Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History
Sep 1, 2018 17:56:47 #
08/31/2018 Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History (Part 1)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
July/05/2014, Historian Dr. Kenneth Howell describes how historical myths play a part in the perception of the Catholic Faith and gives insight into seeking truth throughout history. He explores first the "Galileo Affair" and then looks back at worship and Church governance in early Christianity to demonstrate the fundamental importance not just of knowing historical data but being deep in the historical faith.
So why should we go deep in history? As generations before us have learned, history is the laboratory for thinking about the issues that matter most to us as human beings. By placing ourselves back into another time, we are able to look at our own time with more objectivity; we see its strengths and weaknesses.
For Christians, there is the additional truth that ours is a historical faith. Christianity is rooted in the historical facts of Jesus's life. The Church which is his body has lived, grown, and matured in space and time. The surest way to know Jesus and his Church is through the study of history, both biblical and post-biblical.
Doctor Howell, repeatedly uses this quotation by Anglican convert and apologist Cardinal John Henry Newman which is:
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”
Howell explains his own Catholic conversion, and the truth of that same very statement from Cardinal Newman. and made him to go more deeply into Christian history and he began to understood the deficiently of his own Christian heritage. The more he sought, and longed for, the fullness of the faith that is deeply rooted in the history of the of the Early Church.
Howell makes a general note, that when most people hear Cardinal Newmans statement:
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.” They generally understand two things.
a. The more we know about the facts of history the greater our faith will grow.
b. Especially as we grow through understanding the Early Church fathers History, we will be further attached to the Church and be ultimately drawn in and will be drawn closer to
God.
But what does Cardinal Newman really mean, by this statement ?
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”
Howell further explains, Cardinal Newman statement, that he was probably not concerned about the facts of Church history, or perhaps the wider range about primary literature of history.
Howell explains that Newman emphasis was to be “Deep In History” was to know the deep understanding the issues of the Early Christian Church and how they wrestling with their salvation, during their own period time, in history.
And is reverent to us modern day Christians and how we wrestle with these same problems today, we can look back at the examples the Early Church how they were looking at in their own ancient time-period, and how we are able currently to solve these same divisional problems of today with their guidance and understanding.
Newman said ,that all people bring their personal own suppositions and basis, for example a biblical verse, may have two opposing understandings on the same verse, or words and may draw different conclusions.
Why ?
Because two scholars looking at the same document, people understand differently, they bring a different presuppositions to what they read. That is why people have different views of Church history, the Bible and because their bringing a different framework to what they understand and are reading.
Howells emphasis is this, to be “Deep In History” is to understanding the meaning of history and to understand it’s relevance to our present day lives.
That requires above all, an honesty with looking at the documents in the way they were intended to be read, by those that wrote them.
Howells general point, a very simple emphasis is, by entering deeply into the ancient historical people and salvation episode's of the past, we are in fact encountering the mystery of Christ’s salvation, which are embodied in those people and in those early Christian episodes.
The heart of mystery of Church History, is how do we interpret Early Church history, that question is about how we should look at Early Church history and ultimately a question of what constitute authentic Christianity.
Many people of genuine faith, want to know the answer to that question.
What is the true authentic history of Christianity.
Howell explains further the way to do that, is looking at Early Church historical documents and the New Testament.
This is easy to recognize by looking at Apostles and the Early Church Fathers and Saints because they participated in the Paschal mysteries in a very tangible way, throughout the Churches greatest struggles, throughout the centuries, and shows the presence of the Holy Spirit working in the Church.
Our present day understanding is to be seeking, is not just academic or analytical comprehension, but it is to enter with the those early Christian peoples and to participate in the Cross and resection of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
By understanding and seeking out how the early Church and modern day Church has lived faithfully with Christ throughout the centuries, we then enter into Christ, and then enter the same Early Church’s history and the same Christ’s paschal mysteries.
Howell then gives two extended example and problems of science and religion.
1. Italian Astronomy scientist Galileo Galilei affair. (1564–1642) The negativity problem and myth’s of Catholic religion and science are dimetrncly opposed and Galileo trial of 1633.
2. The heart of mystery of how to interpret authentic Church History and Christianity.
Most educated people have a negative bias of Christianity and are very ignorant about Astronomy and the facts of Church and the Galileo affair.
Example That the Church opposed in the round earth? 2nd century astronomer Arostofinie’s proved the earth was round in antiquity.
Or
It was about the question was the earth moving or was the earth moving around the Sun. Can you tell me how do you know this by empirical knowledge, most people can’t explain this religious and scientific controversy. Knowing the facts of history is not a bad idea don’t you agree.
(End Part 1)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
July/05/2014, Historian Dr. Kenneth Howell describes how historical myths play a part in the perception of the Catholic Faith and gives insight into seeking truth throughout history. He explores first the "Galileo Affair" and then looks back at worship and Church governance in early Christianity to demonstrate the fundamental importance not just of knowing historical data but being deep in the historical faith.
So why should we go deep in history? As generations before us have learned, history is the laboratory for thinking about the issues that matter most to us as human beings. By placing ourselves back into another time, we are able to look at our own time with more objectivity; we see its strengths and weaknesses.
For Christians, there is the additional truth that ours is a historical faith. Christianity is rooted in the historical facts of Jesus's life. The Church which is his body has lived, grown, and matured in space and time. The surest way to know Jesus and his Church is through the study of history, both biblical and post-biblical.
Doctor Howell, repeatedly uses this quotation by Anglican convert and apologist Cardinal John Henry Newman which is:
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”
Howell explains his own Catholic conversion, and the truth of that same very statement from Cardinal Newman. and made him to go more deeply into Christian history and he began to understood the deficiently of his own Christian heritage. The more he sought, and longed for, the fullness of the faith that is deeply rooted in the history of the of the Early Church.
Howell makes a general note, that when most people hear Cardinal Newmans statement:
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.” They generally understand two things.
a. The more we know about the facts of history the greater our faith will grow.
b. Especially as we grow through understanding the Early Church fathers History, we will be further attached to the Church and be ultimately drawn in and will be drawn closer to
God.
But what does Cardinal Newman really mean, by this statement ?
“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.”
Howell further explains, Cardinal Newman statement, that he was probably not concerned about the facts of Church history, or perhaps the wider range about primary literature of history.
Howell explains that Newman emphasis was to be “Deep In History” was to know the deep understanding the issues of the Early Christian Church and how they wrestling with their salvation, during their own period time, in history.
And is reverent to us modern day Christians and how we wrestle with these same problems today, we can look back at the examples the Early Church how they were looking at in their own ancient time-period, and how we are able currently to solve these same divisional problems of today with their guidance and understanding.
Newman said ,that all people bring their personal own suppositions and basis, for example a biblical verse, may have two opposing understandings on the same verse, or words and may draw different conclusions.
Why ?
Because two scholars looking at the same document, people understand differently, they bring a different presuppositions to what they read. That is why people have different views of Church history, the Bible and because their bringing a different framework to what they understand and are reading.
Howells emphasis is this, to be “Deep In History” is to understanding the meaning of history and to understand it’s relevance to our present day lives.
That requires above all, an honesty with looking at the documents in the way they were intended to be read, by those that wrote them.
Howells general point, a very simple emphasis is, by entering deeply into the ancient historical people and salvation episode's of the past, we are in fact encountering the mystery of Christ’s salvation, which are embodied in those people and in those early Christian episodes.
The heart of mystery of Church History, is how do we interpret Early Church history, that question is about how we should look at Early Church history and ultimately a question of what constitute authentic Christianity.
Many people of genuine faith, want to know the answer to that question.
What is the true authentic history of Christianity.
Howell explains further the way to do that, is looking at Early Church historical documents and the New Testament.
This is easy to recognize by looking at Apostles and the Early Church Fathers and Saints because they participated in the Paschal mysteries in a very tangible way, throughout the Churches greatest struggles, throughout the centuries, and shows the presence of the Holy Spirit working in the Church.
Our present day understanding is to be seeking, is not just academic or analytical comprehension, but it is to enter with the those early Christian peoples and to participate in the Cross and resection of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
By understanding and seeking out how the early Church and modern day Church has lived faithfully with Christ throughout the centuries, we then enter into Christ, and then enter the same Early Church’s history and the same Christ’s paschal mysteries.
Howell then gives two extended example and problems of science and religion.
1. Italian Astronomy scientist Galileo Galilei affair. (1564–1642) The negativity problem and myth’s of Catholic religion and science are dimetrncly opposed and Galileo trial of 1633.
2. The heart of mystery of how to interpret authentic Church History and Christianity.
Most educated people have a negative bias of Christianity and are very ignorant about Astronomy and the facts of Church and the Galileo affair.
Example That the Church opposed in the round earth? 2nd century astronomer Arostofinie’s proved the earth was round in antiquity.
Or
It was about the question was the earth moving or was the earth moving around the Sun. Can you tell me how do you know this by empirical knowledge, most people can’t explain this religious and scientific controversy. Knowing the facts of history is not a bad idea don’t you agree.
(End Part 1)
Sep 1, 2018 18:11:03 #
08/31/2018 Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History (Part 2)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
And the three misconceptions and facts:
1. The 16th century Church persecuted Galileo personally and rejected the idea the earth was moving around the sun, because the Bible taught it.
