The Invention of Catholicism?

[jmcrae]

If you just want to beat up Protestants, be my guest. But if we’re exploring the question of whether Catholicism can be resoncstructed from the Bible the it makes sense to distinguish these two points. If it turns out that Catholicism can be reconstructed from the Bible through the liberal application of reason then all you need to do to convert a Protestant to a Catholic is convince them to use reason in theology.

So which are not and why not?

For the answer to this, you need a full course in theology. I don’t have an answer for you that would fit into this little window.

Are you thinking of “Manifested Sons of God heresy”?

the "http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/outlines/outline_00076_manifested_sons_of_god_web.htm

The Trinity is often explained by analogy to water, ice, and steam, for example.

Which is a heresy. The Trinity is not anything like water, ice and steam.

Rather, it is somewhat (though not exactly) like Siamese triplets who share a single brain (but each has his own eyes, ears, and mouth), and also, at the same time, each triplet has a completely different personality, and thinks his own thoughts and his own experiences in that one shared brain, to instantaneously share them with his brothers, and to instantaneously receive their reactions to his experiences.

In any case, the Persons of the Trinity are inferrable from the Bible (e.g. Jesus prays to God in the garden).

Yes, that’s right.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

For the answer to this, you need a full course in theology. I don’t have an answer for you that would fit into this little window.

How about the most important example you can think of?

Which is a heresy. The Trinity is not anything like water, ice and steam.

I don’t want this to become a debate about the Trinity as water analogy but keep in mind that the dogma of the Trinity is a mystery so all analogies will fall short. I’ve often heard sermons in mass that explained the Trinity as the various roles of a single person, father, husband, son, employee, etc. I doubt the priest was teaching heresy.

 

[jmcrae]

How about the most important example you can think of?

I can’t actually think of a single doctrine of the Church that isn’t alluded to at least obliquely in the Scriptures. But I said, “most” on the off chance that there is something I might have missed.

I don’t want this to become a debate about the Trinity as water analogy but keep in mind that the dogma of the Trinity is a mystery so all analogies will fall short. I’ve often heard sermons in mass that explained the Trinity as the various roles of a single person, father, husband, son, employee, etc. I doubt the priest was teaching heresy.

If that’s actually what he was teaching, then yes, he was teaching heresy.

Best case scenario, you misunderstood something. But not all priests are orthodox (or even very well trained) in their understanding of theology. In some countries, they don’t even allow priests to write their own homilies, for this very reason. A learned theologian writes the sermons, the Bishop approves it, and then the priests just read off the page that they are given.

 

[CoachSTL]

Pursuit of truth. I won’t bother to ask the question again, it’s obvious that you don’t want to answer it. Maybe you should ask yourself why you find that question to be so discomforting.

Son,

I can see you are afraid. You see, you are now being honest. You do not know the Truth about Jesus’ Teaching because you are still pursuing it. This is good! God is calling you and you are responding. You answers are at hand.

I have answered you. Christ taught the Apostles to carry out His Teaching. He established a physical, hierachial Church to protect it. The first preists in His Church were the Apostles and they were Catholic. It is the “pillar and foundation of truth”.

You choose not to believe what I am telling you. This is your perogative. But, it is only out of fear.

I guarantee you, that if you are sincere, God will tell you what I am saying to you about the Catholic Church.

You are on my prayer list.

Prayerfully,

coachstl

 

[jake23]

If you knew nothing else, (void of any knowledge of the Catholic Church) and if you were stranded on an island only with a bible in your hand, read it over and over, and died after many years, would you think that there was enough information in the bible to lead you to belief in God?

The question is: Is there enough information in the bible to receive from God the gift of salvation?

But, let’s say that after reading the bible many times over, and instead of dying, you were able to go back to civilization, what do you suppose your thoughts would be about the Catholic Church and or other religious beliefs?

Peace>>>AJ

Interesting question! It is not mans right to authorize his personal opinions of things he does not know however I believe that if you where allon on a island with an Bible and no knowledge of the catholic faith yes you would be able to be saved though it is likely I would have no real knowledge of what the majority of the bible meant. I beleive that people who have never seen of heard of Christ will have a chance to be saved because of there particuler circumstance. I would not however be able to mature spiritually and apply the proper tools given in the Bible without the help of the catholic church sent from Christ. It is those who have access to the bible and the church that could be in possible Jeopardy. If one has mental capability to learn and does so in reference to the Bible with an open heart will always fin there way to the catholic faith. Those who have not have chosen personal opinion over God. Now what the punishment for that is, I dont know, I would assume if anything time in purgatory. Seeing that the Bible was written through the catholic church and if you truly wish to understand the Bible and mature spiritualy than it is the catholic faith that you must follow. I hope that answer your question!

 

[Stephen168]

If you are truly seeking the truth about what Christ taught, which is what I thought you were doing but I do not feel you are anymore, …

Once I realized this about Bubba, it was much easier to sit back and smile.

 

[look3467]

Protestants claim (essentially) that all you need is the Bible to be saved (more or less). But they (sometimes seem to) claim further that you don’t really need to think about it too much, that if it’s not explicitly there then it’s not important for salvation. (For example, purgatory is implied, not explicit.)>>>Bubba

I would imagine of the number of questions I would have were I the one that was stranded with the bible in hand.

