The Invention of Catholicism?

[Lapell]

I just read the OP, so I didn’t know that this discussion has developed this far, neither to what extent.

 

[NDfan]

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!

Lapell sorry to interrupt in this conversation and I mean no disrespect but I find this statement fascinating. What proof do you have that these traditions introduced by Ignatius etc. actually came from the Holy Spirit or from the Apostles?? Is it because they came right after them or because they potentially may have had contact with them?

 

[PJM]

=mercygate;4830214]Excellent question; in the context of that passage, I believe it points to pagans and Jews IN THE SOCIETY where they would have the opportunity to reject Christ. The possibility of salvation for these people, in today’s language, would come under the heading of “invincible ignorance.”

Are you suggesting my friend that in this Era of hightech communications, that somehow these folks do not access to knowledge of God and Jesus Christ? I diaagree

“Ignorqance” yes, “invincible” NO, cupable, very likely

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I just read the OP, so I didn’t know that this discussion has developed this far, neither to what extent.

Welcome to the thread.

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!

It’s a bit of an exageration to say that there was ever a time when there was “ONE Church”, apart perhaps from when Jesus was instructing the apostles. The very existence of heresies contradicts that idea. People see things differently and this is reflected in their theological beliefs.

 

[mercygate]

Are you suggesting my friend that in this Era of hightech communications, that somehow these folks do not access to knowledge of God and Jesus Christ? I diaagree

“Ignorqance” yes, “invincible” NO, cupable, very likely

My post was in response to a specific quotation from the Council of Florence that had been taken out of context. It is not for me to pass judgment on souls and whether they are culpable or their ignorance is invincible.

I would observe, however, that there appears to be a great deal more invincible truculence than invincible ignorance in the world.

 

[greggy53]

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

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.

I was wondering when someone was going to jump on my Limbo statement. In days gone by infants were baptized as soon as possible after birth. I was baptized when I was 5 days old. The reasons for this were that infant mortality was much greater, and the fear of dying with original sin on your soul much more acute than is seems to be now… The Catholic meaning behind baptism is much different than the Protestant one, and so there is much misunderstanding concerning the baptism of infants. We do take Purgatory seriously, and that is why we pray for the faithful departed at every Mass. Since Vatican2 a lot liberal teaching has infected the church, and people don’t seem to worry about following doctrines, and reveiving the sacraments. I myself am guilty too. I don’t go to confession nearly as often as I should. Perhaps a little fear is a good thing after all.

 

[jmcrae]

Lapell sorry to interrupt in this conversation and I mean no disrespect but I find this statement fascinating. What proof do you have that these traditions introduced by Ignatius etc. actually came from the Holy Spirit or from the Apostles?? Is it because they came right after them or because they potentially may have had contact with them?

“Potentially may have had contact with them?” Are you serious? St. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch - you should read about Antioch in the Book of Acts. Yes, he knew the Apostles rather well - he was taught directly by them.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I would observe, however, that there appears to be a great deal more invincible truculence than invincible ignorance in the world.

 

[NDfan]

“Potentially may have had contact with them?” Are you serious? St. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch - you should read about Antioch in the Book of Acts. Yes, he knew the Apostles rather well - he was taught directly by them.

Please don’t insult me suggesting I read about Antioch in the book of Acts. What proof do you have Ignatius was taught by the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

Please don’t insult me suggesting I read about Antioch in the book of Acts. What proof do you have Ignatius was taught by the Apostles.

Is there any evidence that he wasn’t? Keep in mind how early in Church history this is. 107 AD is only 12 years after the death of John.

Could there have been any Bishops in that time period who had not been personally trained and appointed by the Apostles?

 

[ron77nyc]

don’t[/I] understand her doctrines.

You are right about that. I wasn’t taught everything about Catholicism and I’m beginning to think that’s not so bad. There is nothing wrong with a simple devotion to Christ. **2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ. **
I’m willing to agree with the possibility of purgatory but so what. Since no one can achieve sinless perfection in this life then we are all going so why torment people with the thought of their loved one suffering immediately after death when they need to be consoled. Jesus never spoke of it and St. Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

 

[mercygate]

You are right about that. I wasn’t taught everything about Catholicism and I’m beginning to think that’s not so bad. There is nothing wrong with a simple devotion to Christ. **2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ. **
I’m willing to agree with the possibility of purgatory but so what. Since no one can achieve sinless perfection in this life then we are all going so why torment people with the thought of their loved one suffering immediately after death when they need to be consoled. Jesus never spoke of it and St. Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

I think a lot of the “furniture” that has collected around the doctrine of Purgatory has given it a bad name. If “Our God is a consumng fire” then we must be pure to stand in his presence. “Nothing unclean shall enter” the City. Purgatory is Heaven. It’s just the adjustment chamber where we lose our attachment to sin.

 

[NDfan]

Is there any evidence that he wasn’t? Keep in mind how early in Church history this is. 107 AD is only 12 years after the death of John.

Well if you make the claim that he was taught by the Apostles then the burden of proof is on you to show he was. Otherwise it’s a guess. The best knowledge we have is that he may have been appointed by Peter to become Bishop in Antioch. But then we have reports that say he succeeded Evodius so we really don’t know. Although some claim Peter appointed him after Evodius died. But then again Evodius died around 67-68AD so Peter was probably already dead. We have some information that suggests he knew the Apostle John but that’s from a few hundred years later.