2. The Galileo affair was a specific example of a larger problem with the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Namely the Christian religion opposes science and the pursuit of knowledge, and practices these misconception and comes in two forms from well educated people.
a. That all of Christianity is opposed to science, people quote their limited knowledge of Catholic or Protestant opposition of the Kerperkin theory of three types of planetary motion and Heliocentric theory as evidence and inherent problems with science and religion. The Sun is the center of the Universe.
b. It Down plays the Protestant opposition of modern science that Protestant countries science flourished and in Catholic countries science lagged behind. The second misconception is that Catholic Church is antagonistic to science.
3. The reason the Catholic Church condemned these new ideas of science because it wanted to retain the power of telling people what to believe. And therefor forfeited the search of truth in the interest of Church self preservation.
Basic Facts and Fiction of Galileo: The congregation of the index 1616 A.D.
1. The Catholic Church issued a document until these theories were corrected. They didn’t forbid the new Astronomy, but forbad the claims having to do with Holy Scripture making these claims. And condemned Theologians
2. In 1616 Galileo asked Pope Urban VIII, to publish on the Kerperkin theory not a disciplinary decision and not dogmatic decision. Pope Urban VIII gave approval that Galileo had to publish a book, as long as he provide arguments for and against the motion of the earth Kerperkin theory and that Galileo needed to be neutral within the book.
In 1632 the book “Dialogue on the two great Systems.” Was approved in Florence, but condemned in Rome.
3. Galileo trial in 1632 by the Catholic Church and he was found guilty and disobeyed the previous order of 1615 in the letter of Christina.
Here is the reason for the that Galileo trial he and others started to argue their opinions on the meaning scripture.
a. That this was theory and scientifically absurd.
b. It appeared to be contrary to certain scriptural text and teaching.
And Galileo was not to advocate the Kepler theory publicly.
Was the Church opposed to science, absolutely and emphatically. No.
As in Early traditional Church written by Saint Augustine 354–430 A.D. has encouraged and promulgated scientific research and science into nature.
The Church accepted Saint Augustine prevailing guidelines on literal commentary on Genesis.
There can never be conflict on two truths that God has revealed in nature and Scripture.
Because of God, no truths in Nature and in the books of scripture can-not be in conflict with one another.
In all Medieval universities all students had to first study the Natural Science and the sciences of natural philosophy, botany, alchemy etc.
These are know at the time was a major part of the curriculum in that the Church did foster university science and scientific research.
By the standards and evidence of Aristotelian science of the early 16th or 17th century, so at that time science you could-not prove that the earth was moving and the motion of the earth at that time.
Not until later in the 18th and 19th century could science prove the Earths motions in nature, through the Foucault Pendulum and Beatle's stellar observation of the stellar-parallax theory, that the earth was actually moving around the Sun.
Here is what we can learn from the Galileo-affair-Kepler theory and the Catholic Church’s conclusion:
Olaf Peterson a Catholic scientist, argues this conclusion:
The Catholic Church did rush to judgment, not thinking through it’s conclusion and thinking these two theories of Earths movement throughly.
The Catholic Church decision was wrong, but only wrong, from our perspective of looking back. (Here is the Crux of the Controversy)
From the Catholic Churches perspective in the time that they lived the knowledge situation of the 16th century time. It was not a irrational decision, in the case of Galileo-affair-Kepler theory conclusion.
The Catholic Church did not make an irrational decision in the case of Galileo-affair-Kepler theory, with their 17th Century scientific current knowledge of their time. Has the Catholic Church made reasonable decisions in other things ? Mist defiantly Yes !
What can we learn from the Galileo-affair-Kepler theory case and Catholic Church decision.
a. It is essential to know the facts of history and we can-not be vaguely informed about the past.
b. We must also learn to look at the facts of history, through the eyes of the participants, and not from our perspective of today.
c. We must read the historical texts sympathetically and know the thought world of our historical subjects of their day, it is manifestly and anachronistic to judge the past by
present day standards.
d. We must learn to listen to the historical texts and to discern what was historical reality of their day and what was at stake in them.
In that regard Cardinal Newman provides us an with an incredible example that is more relevant we may ever know and understand.
Cardinal Newman began to investigate the Trinitarian controversy’s of the 4th century and when he studied the debates among the orthodox Trinitarians who accepted the council of Nicaea and the Arian who were arguing against the orthodox doctrine.
Cardinal Newman began to look at the methods and observe their argumentations and came up with an incredible unexpected conclusion, he realized that the heretics of the 4th century, the Arians, the non-trinitarian were using a method of religious theology that was roughly similar to what would be later be called “Sola Scriptura.”
When Cardinal Newman said was, that in order to have proper Christian Holy Scripture doctrine.
a. We must rely on Holy Sacred Scripture that is the font of holiness. (Verbum Die) www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_co.
b. We must rely on the Tradition that has gone between Scripture and our time and listen then discerningly to the Catholic Church tradition.
c. We must rely the present day Catholic Church as the embodiment of the authority of Jesus Christ, to deliver upon what is acceptable doctrine and what is not.
As it says in Scripture “Mercy triumphs over judgement,” God mercy triumphs over human judge-mentalism. How humbling is this Christian message.
Which begs us to as the second question, what is more relevant to what brings us together as Catholic Christians.
2. It is the question, what is authentic Catholic Christianity.
Cardinal Newman’s historic essay and development of Christian doctrine and this famous statement. Catholic Church, Theology, Doctrinal -- History
https://archive.org/details/a599872600newmuoft
(End Part 2)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
And the three misconceptions and facts:
1. The 16th century Church persecuted Galileo personally and rejected the idea the earth was moving around the sun, because the Bible taught it.
2. The Galileo affair was a specific example of a larger problem with the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Namely the Christian religion opposes science and the pursuit of knowledge, and practices these misconception and comes in two forms from well educated people.
a. That all of Christianity is opposed to science, people quote their limited knowledge of Catholic or Protestant opposition of the Kerperkin theory of three types of planetary motion and Heliocentric theory as evidence and inherent problems with science and religion. The Sun is the center of the Universe.
b. It Down plays the Protestant opposition of modern science that Protestant countries science flourished and in Catholic countries science lagged behind. The second misconception is that Catholic Church is antagonistic to science.
3. The reason the Catholic Church condemned these new ideas of science because it wanted to retain the power of telling people what to believe. And therefor forfeited the search of truth in the interest of Church self preservation.
Basic Facts and Fiction of Galileo: The congregation of the index 1616 A.D.
1. The Catholic Church issued a document until these theories were corrected. They didn’t forbid the new Astronomy, but forbad the claims having to do with Holy Scripture making these claims. And condemned Theologians
2. In 1616 Galileo asked Pope Urban VIII, to publish on the Kerperkin theory not a disciplinary decision and not dogmatic decision. Pope Urban VIII gave approval that Galileo had to publish a book, as long as he provide arguments for and against the motion of the earth Kerperkin theory and that Galileo needed to be neutral within the book.
In 1632 the book “Dialogue on the two great Systems.” Was approved in Florence, but condemned in Rome.
3. Galileo trial in 1632 by the Catholic Church and he was found guilty and disobeyed the previous order of 1615 in the letter of Christina.
Here is the reason for the that Galileo trial he and others started to argue their opinions on the meaning scripture.
a. That this was theory and scientifically absurd.
b. It appeared to be contrary to certain scriptural text and teaching.
And Galileo was not to advocate the Kepler theory publicly.
Was the Church opposed to science, absolutely and emphatically. No.
As in Early traditional Church written by Saint Augustine 354–430 A.D. has encouraged and promulgated scientific research and science into nature.
The Church accepted Saint Augustine prevailing guidelines on literal commentary on Genesis.
There can never be conflict on two truths that God has revealed in nature and Scripture.
Because of God, no truths in Nature and in the books of scripture can-not be in conflict with one another.
In all Medieval universities all students had to first study the Natural Science and the sciences of natural philosophy, botany, alchemy etc.
These are know at the time was a major part of the curriculum in that the Church did foster university science and scientific research.
By the standards and evidence of Aristotelian science of the early 16th or 17th century, so at that time science you could-not prove that the earth was moving and the motion of the earth at that time.
Not until later in the 18th and 19th century could science prove the Earths motions in nature, through the Foucault Pendulum and Beatle's stellar observation of the stellar-parallax theory, that the earth was actually moving around the Sun.
Here is what we can learn from the Galileo-affair-Kepler theory and the Catholic Church’s conclusion:
Olaf Peterson a Catholic scientist, argues this conclusion:
The Catholic Church did rush to judgment, not thinking through it’s conclusion and thinking these two theories of Earths movement throughly.
The Catholic Church decision was wrong, but only wrong, from our perspective of looking back. (Here is the Crux of the Controversy)
From the Catholic Churches perspective in the time that they lived the knowledge situation of the 16th century time. It was not a irrational decision, in the case of Galileo-affair-Kepler theory conclusion.
The Catholic Church did not make an irrational decision in the case of Galileo-affair-Kepler theory, with their 17th Century scientific current knowledge of their time. Has the Catholic Church made reasonable decisions in other things ? Mist defiantly Yes !