It would be akin to the Ethiopian Eunuch story:

Act 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
Act 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Act 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

We have to understand that the book of Isaiah was at that time about the coming Messiah, and my being stranded on an Island would be at the present time and being about the works of Jesus after the fulfillment of what the book of Isaiah spoke about.

I would imagine that the Eunuch might have read the following verses that prompt him to ask who it was that was spoken of:
Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.
Isa 31:1 Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!

The good thing about Eunuch inquiry was that is was after The Holy One of Israel had come and gone, which made the inquiry a real time issue and one which Philip wanted to participate in by Baptism as a commitment to what he now believed.

The bible would reveal, if nothing else was known, that first, there is a God which must be believed by faith, for there would be none other source of information.

Second, I believe that God knowing the condition of the stranded individual’s heart’s inquiry into Gods word, would make Himself known to him via the Holy spirit.

Bear in mind that to the stranded individual there are no traditions or practices to relate to other than what he would deduce from the words of the bible.

For all we know, he could start a religion of his own based on what he was able to understand of it and still be in line with the love of God and His salvation plan.

If he got back to civilization, perhaps he would be led to the Catholic Church or any other organization which would meet his understanding.

I understand that there are allot of if’s involved with this example, but the reality of it is that God in Jesus has provided us to experience Him individually, by the hearing of the word.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

**Also **: 1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Co 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

But because we have the advantage of the Catholic Church and other denominations today, we are the better for it.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[CoachSTL]

Once I realized this about Bubba, it was much easier to sit back and smile.

Thank you Stephen! We can only pray for our brother.

 

[look3467]

I don’t want this to become a debate about the Trinity as water analogy but keep in mind that the dogma of the Trinity is a mystery so all analogies will fall short. I’ve often heard sermons in mass that explained the Trinity as the various roles of a single person, father, husband, son, employee, etc. I doubt the priest was teaching heresy.>>>Bubba

Application is the extrapolation of the trinity view.
**Father **= creator of all there is and humanity’s lost condition. (Collectively)
**Son **= Savior of the lost condition of humanity in a new creation. (Collectively)
Holy Spirit = life giver of the Son’s new creation’s via Omni-presence of His Spirit. (Individually or autonomy.)

Understanding of these three applications will paint a picture of the One God in three.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I can’t actually think of a single doctrine of the Church that isn’t alluded to at least obliquely in the Scriptures. But I said, “most” on the off chance that there is something I might have missed.

Keep in mind, though, that an ambiguous, oblique, reference will be open to multiple inferences. You really can’t deny pergatory (in some form, nobody really claims to understand it in detail), for example, if you know your Bible. But there are probably other examples where Bible+reason does not yeild only Catholic dogma but also heterodoxy, perhaps even heresy.

(We’re gliding over the fact that it helps to know something about history since the Bible is not an encylopedia and dictionary not to mention the common sense of human experience.)

 

[jmcrae]

Keep in mind, though, that an ambiguous, oblique, reference will be open to multiple inferences.

Which is why we need the Holy Tradition of the Church to assist us in interpreting the Bible.

You really can’t deny pergatory (in some form, nobody really claims to understand it in detail), for example, if you know your Bible.

You’re the first Protestant I’ve known, ever to admit that.

But there are probably other examples where Bible+reason does not yeild only Catholic dogma but also heterodoxy, perhaps even heresy.

As we can see by the many hundreds of Bible-only religions that disagree not only with the Catholic Church but also with each other.

(We’re gliding over the fact that it helps to know something about history since the Bible is not an encylopedia and dictionary not to mention the common sense of human experience.)

Right. The Scriptures cannot be understood at all, without their context. Of course, the macro-context of the Scriptures is the Mass - the Mass is what the Bible was created for, in the first place.

 

[look3467]

Interesting question! It is not mans right to authorize his personal opinions of things he does not know however, I believe that if you where alone on a island with an Bible and no knowledge of the catholic faith yes, you would be able to be saved though it, is likely I would have no real knowledge of what the majority of the bible meant.>>>Jake

I see an honest answer in light of what the word of God says.
And even if you went to the Catholic Church all your life, you still will not understand all that the bible says ether.

It is an on going spiritual growth once the foundation of Christ has been laid and one upon which we can build.

3Jo 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

The way to God is through Jesus Christ alone, but the way to grow in spirit is by many ways different to everybody due to each ones circumstances.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bear in mind that to the stranded individual there are no traditions or practices to relate to other than what he would deduce from the words of the bible.

Yeah, we really fudged this issue but it’s still relevant. A more extreme way to approach it is to imagine missionaries heading into the darkest jungle, handing the local tribe a copy of the Bible in their native language, and then leaving. They would lack a lot of background knowledge that we take for granted.

For all we know, he could start a religion of his own based on what he was able to understand of it and still be in line with the love of God and His salvation plan…
But because we have the advantage of the Catholic Church and other denominations today, we are the better for it.

