The Invention of Catholicism?

[jmcrae]

He was talking about the Catholic Church when it was uncorrupted by absolute power and the love of money.

Do you actually read your New Testament? The Early Church had the same problems that the Church has always had, including members who were greedy (Ananias and Sapphira, anybody? Acts chapter 5) members who sinned with sexual sins (I Corinthians chapter 5), members who behaved badly during the Liturgy (I Corinthians chapter 11), and every other kind of sin - yes, also the leadership, too. (Revelation chapters 2 & 3)

Schisms occurred out of necessity. When the Church became worse than the gentiles and tax collectors of the apostolic times, people sought God without the help of the Church.

Schisms occurred because of the sin of pride - that “I can do a better job of running the Church than God’s appointed men, so I will start my own.” This is the sin of Korah. (Numbers 16)

 

[jmcrae]

What if, Jesus meant, if someone sins against you, you may choose to forgive them, or not!

We know that He did not, because in Matthew 6:14, Jesus forbids us to choose not to forgive others.

Therefore, this passage is not referring to our individual choice of whether or not to forgive others, but rather, to the authority of the Church to forgive in Christ’s name, which it does by means of its priests.

 

[look3467]

Unfortunatly, there will be many who will have thier autonomy and independence from Christ’s church…FOR ETERNITY. Sad group.
:knight2::knight1:

Quite the contrary! Those who trust, rely and live in Jesus are of most people, joyful, appreciative and find rest for their salvation.

This can only happen on one on one basis with Jesus. After that, then, we can be part of an organization that best suits our needs.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

We know that He did not, because in Matthew 6:14, Jesus forbids us to choose not to forgive others.

Therefore, this passage is not referring to our individual choice of whether or not to forgive others, but rather, to the authority of the Church to forgive in Christ’s name, which it does by means of its priests.

The object of the verse is to let us know that we have the backing of heaven in the carrying out of Gods desires.

Would you say that faith as like a mustard seed, we can move mountains? By what power could we possibly do that?

If God says we can by faith move mountains, than it must mean that we move His hand in He moving the mountain for us.

That is the same as saying, if you forgive your brother, I will forgive you.
The same as saying, what ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.
The same as saying, “…Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven”…

You,… as Gods representative on earth…have the backing of heaven when you work to do Gods will.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[1beleevr]

That was Matthew 18:15-18, correct? And as for which church was He talking about, who can be sure? Th ebody of believers, regardless of affiliation or denomination, is the church, not so much the building or sect! Christ is the head, and we, as believers and followers, are the body, the visible hands and feet of the invisible God! It is very easy for any religious group to claim they are the one, true church!

 

[ron77nyc]

Not sure I got the message.
I’m guessing you are saying that we are called to be a good example, a witness to our changed life in Christ.
Amen!!

The apostles (the leadership) had a higher standard. They did not tolerate anything that would destroy the integrity of the Church.

I know the middle ages had MANY, MANY bad examples.
Thankfully, none of these bad examples tried to teach any of this bad behavior as doctrine.
As bad as some of these were, it seems supernatural that the teachings of the church were preserved. Almost like the Holy Spirit himself was protecting the teachings.

They didn’t teach it by word. They taught by example. They said “We want to use our authority to make some money.”

You are trying to force your idea onto this passage - the people, including the Apostles are not perfect, the Church and its Gospel is!

The leaders set the standard of obedience.

Do you actually read your New Testament? The Early Church had the same problems that the Church has always had, including members who were greedy (Ananias and Sapphira, anybody? Acts chapter 5) members who sinned with sexual sins (I Corinthians chapter 5), members who behaved badly during the Liturgy (I Corinthians chapter 11), and every other kind of sin - yes, also the leadership, too. (Revelation chapters 2 & 3)

They dealt with problems immediately. They didn’t have excuses like:Thankfully, none of these bad examples tried to teach any of this bad behavior as doctrine. The Church can’t say, “We have the fullness of truth. It’s right here in black and white.” and then excuse themselves from obeying it.