What can we learn from the Galileo-affair-Kepler theory case and Catholic Church decision.
a. It is essential to know the facts of history and we can-not be vaguely informed about the past.
b. We must also learn to look at the facts of history, through the eyes of the participants, and not from our perspective of today.
c. We must read the historical texts sympathetically and know the thought world of our historical subjects of their day, it is manifestly and anachronistic to judge the past by
present day standards.
d. We must learn to listen to the historical texts and to discern what was historical reality of their day and what was at stake in them.
In that regard Cardinal Newman provides us an with an incredible example that is more relevant we may ever know and understand.
Cardinal Newman began to investigate the Trinitarian controversy’s of the 4th century and when he studied the debates among the orthodox Trinitarians who accepted the council of Nicaea and the Arian who were arguing against the orthodox doctrine.
Cardinal Newman began to look at the methods and observe their argumentations and came up with an incredible unexpected conclusion, he realized that the heretics of the 4th century, the Arians, the non-trinitarian were using a method of religious theology that was roughly similar to what would be later be called “Sola Scriptura.”
When Cardinal Newman said was, that in order to have proper Christian Holy Scripture doctrine.
a. We must rely on Holy Sacred Scripture that is the font of holiness. (Verbum Die) www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_co.
b. We must rely on the Tradition that has gone between Scripture and our time and listen then discerningly to the Catholic Church tradition.
c. We must rely the present day Catholic Church as the embodiment of the authority of Jesus Christ, to deliver upon what is acceptable doctrine and what is not.
As it says in Scripture “Mercy triumphs over judgement,” God mercy triumphs over human judge-mentalism. How humbling is this Christian message.
Which begs us to as the second question, what is more relevant to what brings us together as Catholic Christians.
2. It is the question, what is authentic Catholic Christianity.
Cardinal Newman’s historic essay and development of Christian doctrine and this famous statement. Catholic Church, Theology, Doctrinal -- History
https://archive.org/details/a599872600newmuoft
(End Part 2)
Sep 1, 2018 18:14:55 #
Doc110 wrote:
08/31/2018 Deep In History: Breaking through the M... (show quote)
Radiance 3 should be happy to see you back on here again. She has been defending the Catholic church and doing her best as well.
Sep 1, 2018 18:23:33 #
08/31/2018 Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History (Part 3)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
Newman said about Religious History:
“And this one thing is certain, whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates, or extenuates, whatever it says or unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If their was ever were a safe truth, it is this.
The historic Christian faith of Protestantism, that was understood, throughout and knew, may not be the true Christianity of history.
From the Letter of Jude, where Jude says:
“That the faith has once and for all, has been delivered to God’s holy people.
Do you as a Catholic or a Protestant to know what it means, what the Church is ?
It can be a crisis and or an opportunity.
What is significant in your own Christian spiritual journey, that you have honestly investigates this, is this that you will have to deal with this new knowledge of the Early Church.
The nature of early Christianity:
a. The nature of early Christian worship.
b. The nature of early church government, within the Church
Now when you read early Christian scholarly assessments of the early Christian writings, include the the New Testament.
They often suggest that early Christian worship was free flowing, unorganized, defiantly not highly highly liturgical, as Catholic, Orthodox or even Anglican worship is.
But It’s interesting that the earliest evidences and the earliest documents that we have, outside of the New Testament suggests quite the opposite.
Perhaps you have noticed a curious gap in our knowledge of the New Testament times.
Any well informed Christian will agree that worshiping God is at the heart of Christianity. Whatever else that Christian faith may be followers of Jesus are called upon to worship the true and living God.
a. But theirs a interesting lack of information in the New Testament about how the Christian worship should be conducted.
b. No where are we told their is a order of worship that the Church should follow.
c. And aside from passing references and maybe letters like first Corinthians, there is no systematic discussion of liturgy at all in the New Testament.
So how are we to know how Christians are to worship ?
Thanks be to God, we do have other documents which indicates something of what early Christian worship was like.
One document example is the the famous “Didache.”
Which Cardinal Newman only new this document towards the end of his life, because this document was discovered in Constantinople in 1875.
This original document is usually dated and documented by almost all scholars, between 65-120 A.D.
In this “Didache” “The teaching of the twelve Apostles.” We have instructions given to the presbyter or priest of the Church, on what they are too do.
"On the Lord’s day (Sunday), since you have gathered together break the bread of the Lord and hold Eucharist, confess your transgressions that your sacrifice is be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his friend, join you until they reconcile. That your sacrifice may not be defiled, this was what was spoken by the Lord."
The Old Testament reading:
Malachi 1-11, In every place in time offer to me a pure sacrifice because, I am a great king and my name is marvelous among the Gentiles.
What is most noteworthy about this one section, is that it is a prescription for structure of Christian Catholic worship in the late first century, possibly before the Apostle John died.
It speaks of the celebration of the Eucharist being very Sunday, and is not a surprise to many “Cradle Catholics” but their are thousands of Protestant Churches across this land which will celebrate the “Lords Supper” maybe once a month or maybe quarterly.
But already, in the Early Church we clearly have in an indication of the Eucharist every Sunday.
And the confession of sin that is mentioned, indicates that their was a Penitential Right (Confession-Reconciliation) in the Christian liturgy.
Hummm, interesting isn’t it. But it does show the need for reform of the present day Churches, doesn’t it.
What is most striking about this quotation, is how early the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass, appears in Christian history.
The quotation from Malachi 1-11, is as a prophesy about the Eucharist, and was to be repeated many times among the Church Fathers.
It shows rather clearly that when the Council of Trent insisted on the sacrificial nature of the Mass over and against the objections of the Protestant reformers, it was only reaffirming what it had been, the common faith of the Church since it’s infancy.
The “Didache” also contains the substance of of our present day Eucharistic prayers.
These four current Churches Eucharistic prayers contains in the Latin-Rite, it contains intentions or intercessions for the unity of the Christian Church.
The Eastern-Rite Church also has same feature of liturgical prayer.
The “Didache” already in the 1st century set the tone for this, by showing the Church has a centripetal force. The Prayer of the Church is always to bring the people of God into one.
“As the broken bread was scattered on the mountains and then gathered into one, thus let your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, because yours is the Glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.”
From the section that foreshadows the memento section of our Latin-Rite liturgy, it says that the celebrant, (Presbyter or Priest) prays this.
“Remember Lord your Church, to rescue it from every evil and to make it perfect in your love. Gather it from the four winds, completely sanctify into your kingdom which you have prepared.”
The teaching of this Early Christian document the “Didache” reflects the heart of Catholic worship today, so that worship of the early Christian Communities was anything was but loose, and unstructured and free flowing.
What this document shows is that the concern for the unity and the harmony of the Church was upper most in the minds of Christians from the very beginning.
And this was instilled by a regular well ordered liturgical prayer.
(End Part 3)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
Newman said about Religious History:
“And this one thing is certain, whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates, or extenuates, whatever it says or unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If their was ever were a safe truth, it is this.
The historic Christian faith of Protestantism, that was understood, throughout and knew, may not be the true Christianity of history.
From the Letter of Jude, where Jude says:
“That the faith has once and for all, has been delivered to God’s holy people.
Do you as a Catholic or a Protestant to know what it means, what the Church is ?
It can be a crisis and or an opportunity.
What is significant in your own Christian spiritual journey, that you have honestly investigates this, is this that you will have to deal with this new knowledge of the Early Church.
The nature of early Christianity:
a. The nature of early Christian worship.
b. The nature of early church government, within the Church
Now when you read early Christian scholarly assessments of the early Christian writings, include the the New Testament.
They often suggest that early Christian worship was free flowing, unorganized, defiantly not highly highly liturgical, as Catholic, Orthodox or even Anglican worship is.
But It’s interesting that the earliest evidences and the earliest documents that we have, outside of the New Testament suggests quite the opposite.
Perhaps you have noticed a curious gap in our knowledge of the New Testament times.
Any well informed Christian will agree that worshiping God is at the heart of Christianity. Whatever else that Christian faith may be followers of Jesus are called upon to worship the true and living God.
a. But theirs a interesting lack of information in the New Testament about how the Christian worship should be conducted.
b. No where are we told their is a order of worship that the Church should follow.
c. And aside from passing references and maybe letters like first Corinthians, there is no systematic discussion of liturgy at all in the New Testament.
So how are we to know how Christians are to worship ?
Thanks be to God, we do have other documents which indicates something of what early Christian worship was like.
One document example is the the famous “Didache.”
Which Cardinal Newman only new this document towards the end of his life, because this document was discovered in Constantinople in 1875.
This original document is usually dated and documented by almost all scholars, between 65-120 A.D.
In this “Didache” “The teaching of the twelve Apostles.” We have instructions given to the presbyter or priest of the Church, on what they are too do.
"On the Lord’s day (Sunday), since you have gathered together break the bread of the Lord and hold Eucharist, confess your transgressions that your sacrifice is be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his friend, join you until they reconcile. That your sacrifice may not be defiled, this was what was spoken by the Lord."
The Old Testament reading:
Malachi 1-11, In every place in time offer to me a pure sacrifice because, I am a great king and my name is marvelous among the Gentiles.
What is most noteworthy about this one section, is that it is a prescription for structure of Christian Catholic worship in the late first century, possibly before the Apostle John died.
It speaks of the celebration of the Eucharist being very Sunday, and is not a surprise to many “Cradle Catholics” but their are thousands of Protestant Churches across this land which will celebrate the “Lords Supper” maybe once a month or maybe quarterly.