The difficult thing is actually dating Ignatius. If he was born around 50AD then consider that most of the Apostles were martyred by 65AD with the exception probably of just John. Also most Apostles were on the move with Peter supposedly being in Rome around this time or shortly after. So by the time Ignatius was 15 the Apostles except for John were probably dead. If Ignatius was Bishop supposedly after Evodius who died around 67-68AD that means he was either a very young Bishop, didn’t succeed Evodius, or had an earlier birth date. Also keep in mind it’s believed Ignatius’ parents were not Christians so when was he exposed to Christianity? When was he baptized? Either way we can’t be sure he was trained by an Apostle although I wouldn’t doubt he may have had some type of contact with maybe John.

Could there have been any Bishops in that time period who had not been personally trained and appointed by the Apostles?

Yes absolutely. The folks that formed churches after Pentecost had no Apostolic succession. We can’t even be sure the Apostles ever visited them given how widespread they were and the fact that there were only 12 Apostles with some staying right in Jerusalem. The church in Rome was believed to be started by Jews from Pentecost. Who ordained their first Bishop? Certainly not Peter nor Paul. Look at Gregory of Pontus in around 200AD who became Bishop after studying under Origen. He was elected Bishop with no succession at all although the church would probably say it was through Origen. But then look at the church’s feelings toward Origen.

 

[NDfan]

I think a lot of the “furniture” that has collected around the doctrine of Purgatory has given it a bad name. If “Our God is a consumng fire” then we must be pure to stand in his presence. “Nothing unclean shall enter” the City. Purgatory is Heaven. It’s just the adjustment chamber where we lose our attachment to sin.

Mercy I completely agree with this statement. But some of the bad furniture as you say comes right from the church. I can remember being taught about purgatory in Catholic School and never having a good feeling about it. I just relinquished myself to the conclusion that purgatory was where I was going before Heaven and that I would be tortured in order to pay for my sins. This doesn’t make sense for someone who follows Christ because Christ paid the debt for all sin. Purgatory in this description would make more sense for people who do not follow Christ.

But if we consider purgatory as purgation of the sinful nature we have before we reach Heaven then it makes complete sense. It’s GOD’s way of cleansing us so Heaven can be the perfect place we know it is

 

[Usagi]

And married “bishops” and “deacons” were being appointed.

As they still are in the East, both by churches not in union with Rome (Orthodox) and those that are (Eastern Catholic).

Priestly celibacy is the prevailing discipline of the Latin Church, not a universal truth. That its prominence arose after the NT is something on which you will get no argument. But it’s hardly a good example of something that separates the Catholic Church from the New Testament Church. (It’s never been claimed as something that goes all the way back, nor something that would invalidate the authority of the Church if it did not go all the way back.)

Usagi

 

[Stephen168]

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

I’ve never found him to be disrespectful either

 

[elvisman]

You are right about that. I wasn’t taught everything about Catholicism and I’m beginning to think that’s not so bad. There is nothing wrong with a simple devotion to Christ. **2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ. **
I’m willing to agree with the possibility of purgatory but so what. Since no one can achieve sinless perfection in this life then we are all going so why torment people with the thought of their loved one suffering immediately after death when they need to be consoled. Jesus never spoke of it and St. Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

WRONG**.**
That’s not what Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:8.
He never says that to be absent from the body is to be present (automatically) with the Lord.
Here is what he says:

NIV
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

KJV
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

NKJV
We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

ASV
We are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord.

You are twisting the scriptures to your own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

As for Christianity being a “simple” thing - it’s quite the opposite, my friend.
**It is ALL-consuming. You must “take up your cross daily” (Luke 9:23) and “endure to the end” (Matt. 10:22, 24:13). ****In short - you must die **to yourself (Mark 8:34-37).

Not so simple, my confused friend.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes absolutely. The folks that formed churches after Pentecost had no Apostolic succession.

Well, technically, no, since they were the Apostles. There wasn’t any random, ad-hoc church-building going on outside of what the Apostles were doing, themselves.

 

[jlhargus]

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,

JL: PJM I am Catholic and I know there is a Trinity. I put that in question form to beleevr as I was not sure he believed in the Trinity. Point I was making; If one doesn’t believe in purgatory because the word isn’t found in the bible, then why would one believe in the Trinity as that word is not in the bible. Here is the context:

Originally Posted by 1beleevr

Since purgatory is an invented word, it would seem that belief or non-belief in such a concept would be a matter of interpretation of scripture! Thank God for free will and discernment! I choose not to believe in it!

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

 

[elvisman]

Mercy I completely agree with this statement. But some of the bad furniture as you say comes right from the church. I can remember being taught about purgatory in Catholic School and never having a good feeling about it. I just relinquished myself to the conclusion that purgatory was where I was going before Heaven and that I would be tortured in order to pay for my sins. This doesn’t make sense for someone who follows Christ because Christ paid the debt for all sin. Purgatory in this description would make more sense for people who do not follow Christ.

But if we consider purgatory as purgation of the sinful nature we have before we reach Heaven then it makes complete sense. It’s GOD’s way of cleansing us so Heaven can be the perfect place we know it is

Hey, NDF -
Try to think of it this way:
Forgiveness requires repentance. Purgatory is a cleansing (or purging) of unrepented venial sin because nothing unclean shall enter heaven (Rev. 21:27). Not everybody gets to have a deathbed experience. Some of us will be killed in accidents, etc.

As for unrepented mortal or deadly sin - that is a different story altogether. There is no purgation of that because your relationship with God has been severed.

Yes, our sinful nature will also be cleansed away because, again, nothing unclean shall enter heaven.

I’m sorry you didn’t get a better explanation in school. Some catechists are better than others.