This is actually a very interesting take on it. It reminds me of “invincible ignorance” but in that sense it is almost too artificial to serve our discussion.

But it does raise the intersting question: to what extent are Protestants like that shipwrecked Bible reader?

 

[mangy_dog]

Blah , Blah , Blah…

The Catholic church is the One, True church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its fist Pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.

And the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

 

[jmcrae]

Yeah, we really fudged this issue but it’s still relevant. A more extreme way to approach it is to imagine missionaries heading into the darkest jungle, handing the local tribe a copy of the Bible in their native language, and then leaving. They would lack a lot of background knowledge that we take for granted.

Including the idea (which is pure Oral Tradition) that the Bible is a holy book, more special than other books.

What I am interested to know is why our stranded castaway chooses the Bible to create a religion around, rather than, say, How to Win Friends and Influence People, or Jansen’s History of Art, or even Peter Pan and Wendy.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Which is why we need the Holy Tradition of the Church to assist us in interpreting the Bible.

Ok, this is what I was getting at earlier.

You’re the first Protestant I’ve known, ever to admit that.

Sorry to disapoint but I’m not Protestant.

As we can see by the many hundreds of Bible-only religions that disagree not only with the Catholic Church but also with each other.

But remember our earlier discussion about the Protestant aversion to reason. Here we are going in the opposite direction. Protestants do make reasoned inferences but if the Bible is not sufficiently precise they arrive at different conclusions.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Including the idea (which is pure Oral Tradition) that the Bible is a holy book, more special than other books. What I am interested to know is why our stranded castaway chooses the Bible to create a religion around, rather than, say, How to Win Friends and Influence People, or Jansen’s History of Art, or even Peter Pan and Wendy.

Well, of course we are creating a very artificial experiment here but your point is still a good one.

Back to the real world, Catholics like beat Protestants over the head with the fact that the Bible was canonized by Catholicism a few centuries after Christ. But I think Catholics are patting themselves on the back a little too hard here.

Just as we can reconstruct at least some form of Catholicism from the Bible (allowing for variation of ambiguity), so we can reconstruct the Bible from the history of the manuscripts. Why do we include the Gospel of Mark and not the Gospel of Judas? Because one was written in the first century and the other in the second or third century.

Also, just as Catholics place their faith in the inerrancy of the Church so Protestants place their faith in the inerrancy Bible. In both cases it is a leap of faith.

 

[look3467]

Keep in mind, though, that an ambiguous, oblique, reference will be open to multiple inferences. You really can’t deny pergatory (in some form, nobody really claims to understand it in detail),>>>Bubba

If one can understand the trinity view, one will understand that the new creation eliminates the “holding place”, the prisoners Jesus came to liberate.

The **“lost” **denotes a condition of state of the human soul which needed changing.

The change was from the **“lost” **to the “Saved” condition of the human soul.

Hence: two distinct creations, the one, physical and the other spiritual.

The holding place was a prison to the “lost estate human souls” of which Jesus went to visit and liberate.

How else could God include all “lost” souls from the beginning of humanity to the time Jesus died on the cross?

After Christ, yes, easily understood, but to think that prior to Jesus’ payment, there was no reconciliation of the human soul with God.

Hence: Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Peace>>>AJ

 

[jmcrae]

Ok, this is what I was getting at earlier.

Sorry to disapoint but I’m not Protestant.

But remember our earlier discussion about the Protestant aversion to reason. Here we are going in the opposite direction. Protestants do make reasoned inferences but if the Bible is not sufficiently precise they arrive at different conclusions.

They do, but they also pick and choose (based on cultural assumptions) which verses are “more important.”

For example, the Baptist religion started off as a temperance movement, and one of the unquestioned cultural assumptions of the temperance movement that transfers itself into some forms of the Baptist religion is that partying, drink, and dancing lead to sin - so, given that assumption, when they read, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine at Cana, they will tell you that it was “obviously” grape juice - even though there is no possible way it could be grape juice, since the steward mentions quite explicitly that it is the sort of wine that gets people drunk so that they won’t mind drinking inferior stuff later on. But these particular Baptists will argue with you forever that there is no possible way Jesus ever made alcoholic wine - because they begin with the unquestioned assumtion that alcohol is bad - and of course they also know that Jesus never did anything bad - so they put these two ideas together, and it causes them to be quite literally unable to read the plain text in front of them, in the Bible. They are literally blinded by their cultural assumptions - they either block out the passage altogether as “background noise” or else they reinterpret it to say something that it obviously does not say.

 

[jake23]

I see an honest answer in light of what the word of God says.
And even if you went to the Catholic Church all your life, you still will not understand all that the bible says ether.

It is an on going spiritual growth once the foundation of Christ has been laid and one upon which we can build.

3Jo 1:2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

The way to God is through Jesus Christ alone, but the way to grow in spirit is by many ways different to everybody due to each ones circumstances.

Peace>>>AJ

lol! just like a protestant aka cafeteria christian to aknowledge a part and diregard the rest! the closest understanding and relationship you have with Christ is through the catholic church! You can be a child of christ but if you want to mature spiritualy and grow than you will practice the catholic faith!