But already, in the Early Church we clearly have in an indication of the Eucharist every Sunday.
And the confession of sin that is mentioned, indicates that their was a Penitential Right (Confession-Reconciliation) in the Christian liturgy.
Hummm, interesting isn’t it. But it does show the need for reform of the present day Churches, doesn’t it.
What is most striking about this quotation, is how early the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass, appears in Christian history.
The quotation from Malachi 1-11, is as a prophesy about the Eucharist, and was to be repeated many times among the Church Fathers.
It shows rather clearly that when the Council of Trent insisted on the sacrificial nature of the Mass over and against the objections of the Protestant reformers, it was only reaffirming what it had been, the common faith of the Church since it’s infancy.
The “Didache” also contains the substance of of our present day Eucharistic prayers.
These four current Churches Eucharistic prayers contains in the Latin-Rite, it contains intentions or intercessions for the unity of the Christian Church.
The Eastern-Rite Church also has same feature of liturgical prayer.
The “Didache” already in the 1st century set the tone for this, by showing the Church has a centripetal force. The Prayer of the Church is always to bring the people of God into one.
“As the broken bread was scattered on the mountains and then gathered into one, thus let your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, because yours is the Glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.”
From the section that foreshadows the memento section of our Latin-Rite liturgy, it says that the celebrant, (Presbyter or Priest) prays this.
“Remember Lord your Church, to rescue it from every evil and to make it perfect in your love. Gather it from the four winds, completely sanctify into your kingdom which you have prepared.”
The teaching of this Early Christian document the “Didache” reflects the heart of Catholic worship today, so that worship of the early Christian Communities was anything was but loose, and unstructured and free flowing.
What this document shows is that the concern for the unity and the harmony of the Church was upper most in the minds of Christians from the very beginning.
And this was instilled by a regular well ordered liturgical prayer.
(End Part 3)
Sep 1, 2018 18:29:54 #
08/31/2018 Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History (Part 4)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
This is confirmed by the Catholic Catechism in section 1345. You will see the quotation from Saint Justin Martyr 165 A.D. “First Apology” this is one of earliest statements that we have of the outline of our divine liturgy or Mass.
When you add these testimonies of the Early Church and see what happens in Church liturgy over the next centuries, it becomes very very clear that the worship involved in the Catholic Church today is rooted in this historical witnessed of the Church.
Part of what the Calvinist Church believe’s in, about their heritage, that Saint Augustine was a porto-reformer, he was like a porto-Calvinist, The origins were in 1517 A.D. They were just recovering what Saint Saint Augustine taught in the early 5th Century.
Here was the real gift of God’s grace, because it brought Howell to his intellectual knees. The greatest gifts of all is virtues is humility. That true humility was to be opened to truth. And follow it the best one can by the Grace of God and never to look or turn back.
What these documents all suggested was the very nature of Early Christianity was not what it thought it was.
The final blow to his religious thinking came when reading the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop 35-108 A.D. Because another part of the puzzle of the Early Church has to do with the governmental structure of the early Church.
Ever since the Protestant Reformation in 1517 A.D. their have been serious disagreements among Protestants about what the New Testament teaches, about how the Church should be governed.
And when we isolate the New Testament from other Early Church documents, we do indeed arrive at conflicting conclusions, so it’s no wonder that people, can’t agree on the way the Church should be govern.
But their is a reason for that, and that is when I realized about the Catholic way of looking at history.
When Catholic theologians and philosophers look back into Christian history, they don’t always see just only the surface diversity, they look for the underling stream of continuity, to say, where can I stand in that stream.
Yes the Church made mistakes on this and that Church did that, and their were bad Pope’s and all that. But thought-out all that surface, their is a deeper work of the Holy Spirit, that is leading and guiding the Church.
And began realized, that’s is what Christians needed to look for, so what did we hear what Saint Ignatius of Antioch was saying.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Church historian recorded these facts, that Ignatius died under the reign of Roman emperor Trajan, 108 A.D. or 98-117 A.D. and was martyred in Rome. So within twenty years from the death of the last Apostle.
We then hear Ignatius of Antioch saying this, to the Smyrna’s Christian Church.
a. “All of you follow your Bishop as Jesus Christ does, follow too the
Presbyters (the body of Priests) as Apostles, honor the Deacons as the ordinance of God.”
b. “Let no one practice anything having to do with the Church apart from the Bishop. That Eucharist should be considered valid which is under the authority of the Bishop or under one that he has appointed.”
c. “Where the Bishop appears then let the fullness of the people come together. Because the Catholic Church is there when Jesus Christ is there.
It is not permitted to Baptize or to hold an Agape feast apart from the Bishop. Rather whatever that one (the Bishop) approve is acceptable to God.”
Ignatius, throughout his seven authentic letters has numerous statements like this.
Ignatius letters to the Ephesian’s:
d. “Therefor it is fitting that you agree with the will of the Bishop, just as you are doing, your rightly famous Presbyters (body of Priests), is worthy of God. It is in harmony with the Bishop like strings tuned on a harp. For this reason Jesus Christ is praised in your harmony and in your united Love.”
Theirs all kinds of implications of what Ignatius says there.
What I came to realize is this, that you are faced with a choice, when you look at Early Church history.
When you study the New Testament and when you study these Early Church documents. You are forced either to accept what we could call “Continuity or Discontinuity.”
Now, “Discontinuity” is the belief that somehow right after the closing of the Apostolic age and the New Testament. The Church declined into “sub-sub-Christian form.”
Example: That when you read the “Didache” the Apostolic Church Fathers and letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch. etc.
I think you’ll see that the kind of Christianity in those documents, is that not of the New Testament.
That’s quite a statement. What that means then, that in some way the Church did not continue the teaching of the Apostles.
Christians have two choices:
a. Either Christians believe in the “Discontinuity Idea,” and that makes sense for Protestants go back to the “Bible Alone” (Sola Scriptura).
Christians have another choice
b. Or could believe in what Jesus Christ once said. “That I will build my Church and the “Gates of Hell” well not prevail against it.” And the Gates of Hell will certainly try to destroy the Church, but God will not allow that to happen.
So, their must be “Continuity” throughout the History of the Church. In it’s Liturgy, in the way it Worships, in It’s Government and in It’s Doctrine.
One need to reflect on your Churches Doctrinal points that are so difficult for some people.
So should you become Catholic because of: Liturgical, Cultural, Intellectual and Doctrinal reasons.
Becoming Catholic, it should be, for all the above . . .
This is the nature of the Early Catholic Church and through the centuries of Catholic-Universal Church.
This is the “The Journey Home” for all Christians and be sealed indelibly with the mark of Jesus Christ, upon conformation when asked by the Bishop.
Here is the true very Nature of Catholicism.
Do you believe, all that this Holy Catholic Church teaches.
Absolutely with all my heart:
I believe everything has taught, by the Catholic Church, does teach and will teach, because this is the instrument of God, to bring Christian people to the fullness of Jesus Christ salvation graces and total love and worship of our God.
The Catholic understandings of Justification, Sanctification and Grace.
www.reasonablecatholicism.com/resources/Justification
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
(End Part 4)
Doctor Kenneth Howell
a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUA-104MZQ
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
This is confirmed by the Catholic Catechism in section 1345. You will see the quotation from Saint Justin Martyr 165 A.D. “First Apology” this is one of earliest statements that we have of the outline of our divine liturgy or Mass.
When you add these testimonies of the Early Church and see what happens in Church liturgy over the next centuries, it becomes very very clear that the worship involved in the Catholic Church today is rooted in this historical witnessed of the Church.
Part of what the Calvinist Church believe’s in, about their heritage, that Saint Augustine was a porto-reformer, he was like a porto-Calvinist, The origins were in 1517 A.D. They were just recovering what Saint Saint Augustine taught in the early 5th Century.
Here was the real gift of God’s grace, because it brought Howell to his intellectual knees. The greatest gifts of all is virtues is humility. That true humility was to be opened to truth. And follow it the best one can by the Grace of God and never to look or turn back.
What these documents all suggested was the very nature of Early Christianity was not what it thought it was.
The final blow to his religious thinking came when reading the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop 35-108 A.D. Because another part of the puzzle of the Early Church has to do with the governmental structure of the early Church.
Ever since the Protestant Reformation in 1517 A.D. their have been serious disagreements among Protestants about what the New Testament teaches, about how the Church should be governed.
And when we isolate the New Testament from other Early Church documents, we do indeed arrive at conflicting conclusions, so it’s no wonder that people, can’t agree on the way the Church should be govern.
But their is a reason for that, and that is when I realized about the Catholic way of looking at history.
When Catholic theologians and philosophers look back into Christian history, they don’t always see just only the surface diversity, they look for the underling stream of continuity, to say, where can I stand in that stream.
Yes the Church made mistakes on this and that Church did that, and their were bad Pope’s and all that. But thought-out all that surface, their is a deeper work of the Holy Spirit, that is leading and guiding the Church.
And began realized, that’s is what Christians needed to look for, so what did we hear what Saint Ignatius of Antioch was saying.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Church historian recorded these facts, that Ignatius died under the reign of Roman emperor Trajan, 108 A.D. or 98-117 A.D. and was martyred in Rome. So within twenty years from the death of the last Apostle.
