to what I said before and that is throughout the history of the church scripture was neglected and man made traditions and fables became the rule of faith although it was never the official teaching of the church. Catholicism went to one extreme and Protestantism went to the other.

**If you don’t believe in sola Scriptura - why are you advocating it? **
Scripture has NEVER been “neglected” by the Church. Where do you get off making such a ridiculous claim?
**As for these so-called “man made traditions and fables” - what part of John 16:13-15 do you not understand?

If you tell people that their unbaptised baby will be eternally separated from God and it’s parents for all eternity you don’t have to say whether it’s a doctrine or not. You place fear in their hearts and give them no other choice than to do it. If this is really true then why not have a priest present at their birth just in case something happens? Then there is the baptism of the dead in the scriptures. Why doesn’t the church practise that if we take the hints about purgatory seriously? Now don’t get too mad at me. I’m just asking.

The Church leaves an unbaptized infant to the mercy of God. She doesn’t damn them to eternal seperation from God.

As for advocating the baptism of the dead - 1 Cor. 15:29 speaks against it. This is not a Catholic belief nor is it a belief of mainline Protestantism. As a matter of fact, it is a Mormon practice.

You’re all over the board here in your quest to prove the Catholic Church wrong - yet you don’t understand her doctrines.

 

[Lapell]

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.

Sounds like your signature could read: "Can anything good come out of the Catholic Church, hmm?
Do you think that the Gospel preceded the existence of the Church? We actually get our New Testament from her!! You should that back then there was only ONE Church, that saint Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, called her Catholic (he died around 105 or 107 AD!!), and that the Fathers of the Church back then wrote plenty of texts to fight the heresies (errors) of the time.
You have no proof whatsoever that the “traditions” of the Church back then were not in concordance with the Holy Spirit who inspired the Apostles AND their successors back then!