Schisms occurred because of the sin of pride - that “I can do a better job of running the Church than God’s appointed men, so I will start my own.” This is the sin of Korah. (Numbers 16)

A man builds a brige to serve his community. That man dies and his son’s take ownership and make people pay to use the bridge. That’s what happened in the Middle Ages. Then some of the people said: “We don’t need their bridge. We’ll build our own.” Some said, “I’ll use my canoe.” Others said “We’ll swim across.”

 

[jmcrae]

A man builds a brige to serve his community. That man dies and his son’s take ownership and make people pay to use the bridge. That’s what happened in the Middle Ages.

Even St. Paul was paid for his ministry in the church. Paying the pastors a living wage is a tradition that began in the first century. In the middle ages, an idea came about that pastors should work for free, and that parishes should not take up a collection. That everything should be for free.

I don’t know how people came up with that idea, or why they were so insistent that pastors are to live as homeless beggars - I suppose it was based on a misunderstanding of how Jesus lived (some people even today think that Jesus was a homeless beggar) - but how ever it got started, it was the “no money” idea that was the innovation. The Church had been taking up collections and paying the pastors a living wage, even in New Testament times - St. Paul mentions the collections, and praises the people for raising money and taking care of their pastors.

 

[greggy53]

It has been my observation both within this forum and without that Protestants love literal interpretations of scripture when it suits their methodology. However, when it comes to scriptures that don’t support their beliefs they will generally ignore them, or assign a “what if Jesus meant this”, or “What it really means is this” as opposed to any literal translation. The Catholic Church takes our Lord at his word consistently, and interprets all scripture with the fullness of Gods truth. Others who insist they can build a better “bridge” are in rebellion against the bridge builder, and are usually proud of their obstinacy.

 

[ron77nyc]

Even St. Paul was paid for his ministry in the church. Paying the pastors a living wage is a tradition that began in the first century. In the middle ages, an idea came about that pastors should work for free, and that parishes should not take up a collection. That everything should be for free.

I don’t know how people came up with that idea, or why they were so insistent that pastors are to live as homeless beggars - I suppose it was based on a misunderstanding of how Jesus lived (some people even today think that Jesus was a homeless beggar) - but how ever it got started, it was the “no money” idea that was the innovation. The Church had been taking up collections and paying the pastors a living wage, even in New Testament times - St. Paul mentions the collections, and praises the people for raising money and taking care of their pastors.

It has nothing to do with being paid an honest wage. It’s about making people pay for their sins with money. It’s about calling the pope “The Holy Roman Emperor” and calling the Church “The Holy Roman Empire.” Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. He also refused to be exalted as an earthly king.

 

[ron77nyc]

It has been my observation both within this forum and without that Protestants love literal interpretations of scripture when it suits their methodology. However, when it comes to scriptures that don’t support their beliefs they will generally ignore them, or assign a “what if Jesus meant this”, or “What it really means is this” as opposed to any literal translation. The Catholic Church takes our Lord at his word consistently, and interprets all scripture with the fullness of Gods truth. Others who insist they can build a better “bridge” are in rebellion against the bridge builder, and are usually proud of their obstinacy.

I’m a Catholic and it has been my observation throughout my whole life that when Catholics are confronted with a truth other than their own, they get very uppity and defensive in a self righteous sort of way explaining away any grievance with a lot of carefully thought out religious mumbo jumbo intead of really listening and evaluating both sides of the story.

 

[jmcrae]

It has nothing to do with being paid an honest wage. It’s about making people pay for their sins with money.

Nobody was ever required to “pay for their sins with money.” This is ridiculous.

It’s about calling the pope “The Holy Roman Emperor” and calling the Church “The Holy Roman Empire.”

The Emperor and the Pope were always two different people. The Holy Roman Empire was but one of many nations that took the Catholic faith for its state religion. And yes, the Pope had political power - but he didn’t wrest it from anyone; it was given to him, as a means of keeping order among the feudal lords. They asked him to help them resolve their disputes, and to keep track of their lines of succession, to preside at their weddings, to ensure the validity of their marriages, and to preside at their coronations, to ensure that the whole world recognized the legitimacy of their authority.

Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. He also refused to be exalted as an earthly king.

Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this world, but that doesn’t mean it’s not in this world, as well as in Heaven. Jesus is most certainly an earthly King, as well as being the King of Heaven. He is the rightful heir to the throne of David. When He comes again in glory, it will be to take over the world in the political sense as well as in the spiritual sense, and in the physical sense.

 

[ron77nyc]

Nobody was ever required to “pay for their sins with money.” This is ridiculous.

The Emperor and the Pope were always two different people. The Holy Roman Empire was but one of many nations that took the Catholic faith for its state religion. And yes, the Pope had political power - but he didn’t wrest it from anyone; it was given to him, as a means of keeping order among the feudal lords. They asked him to help them resolve their disputes, and to keep track of their lines of succession, to preside at their weddings, to ensure the validity of their marriages, and to preside at their coronations, to ensure that the whole world recognized the legitimacy of their authority.

Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this world, but that doesn’t mean it’s not in this world, as well as in Heaven. Jesus is most certainly an earthly King, as well as being the King of Heaven. He is the rightful heir to the throne of David. When He comes again in glory, it will be to take over the world in the political sense as well as in the spiritual sense, and in the physical sense.

Read a history book. You’ll never see this stuff in the catholic encyclopedia or on EWTN.

 

[dawid]

The apostles (the leadership) had a higher standard. They did not tolerate anything that would destroy the integrity of the Church.

The leaders set the standard of obedience.

Eleven of the Apostles deserted Jesus at the time of his crucifixion and Judas abused his position for fnancial gain - I would also recommend you read the works of the early church fathers - they had many failures and disagreements - they were human.

They didn’t teach it by word. They taught by example. They said “We want to use our authority to make some money.”

I am afraid you lost me here - it’s probaly a typo - we are after all, fallible, aren’t we!

They dealt with problems immediately. They didn’t have excuses like:Thankfully, none of these bad examples tried to teach any of this bad behavior as doctrine. The Church can’t say, “We have the fullness of truth. It’s right here in black and white.” and then excuse themselves from obeying it.

Jesus said that the Jews should obey what the rabbis said, but not to emulate them - they were human after all, but should be obeyed in matters of Faith.

A man builds a brige to serve his community. That man dies and his son’s take ownership and make people pay to use the bridge. That’s what happened in the Middle Ages. Then some of the people said: “We don’t need their bridge. We’ll build our own.” Some said, “I’ll use my canoe.” Others said “We’ll swim across.”

I’m unsure what your point here is! Do you suggest that the Church expected payment for salvation? If it is an suggestion that there was corruption by members of the Church including the clergy, I am sure there was, but the Faith of the Church remained! If this is an attempt to justify the revolt by the Protestants, it is a poor analogy.

 

[SteveGC]

That was Matthew 18:15-18, correct? And as for which church was He talking about, who can be sure? Th ebody of believers, regardless of affiliation or denomination, is the church, not so much the building or sect! Christ is the head, and we, as believers and followers, are the body, the visible hands and feet of the invisible God! It is very easy for any religious group to claim they are the one, true church!

1beleevr, greetings. I have a series of questions for you.​

1. Did you learn everything you now know, and subsequently now accept and believe, about Christianity, from your personal, solitary reading of your Bible?
2. Did you not learn just about everything FIRST from a person or group of people? (I know you “verified” it from Scripture, or atleast they verified it for you, but the point is, everyone has to first “hear” the interpretation with their ears first - not “read it from the book” first)
3. Assuming you’re still with me, and admit (as we all do) that you learned first from men/women, the next questions is…why do you trust them? I mean, we all put an awful lot of faith in what various people tell us about something so serious as our eternal destiny. So how is that you trust them…versus trusting someone else who would teach you something different, yet using the same Bible to verify it for you?
4. Isn’t it important, for the sake of one’s soul, for every Christ-seeking individual on earth to avail themselves to just those people who teach the absolute TRUTH? Or is that not really important?
5. How do figure out who these people are? Wouldn’t it be most prudent to rewind the clock, and retrace the historical account to those individuals who personally and physically walked with Christ (i.e. the apostles) and then wind the clock forward?
6. And then, since those men were mortal, don’t we have to figure out who they themselves taught, and who came after those died, and so on, and so on, up until 2009 (and beyond)? Isn’t that the only way to know how truth was really preserved?