We then hear Ignatius of Antioch saying this, to the Smyrna’s Christian Church.
a. “All of you follow your Bishop as Jesus Christ does, follow too the
Presbyters (the body of Priests) as Apostles, honor the Deacons as the ordinance of God.”
b. “Let no one practice anything having to do with the Church apart from the Bishop. That Eucharist should be considered valid which is under the authority of the Bishop or under one that he has appointed.”
c. “Where the Bishop appears then let the fullness of the people come together. Because the Catholic Church is there when Jesus Christ is there.
It is not permitted to Baptize or to hold an Agape feast apart from the Bishop. Rather whatever that one (the Bishop) approve is acceptable to God.”
Ignatius, throughout his seven authentic letters has numerous statements like this.
Ignatius letters to the Ephesian’s:
d. “Therefor it is fitting that you agree with the will of the Bishop, just as you are doing, your rightly famous Presbyters (body of Priests), is worthy of God. It is in harmony with the Bishop like strings tuned on a harp. For this reason Jesus Christ is praised in your harmony and in your united Love.”
Theirs all kinds of implications of what Ignatius says there.
What I came to realize is this, that you are faced with a choice, when you look at Early Church history.
When you study the New Testament and when you study these Early Church documents. You are forced either to accept what we could call “Continuity or Discontinuity.”
Now, “Discontinuity” is the belief that somehow right after the closing of the Apostolic age and the New Testament. The Church declined into “sub-sub-Christian form.”
Example: That when you read the “Didache” the Apostolic Church Fathers and letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch. etc.
I think you’ll see that the kind of Christianity in those documents, is that not of the New Testament.
That’s quite a statement. What that means then, that in some way the Church did not continue the teaching of the Apostles.
Christians have two choices:
a. Either Christians believe in the “Discontinuity Idea,” and that makes sense for Protestants go back to the “Bible Alone” (Sola Scriptura).
Christians have another choice
b. Or could believe in what Jesus Christ once said. “That I will build my Church and the “Gates of Hell” well not prevail against it.” And the Gates of Hell will certainly try to destroy the Church, but God will not allow that to happen.
So, their must be “Continuity” throughout the History of the Church. In it’s Liturgy, in the way it Worships, in It’s Government and in It’s Doctrine.
One need to reflect on your Churches Doctrinal points that are so difficult for some people.
So should you become Catholic because of: Liturgical, Cultural, Intellectual and Doctrinal reasons.
Becoming Catholic, it should be, for all the above . . .
This is the nature of the Early Catholic Church and through the centuries of Catholic-Universal Church.
This is the “The Journey Home” for all Christians and be sealed indelibly with the mark of Jesus Christ, upon conformation when asked by the Bishop.
Here is the true very Nature of Catholicism.
Do you believe, all that this Holy Catholic Church teaches.
Absolutely with all my heart:
I believe everything has taught, by the Catholic Church, does teach and will teach, because this is the instrument of God, to bring Christian people to the fullness of Jesus Christ salvation graces and total love and worship of our God.
The Catholic understandings of Justification, Sanctification and Grace.
www.reasonablecatholicism.com/resources/Justification
b. http://DeepinHistory.com
C. http://chnetwork.org
(End Part 4)
Sep 1, 2018 18:35:08 #
bahmer,
Please Watch the video and read the article.
Very rewarding and mind blowing religious True Faith . . .
Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History
A long read, but worthwhile . . .
Doc110
Please Watch the video and read the article.
Very rewarding and mind blowing religious True Faith . . .
Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History
A long read, but worthwhile . . .
Doc110
Sep 3, 2018 04:44:05 #
FALSE,
Part 1
An Evaluation of John Henry Newman’s
Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
by Dr. Norman L. Geisler
Introduction
More properly this evaluation should be titled A Defense of the Roman Catholic Claim to be the one true Church with Explanation of the Changing Doctrines and Practices of Rome throughout the Centuries in Terms of the Development of Doctrine. Newman’s essay (titled An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine) is one of the most famous defenses of Roman Catholicism by one of its most noted converts. In our response, we have organized the materially systematically and quoted from it extensively, using the 1845 edition (Pelican Books, 1974).
The Stated Purpose of Newman’s Essay
Newman wrote: “The following Essay is directed towards a solution of the difficulty which has been stated—the difficulty which lies in the way of using testimony of our most natural informant concerning the doctrine and worship of Christianity, viz., the history of eighteen hundred years” (90). That is, “that the increase and expansion of the Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in the case of individual writers and churches, are the necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession of the intellect and the heart and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as received and transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation. This may be called the Theory of Development” (90).
The Logic of the Argument
Roman Catholic Doctrine as known today is “…the historical and logical continuation of the body of doctrine…in every preceding century successively till we come to the first. Whether it be a corrupt development or a legitimate, conducted on sound logic or fallacious, the present so-called Catholic religion is the successor, the representative, and the heir of the religion of the so-called Catholic Church of primitive times” (240).
Response: First, a historic continuity of the early and present Roman Catholic churches is acknowledged. However, this proves nothing as such because, as admitted, it may be a corruption of the original doctrine. Second, this assumes without justification that the original doctrine was correct. But, as will be shown below, the original two sources view (Scripture and Tradition) is not correct. For a parallel example, the present US government is the historic descendant of the first one. However, many decisions of the Supreme Court are directly contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution as envisioned by its framers.
For instance, the framers did not intend it to enact a separation of Church and State and never even used the terms. The First Amendment says simply “Congress [the Federal Government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nor did the Federal Government forbid the States from having their own State religions which five of the 13 colonies had at the time and were never required to disestablish. But the current Supreme Court following the Everson ruling in 1947 declared: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another…. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” Clearly there is a historical continuity between early and current America, yet there is a doctrinal discontinuity on some important matters. So, it is with the earlier and later Roman Church (as shown below).
“…the doctrines of which the present Catholic religion consist are prima facie the correct, true, faithful, legitimate development of the doctrines which preceded them, and not their corruption” (240.) No “case can be made out against that religion, to prove that it is materially corrupt, and not in its substance Apostolic” (240). So, “It appears then that there has been a certain general type of Christianity in every age, by which it is known at first sight…. And it appears that this type has remained entire from first to last, in spite of the process of development which seems to be attributed by all parties, for good or bad, to the doctrines, rites, and usages in which Christianity consists; or, in other words, that the changes which have taken place in Christianity have not been such as to destroy that type…” (335).
Response: This premise is challenged on two grounds. First, even if Catholicism was an uncorrupted development of the original idea, Catholicism would not be true, if the original idea was false. It would just be a logical development of a false idea. Second, as will be shown below, there was significant doctrinal corruption between earlier and later Catholicism.
The tests to determine whether development or corruption of the ideas occurred include:
(A.) Preservation of the Basic Idea (122).
“It was said, then, that a true development retains the essential idea of the subject from which it has proceeded, and a corruption loses it (241). This parallels the development of a living organism from conception to maturity (241). “An empire or a religion may have many changes: but when we speak of its development, we consider it to be fulfilling, not to be belying its destiny” (122). “A popular leader may go through a variety of professions, he may court parties and break with them, he may contradict himself in words, and undo his own measures, yet there may be a steady fulfillment of certain objects, or adherence to certain plain doctrines, which impress upon beholders, not his scrupulousness, but his sincerity and consistency” (123).
Response: There are several problems with this test. First, the starting premise of the “basic idea” behind Christian doctrine can be challenged. Protestants take it to be sola Scripture (see below) and Roman Catholics believe it is Scripture plus Tradition, that is, as interpreted by the Roman Catholic teaching Magisterium. The development of these different basic ideas will bring about different results.
Second, one can question whether the analogy between the development of a doctrine and the development of a living organism is a proper analogy. There are, after all, some significant differences between the two: one is living and one is dead. But Newman’s whole thesis and conclusion depends on the appropriateness of this challengeable analogy (see below). Even Newman himself claims a heresy is like a living organism. He wrote: “The church is a kingdom; a heresy is a family rather than a kingdom; and as a family continually divides and sends out branches, founding new houses…” (275).
(B.) Continuity of the Principles (124).
“Doctrines expand variously according to the mind, individual or social, into which they are received; and the peculiarities of the recipient are the regulating power, the law, the organization, or, as it may be called, the form of the development. The life of doctrines may be said to consist in the law or principle which they embody” (124).
“Principles are abstract and general, doctrines relate to facts; doctrines develop, and principles do not” (127). “Principles are popularly said to develop when they are but exemplified; thus the various sects of Protestantism, unconnected as they are with each other, are called development of the principle of Private Judgment, of which really they are applications and results” (129).
“Doctrine without its correspondent principle remains barren, if not lifeless, of which the Greek Church seems an instance” (129). “Pagans may have, heretics cannot have, the same principles as Catholics…. Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine” (129) “The doctrines of heresy are accidents and soon run to an end; its principles are everlasting” (129).
Response: Non-Roman Catholics acknowledge a doctrinal continuity between original and later Catholicism without accepting Catholicism. For example, Protestants agree with Catholics on the dogmas of the first four ecumenical councils and Eastern Orthodox agrees on the first seven councils. The basic idea could have been preserved in these earlier councils, as it has been noted: “One Bible, two Testaments, Three Creeds, and Four centuries” is the common core of most forms of Christianity. Since Catholicism embraces these as well, it too has a doctrinal continuity with earlier Christianity. However, this does not as such support the Catholic claim to be the true Church.
Part 1
An Evaluation of John Henry Newman’s
Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
by Dr. Norman L. Geisler
Introduction
More properly this evaluation should be titled A Defense of the Roman Catholic Claim to be the one true Church with Explanation of the Changing Doctrines and Practices of Rome throughout the Centuries in Terms of the Development of Doctrine. Newman’s essay (titled An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine) is one of the most famous defenses of Roman Catholicism by one of its most noted converts. In our response, we have organized the materially systematically and quoted from it extensively, using the 1845 edition (Pelican Books, 1974).
The Stated Purpose of Newman’s Essay
Newman wrote: “The following Essay is directed towards a solution of the difficulty which has been stated—the difficulty which lies in the way of using testimony of our most natural informant concerning the doctrine and worship of Christianity, viz., the history of eighteen hundred years” (90). That is, “that the increase and expansion of the Christian creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in the case of individual writers and churches, are the necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession of the intellect and the heart and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as received and transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation. This may be called the Theory of Development” (90).
The Logic of the Argument
Roman Catholic Doctrine as known today is “…the historical and logical continuation of the body of doctrine…in every preceding century successively till we come to the first. Whether it be a corrupt development or a legitimate, conducted on sound logic or fallacious, the present so-called Catholic religion is the successor, the representative, and the heir of the religion of the so-called Catholic Church of primitive times” (240).
Response: First, a historic continuity of the early and present Roman Catholic churches is acknowledged. However, this proves nothing as such because, as admitted, it may be a corruption of the original doctrine. Second, this assumes without justification that the original doctrine was correct. But, as will be shown below, the original two sources view (Scripture and Tradition) is not correct. For a parallel example, the present US government is the historic descendant of the first one. However, many decisions of the Supreme Court are directly contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution as envisioned by its framers.
For instance, the framers did not intend it to enact a separation of Church and State and never even used the terms. The First Amendment says simply “Congress [the Federal Government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nor did the Federal Government forbid the States from having their own State religions which five of the 13 colonies had at the time and were never required to disestablish. But the current Supreme Court following the Everson ruling in 1947 declared: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another…. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” Clearly there is a historical continuity between early and current America, yet there is a doctrinal discontinuity on some important matters. So, it is with the earlier and later Roman Church (as shown below).
“…the doctrines of which the present Catholic religion consist are prima facie the correct, true, faithful, legitimate development of the doctrines which preceded them, and not their corruption” (240.) No “case can be made out against that religion, to prove that it is materially corrupt, and not in its substance Apostolic” (240). So, “It appears then that there has been a certain general type of Christianity in every age, by which it is known at first sight…. And it appears that this type has remained entire from first to last, in spite of the process of development which seems to be attributed by all parties, for good or bad, to the doctrines, rites, and usages in which Christianity consists; or, in other words, that the changes which have taken place in Christianity have not been such as to destroy that type…” (335).
Response: This premise is challenged on two grounds. First, even if Catholicism was an uncorrupted development of the original idea, Catholicism would not be true, if the original idea was false. It would just be a logical development of a false idea. Second, as will be shown below, there was significant doctrinal corruption between earlier and later Catholicism.
The tests to determine whether development or corruption of the ideas occurred include:
(A.) Preservation of the Basic Idea (122).
“It was said, then, that a true development retains the essential idea of the subject from which it has proceeded, and a corruption loses it (241). This parallels the development of a living organism from conception to maturity (241). “An empire or a religion may have many changes: but when we speak of its development, we consider it to be fulfilling, not to be belying its destiny” (122). “A popular leader may go through a variety of professions, he may court parties and break with them, he may contradict himself in words, and undo his own measures, yet there may be a steady fulfillment of certain objects, or adherence to certain plain doctrines, which impress upon beholders, not his scrupulousness, but his sincerity and consistency” (123).
Response: There are several problems with this test. First, the starting premise of the “basic idea” behind Christian doctrine can be challenged. Protestants take it to be sola Scripture (see below) and Roman Catholics believe it is Scripture plus Tradition, that is, as interpreted by the Roman Catholic teaching Magisterium. The development of these different basic ideas will bring about different results.
Second, one can question whether the analogy between the development of a doctrine and the development of a living organism is a proper analogy. There are, after all, some significant differences between the two: one is living and one is dead. But Newman’s whole thesis and conclusion depends on the appropriateness of this challengeable analogy (see below). Even Newman himself claims a heresy is like a living organism. He wrote: “The church is a kingdom; a heresy is a family rather than a kingdom; and as a family continually divides and sends out branches, founding new houses…” (275).
(B.) Continuity of the Principles (124).
“Doctrines expand variously according to the mind, individual or social, into which they are received; and the peculiarities of the recipient are the regulating power, the law, the organization, or, as it may be called, the form of the development. The life of doctrines may be said to consist in the law or principle which they embody” (124).
“Principles are abstract and general, doctrines relate to facts; doctrines develop, and principles do not” (127). “Principles are popularly said to develop when they are but exemplified; thus the various sects of Protestantism, unconnected as they are with each other, are called development of the principle of Private Judgment, of which really they are applications and results” (129).
“Doctrine without its correspondent principle remains barren, if not lifeless, of which the Greek Church seems an instance” (129). “Pagans may have, heretics cannot have, the same principles as Catholics…. Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine” (129) “The doctrines of heresy are accidents and soon run to an end; its principles are everlasting” (129).
Response: Non-Roman Catholics acknowledge a doctrinal continuity between original and later Catholicism without accepting Catholicism. For example, Protestants agree with Catholics on the dogmas of the first four ecumenical councils and Eastern Orthodox agrees on the first seven councils. The basic idea could have been preserved in these earlier councils, as it has been noted: “One Bible, two Testaments, Three Creeds, and Four centuries” is the common core of most forms of Christianity. Since Catholicism embraces these as well, it too has a doctrinal continuity with earlier Christianity. However, this does not as such support the Catholic claim to be the true Church.
Sep 3, 2018 04:46:18 #
FALSE
Part 2
) The Power of Assimilation (130).
“In the physical world whatever has life is characterized by growth, so that in no respect to grow is to cease to live. It grows by taking into its own substance external materials; and this absorption or assimilation is completed when the materials appropriated come to belong to it or enter into its unity” (130). “Thus, a power of development is a proof of life, not only in its essay, but in its success; for a mere formula either does not expand or is shattered in expanding. A living idea becomes many, yet remains one. The attempt at development shows the presence of a principle, and its success the presence of an idea. Principles stimulate thought, and an idea keeps it together” (131).
Response: As mentioned above, this is dependent on the alleged validity of the analogy of Roman Catholicism’s development with a living organism. But this is a questionable analogy. Ideas are not living entities and do not “assimilate” the way a living organism does. Further, since this is based on the first two tests and is a continuation of them, it is subject to the same criticisms of these two tests (see above). Finally, even if this principle was valid, it would only demonstrate that ideas develop in a certain way; it would not prove that the original ideas were true.
(D.) Early Anticipation of Aspects of the Idea (133).
“When an idea is living, that is influential and operative in the minds of recipients, it is sure to develop according to the principles on which they are formed; instances of such a process, though vague and isolated, may occur from the very first, though a lapse of time be necessary to bring it to perfection. And since developments are in great measure only aspects of the idea from which they come, and all of them are natural consequences of it, it is often a matter of accident in what order they are carried out in individual minds; and it is in no wise strange that here and there definite specimens should very early occur, which in the historical course are not found till a late day…. Nothing is more common, for instance, than accounts or legends of the anticipations, which great men have in boyhood of the bent of their minds, as afterwards displayed in their history” (133-134).
Response: This test shows indication of being devised in advance to help explain a severe difficulty in Catholicism, namely, that many of its doctrines have no real root in the Bible or in the early church. Indeed, many of them are late in origin. Hence, positing that faintness and lateness can be explained by comparison with a living organism is suspect. This is particularly true when later ideas (doctrines) of Rome are in conflict with earlier ones. This is most evident in the contradictory “infallible” pronouncements of Rome regarding ex cathedra declarations (see Popes below).
Further, Newman’s concept of slow development is countered by admitting the supernatural confirmation of God’s revelation. He wrote: “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161). But what could be greater than the original revelation as supernaturally confirmed by God. How does time outweigh the Transcendent?
(E.) Logical Sequence of the Idea (136).
“Though it is a matter of accident in what order or degree developments of a common idea which show themselves…, yet on a large field they will on the whole be gradual and orderly, nay, in logical sequence” (which may not be a conscious process) (136). “Afterwards, however, this logical character which the whole wears becomes a test that the process has been a true development, not a perversion or corruption from its naturalness” (137). “Again, the doctrine of the Sacraments leads to the doctrine of Justification; Justification to Original sin; Original sin to the merit of Celibacy” (199). “The Mass and Real Presence are parts of one; the veneration of Saints and their relics are part of one; their intercessory power, and the Purgatorial State, and again the Mass and that State are correlative…. You must accept the whole or reject the whole; rejection does but enfeeble, and amputation mutilate: (199). “Moreover, since the doctrines all together make up the integral religion, it follows that the several evidences which respectively support those doctrines belong to the whole, and are available in the defense of any” (199).