---

And so, since we ALL have to FIRST learn from humans (not books), we HAVE to weed out the fakers from the authentic teachers. There must be a way to do this, as hard as it sounds to do, because Christ promised to never leave us - and we will find if we seek. Is it, therefore, not clear that it is ALL about apostolic succession? I’m not trying to persuade you, per se…rather, I’m sharing with you my personal experience from 2002 to 2005, wherein I asked myself these same questions. After answering them as honestly as I could, I saw clearly that I must become Catholic (which I did in 2007), because THAT is where one finds the people they finally can trust, the successors of the twelve.

God Bless

 

[dawid]

Read a history book. You’ll never see this stuff in the catholic encyclopedia or on EWTN.

your statement remains erroneous - you can select sources that say that the Catholic Church was whatever you wish, but the reality is not as simple as you attempt to present it.

 

[greggy53]

I’m a Catholic and it has been my observation throughout my whole life that when Catholics are confronted with a truth other than their own, they get very uppity and defensive in a self righteous sort of way explaining away any grievance with a lot of carefully thought out religious mumbo jumbo intead of really listening and evaluating both sides of the story.

If you want me to “butt out” just say so. If you think that Catholic theology is “mumbo jumbo” then why do you call yourself Catholic?..

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

i would like to join in this debate by saying that the invention of Catholicism is actually just the advancement of Christianity. We forget that we are Human.we are a learning spiecies.the invention of the automobile,imagine if there was no advancement in that field!!!or take Medicine.why do we research,develop and advance our medicine??our religion(Christianity) given to us by Christ in time(human History)is just like the car or the aspirin or the phone or what ever we developed at some point.imagine a world today without telecomunication.cmon people stop being dillusional and accept that which is a part of our history!!that Catholicism is the 2009 year old Christian Project still being researched,developed and advanced!! ofcause no project no matter how well it may go is without its hiccups messups and almost total failures…But our origins are traceable to the early church in history!our traditions are that of the early fathers traceable in their letters.funny its like saying a technician developed a breakthrough devise that would revolutionise the world.but while we will use this devise we cannot accept the technician or his credentials. because the devise has little,vague or no evidence of the technicians hand in it.and yet we no for a fact that the technician did indeed develop this devise not for his glory but for our good.

 

[SteveGC]

To ron, dawid, and jm…

I am intrigued in the discourse you all are having, but must admit I’m lost as to what precisely it is that you’re debating.

If you had to put a title on this little debate, what would it be?

Thanks, that’ll help me stay informed as you continue in your dialogue

God Bless

 

[cazayoux]

I’m a Catholic and it has been my observation throughout my whole life that when Catholics are confronted with a truth other than their own, they get very uppity and defensive in a self righteous sort of way explaining away any grievance with a lot of carefully thought out religious mumbo jumbo intead of really listening and evaluating both sides of the story.

This is a generalization.
I don’t think you really believe this applies to all Catholics.

michel

 

[ron77nyc]

They didn’t teach it by word. They taught by example. They said “We want to use our authority to make some money.”

jmcrae I am afraid you lost me here - it’s probaly a typo - we are after all, fallible, aren’t we!

This one is a religious tradition in all religions. It needs no explanation.

jmcrae I’m unsure what your point here is! Do you suggest that the Church expected payment for salvation?

Selling of indulgences. I know…it’s not true.

jmcrae If it is an suggestion that there was corruption by members of the Church including the clergy, I am sure there was, but the Faith of the Church remained! If this is an attempt to justify the revolt by the Protestants, it is a poor analogy.

Yes, it is a reason to rebel. That’s what people do when they are unfairly dominated. Domination is more the work of Satan than God.

Have you noticed that the faith of the schisms are also remaining?