Response: To the degree that ideas have logical consequences, this point is true. However, it does not show that the later doctrines are true anymore than the earlier ones. For instance, prayers for the dead may help lead to the idea of Purgatory, but this does not prove that either idea is true; it may merely show a logical connection between two false ideas. Furthermore, it is a stretch to see the alleged connection between earlier and later doctrines. For example, Newman held that belief of Christ’s resurrection in flesh leads to doctrines of the Real Presence, Virginity of Mary, and her Mother of God (378). But this is a stretch, to say nothing of the fact that the original doctrine (of the Real Presence) may be challenged (see “Does the NT Support the Roman Catholic View of Communion?”).
(F.) Preservative Addition (141).
“As developments which are preceded by definite indications have a fair presumption in their favour, so those which do but contract and reverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them, and out of which they spring, are certainly corrupt; for a corruption is a development in that very stage in which it ceases to illustrate” (141). The development is gradual. However, “…so great a paradox cannot be maintained as that truth literally leads to falsehood” (142). But “True religion is the summit and perfection of false religion; it combines in one whatever there is of good and true separately remaining in each. And in like manner the Catholic Creed is for the most part the combination of separate truths, which heretics have divided among themselves, and err is dividing” (143). “And thus a sixth test of a true development is its being an addition which is conservative of what has gone before it” (144).
Response: Within proper limits, this is a valid principle, but it may be questioned whether later Catholicism is the proper and logical development of what has gone before. This is particularly true when some later practices contradict the earlier doctrines. Such practices are not conservative, but contradictory, of what has gone before. Even Newman recognized that this is precisely the Protestant criticism of Catholicism. He spoke of Roman Catholics as being “…accused of substituting another Gospel for the primitive Creed” (144). When Catholics point out that they are as faithful as anyone to the original creeds, Neman recognized the Protestant rebuttal that Catholics “…obscure and virtually annul them by their additions; thus the cultus of St. Mary and the Saints is no development of the truth, but a corruption, because it draws away the mind and heart from Christ” (144). The Catholic response to this is weak and unsatisfactory, as is its response to the charge that Purgatory (see below) diminishes the all sufficiency of the death of Christ (Jn. 19:30; Heb.1:3; 10:11-14).
Newman critiques Islam for revoking previous revelations in view of later contradictory ones, pointing to their principle of abrogation which he claims revoked about 150 of Muhammed’s previous revelations (143). But this is a more credible way to deal with the problem than Newton’s Essay which attempts to show there is a progress in Dogma wherein later formulations (which in some cases are contrary to earlier ones) are accepted and the previous ones rejected. How can this be true if the earlier one was infallible (see Pope below).
(G.) Chronic Continuance of the Idea (144).
“Since corruption of an idea, as far as its appearance goes, is a sort of accident or affection of its development…it is as has been observed, a brief and rapid process…. Corruption cannot, therefore be of long standing; and thus duration is another test of a faithful development” (145). “The course of heresies is always short. It has a “’transitory character’” (147). “If Christianity is a fact…and impresses an idea of itself on our minds, that idea will in course of time develop in a series of ideas connected and harmonious with one another, and unchangeable and complete, as is the external fact itself which is thus represented” (148). “And the more claim an idea has to be considered living, the more various will be its aspects; and the more social and political is its nature, the more complicated and subtle will be its developments, and the longer and more eventful will be its course. Such is Christianity” (148). Newman adds, “Hence, all bodies of Christianity develop the doctrines of Scripture” (150).
Response: This test is false as stated. For it is simply not true that “Corruption cannot, therefore be of long standing; and thus duration is another test of a faithful development” (145). Even Newman admits that Islam—a false religion—is an apparent counter example. He said, Islam has “…a living idea somewhere in that religion, which has been so strong, so wide, so lasting a bond of union in the history of the world” (131). Yet he said elsewhere that “A corruption is of brief duration, runs itself out quickly, and ends in death” (442).
Further, Arianism was a widespread and long enduring heresy. At one time it encompassed much of the Christian Church. It is still alive in the Jehovah’s Witness cult. Likewise, not all forms of Christianity “developed” the doctrine of Scripture in the way Roman Catholicism has. For other than drawing logically necessary conclusions from Scriptural premises, as in the Trinity and Incarnation, Protestants believe that the perspicuity (clearness of the central message) of Scripture as interpreted by the historical-grammatical method (see below), there is no Catholic-like “development” of Scripture in biblical Protestantism.
4. When applied to the Catholic Church, these principles show that it is a development, not a corruption, of the original Idea.
Newman’s conclusion from his premises is:
“It appears then that there has been a certain general type of Christianity in every age, by which it is known at first sight…. And it appears that this type has remained entire from first to last, in spite of the process of development which seems to be attributed by all parties, for good or bad, to the doctrines, rites, and usages in which Christianity consists; or, in other words, that the changes which have taken place in Christianity have not been such as to destroy that type…” (335).
Response: First of all, the conclusion is no better than the premise. A chain is no better than its weakest link. And the foregoing discussion shows the weakness of Newman’s premises. At best, even if the basic premises of development versus corruption are correct, it would show no more than Roman Catholicism in its present form is a natural outworking of the core idea which is Scripture plus Catholic interpreted Tradition plus time yields current Roman Catholicism. This leads us to examine this core premise more carefully.
Second, Newman frankly admits that his view is only a theory: “it will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is…. “Then he adds quickly, “…[but] all depends on the strength of that presumption.” Of course it does, and that is the point. If Newman’s basic idea (of Scripture plus tradition as interpreted by Rome) is accepted, then to no one’s surprise, one can make a convincing case the current Roman Catholic Church is the developmental result of its long history from the seminal beginning. Then Newman adds a negative argument, namely, “Supposing there be otherwise good reasons for saying Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it” (212). But neither is there anything that really supports it either. In fact, as we shall see, there is much to contradict it.
Third, Newman’s stress on the necessity of faith to accept the system and explanations of Catholicism is a key to understanding how otherwise intelligent and thinking persons can accept a view with such incredible beliefs as Transubstantiation and the Infallibility of the Pope. He claims that faith is preferred to reason in making a decision about a religious system (242f.). He said that “Men were not obliged to wait for proof before believing” (346). Then he attempts to justify this conclusion by citing Aquinas and Augustine out of context (348) and by neglecting clear passages to the contrary. For example, Augustine said, “No one indeed believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed. For… it is yet necessary that everything which is believed should be believed after thought had led the way” (On Predestination of the Saints, 5). However, “faith” in a “theory” as big and boasting as is Catholicism (which claims to be the only true religion) and which holds teaching so contrary to experience and reason (e.g., transubstantiation) needs careful scrutiny before one makes the leap of faith into it.
Part 2
) The Power of Assimilation (130).
“In the physical world whatever has life is characterized by growth, so that in no respect to grow is to cease to live. It grows by taking into its own substance external materials; and this absorption or assimilation is completed when the materials appropriated come to belong to it or enter into its unity” (130). “Thus, a power of development is a proof of life, not only in its essay, but in its success; for a mere formula either does not expand or is shattered in expanding. A living idea becomes many, yet remains one. The attempt at development shows the presence of a principle, and its success the presence of an idea. Principles stimulate thought, and an idea keeps it together” (131).
Response: As mentioned above, this is dependent on the alleged validity of the analogy of Roman Catholicism’s development with a living organism. But this is a questionable analogy. Ideas are not living entities and do not “assimilate” the way a living organism does. Further, since this is based on the first two tests and is a continuation of them, it is subject to the same criticisms of these two tests (see above). Finally, even if this principle was valid, it would only demonstrate that ideas develop in a certain way; it would not prove that the original ideas were true.
(D.) Early Anticipation of Aspects of the Idea (133).
“When an idea is living, that is influential and operative in the minds of recipients, it is sure to develop according to the principles on which they are formed; instances of such a process, though vague and isolated, may occur from the very first, though a lapse of time be necessary to bring it to perfection. And since developments are in great measure only aspects of the idea from which they come, and all of them are natural consequences of it, it is often a matter of accident in what order they are carried out in individual minds; and it is in no wise strange that here and there definite specimens should very early occur, which in the historical course are not found till a late day…. Nothing is more common, for instance, than accounts or legends of the anticipations, which great men have in boyhood of the bent of their minds, as afterwards displayed in their history” (133-134).
Response: This test shows indication of being devised in advance to help explain a severe difficulty in Catholicism, namely, that many of its doctrines have no real root in the Bible or in the early church. Indeed, many of them are late in origin. Hence, positing that faintness and lateness can be explained by comparison with a living organism is suspect. This is particularly true when later ideas (doctrines) of Rome are in conflict with earlier ones. This is most evident in the contradictory “infallible” pronouncements of Rome regarding ex cathedra declarations (see Popes below).
Further, Newman’s concept of slow development is countered by admitting the supernatural confirmation of God’s revelation. He wrote: “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161). But what could be greater than the original revelation as supernaturally confirmed by God. How does time outweigh the Transcendent?
(E.) Logical Sequence of the Idea (136).
“Though it is a matter of accident in what order or degree developments of a common idea which show themselves…, yet on a large field they will on the whole be gradual and orderly, nay, in logical sequence” (which may not be a conscious process) (136). “Afterwards, however, this logical character which the whole wears becomes a test that the process has been a true development, not a perversion or corruption from its naturalness” (137). “Again, the doctrine of the Sacraments leads to the doctrine of Justification; Justification to Original sin; Original sin to the merit of Celibacy” (199). “The Mass and Real Presence are parts of one; the veneration of Saints and their relics are part of one; their intercessory power, and the Purgatorial State, and again the Mass and that State are correlative…. You must accept the whole or reject the whole; rejection does but enfeeble, and amputation mutilate: (199). “Moreover, since the doctrines all together make up the integral religion, it follows that the several evidences which respectively support those doctrines belong to the whole, and are available in the defense of any” (199).
Response: To the degree that ideas have logical consequences, this point is true. However, it does not show that the later doctrines are true anymore than the earlier ones. For instance, prayers for the dead may help lead to the idea of Purgatory, but this does not prove that either idea is true; it may merely show a logical connection between two false ideas. Furthermore, it is a stretch to see the alleged connection between earlier and later doctrines. For example, Newman held that belief of Christ’s resurrection in flesh leads to doctrines of the Real Presence, Virginity of Mary, and her Mother of God (378). But this is a stretch, to say nothing of the fact that the original doctrine (of the Real Presence) may be challenged (see “Does the NT Support the Roman Catholic View of Communion?”).
(F.) Preservative Addition (141).
“As developments which are preceded by definite indications have a fair presumption in their favour, so those which do but contract and reverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them, and out of which they spring, are certainly corrupt; for a corruption is a development in that very stage in which it ceases to illustrate” (141). The development is gradual. However, “…so great a paradox cannot be maintained as that truth literally leads to falsehood” (142). But “True religion is the summit and perfection of false religion; it combines in one whatever there is of good and true separately remaining in each. And in like manner the Catholic Creed is for the most part the combination of separate truths, which heretics have divided among themselves, and err is dividing” (143). “And thus a sixth test of a true development is its being an addition which is conservative of what has gone before it” (144).
Response: Within proper limits, this is a valid principle, but it may be questioned whether later Catholicism is the proper and logical development of what has gone before. This is particularly true when some later practices contradict the earlier doctrines. Such practices are not conservative, but contradictory, of what has gone before. Even Newman recognized that this is precisely the Protestant criticism of Catholicism. He spoke of Roman Catholics as being “…accused of substituting another Gospel for the primitive Creed” (144). When Catholics point out that they are as faithful as anyone to the original creeds, Neman recognized the Protestant rebuttal that Catholics “…obscure and virtually annul them by their additions; thus the cultus of St. Mary and the Saints is no development of the truth, but a corruption, because it draws away the mind and heart from Christ” (144). The Catholic response to this is weak and unsatisfactory, as is its response to the charge that Purgatory (see below) diminishes the all sufficiency of the death of Christ (Jn. 19:30; Heb.1:3; 10:11-14).
Newman critiques Islam for revoking previous revelations in view of later contradictory ones, pointing to their principle of abrogation which he claims revoked about 150 of Muhammed’s previous revelations (143). But this is a more credible way to deal with the problem than Newton’s Essay which attempts to show there is a progress in Dogma wherein later formulations (which in some cases are contrary to earlier ones) are accepted and the previous ones rejected. How can this be true if the earlier one was infallible (see Pope below).
(G.) Chronic Continuance of the Idea (144).
“Since corruption of an idea, as far as its appearance goes, is a sort of accident or affection of its development…it is as has been observed, a brief and rapid process…. Corruption cannot, therefore be of long standing; and thus duration is another test of a faithful development” (145). “The course of heresies is always short. It has a “’transitory character’” (147). “If Christianity is a fact…and impresses an idea of itself on our minds, that idea will in course of time develop in a series of ideas connected and harmonious with one another, and unchangeable and complete, as is the external fact itself which is thus represented” (148). “And the more claim an idea has to be considered living, the more various will be its aspects; and the more social and political is its nature, the more complicated and subtle will be its developments, and the longer and more eventful will be its course. Such is Christianity” (148). Newman adds, “Hence, all bodies of Christianity develop the doctrines of Scripture” (150).
Response: This test is false as stated. For it is simply not true that “Corruption cannot, therefore be of long standing; and thus duration is another test of a faithful development” (145). Even Newman admits that Islam—a false religion—is an apparent counter example. He said, Islam has “…a living idea somewhere in that religion, which has been so strong, so wide, so lasting a bond of union in the history of the world” (131). Yet he said elsewhere that “A corruption is of brief duration, runs itself out quickly, and ends in death” (442).
Further, Arianism was a widespread and long enduring heresy. At one time it encompassed much of the Christian Church. It is still alive in the Jehovah’s Witness cult. Likewise, not all forms of Christianity “developed” the doctrine of Scripture in the way Roman Catholicism has. For other than drawing logically necessary conclusions from Scriptural premises, as in the Trinity and Incarnation, Protestants believe that the perspicuity (clearness of the central message) of Scripture as interpreted by the historical-grammatical method (see below), there is no Catholic-like “development” of Scripture in biblical Protestantism.
4. When applied to the Catholic Church, these principles show that it is a development, not a corruption, of the original Idea.
Newman’s conclusion from his premises is:
“It appears then that there has been a certain general type of Christianity in every age, by which it is known at first sight…. And it appears that this type has remained entire from first to last, in spite of the process of development which seems to be attributed by all parties, for good or bad, to the doctrines, rites, and usages in which Christianity consists; or, in other words, that the changes which have taken place in Christianity have not been such as to destroy that type…” (335).
Response: First of all, the conclusion is no better than the premise. A chain is no better than its weakest link. And the foregoing discussion shows the weakness of Newman’s premises. At best, even if the basic premises of development versus corruption are correct, it would show no more than Roman Catholicism in its present form is a natural outworking of the core idea which is Scripture plus Catholic interpreted Tradition plus time yields current Roman Catholicism. This leads us to examine this core premise more carefully.
Second, Newman frankly admits that his view is only a theory: “it will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is…. “Then he adds quickly, “…[but] all depends on the strength of that presumption.” Of course it does, and that is the point. If Newman’s basic idea (of Scripture plus tradition as interpreted by Rome) is accepted, then to no one’s surprise, one can make a convincing case the current Roman Catholic Church is the developmental result of its long history from the seminal beginning. Then Newman adds a negative argument, namely, “Supposing there be otherwise good reasons for saying Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it” (212). But neither is there anything that really supports it either. In fact, as we shall see, there is much to contradict it.
Third, Newman’s stress on the necessity of faith to accept the system and explanations of Catholicism is a key to understanding how otherwise intelligent and thinking persons can accept a view with such incredible beliefs as Transubstantiation and the Infallibility of the Pope. He claims that faith is preferred to reason in making a decision about a religious system (242f.). He said that “Men were not obliged to wait for proof before believing” (346). Then he attempts to justify this conclusion by citing Aquinas and Augustine out of context (348) and by neglecting clear passages to the contrary. For example, Augustine said, “No one indeed believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed. For… it is yet necessary that everything which is believed should be believed after thought had led the way” (On Predestination of the Saints, 5). However, “faith” in a “theory” as big and boasting as is Catholicism (which claims to be the only true religion) and which holds teaching so contrary to experience and reason (e.g., transubstantiation) needs careful scrutiny before one makes the leap of faith into it.
Sep 3, 2018 04:53:01 #
FALSE
Part 3
Newman’s Rejection of Sola Scriptura
Of course, accepting the Catholic starting point means rejecting sola Scripture. Many arguments against the Protestant principle of the Bible alone are offered by Newman. However, all of them fail to dethrone the doctrine. Let’s examine them carefully.
1) He rejects sola Scripture saying,
“It may be objected that inspired documents, such as the Holy Scriptures, at once determine its doctrine without further trouble. But they were intended to create an idea, and that idea is not in the sacred text, but in the mind of the reader” (149). But that idea is complete and accurate and only “…comes to perfection in the course of time” (149).
Response: this argument begs the question by assuming that the Bible is not sufficient in itself to convey a central message. Rather, he believes that its purpose is “…to create an idea, and that idea is not in the sacred text.” But the Bible as a revelation of God’s true in itself and not merely an instrument to create an idea in our minds.
Furthermore, the idea conveyed by the sacred text does not have to wait for centuries to come to perfection. “The Law of the Lord is perfect” (Psa. 19:7). And when that idea is conveyed to our minds by the Holy Spirit enlightening them to God’s truth, neither centuries of development nor a teaching Magisterium is necessary to do the Holy Spirit’s work for Him.
Newman’s attempt to counter this misses the point. He wrote, “Nor is the case altered by supposing that inspiration did for the first recipients of the Revelation what the Divine Fiat did for herbs and plants in the beginning, which were created in maturity. Still, the time at length came, when its recipients ceased to be inspired; and on these recipients the truth would fall, as in other cases, at first vaguely and generally, and would afterwards be completed by development” (149). However, any distortions that occur after a perfect and mature revelation are given are irrelevant to the point which is that God gave a complete and clear understandable revelation in the Bible
2) Newman claimed that important theological questions like “the intermediate state between death and Resurrection” are not answered in Scripture but imply a later development (153).
Response: The Bible tells us all we need to know about the intermediate state. It is found in many verses like these: “it is far better to depart and to be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23); “Absent from the body, present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8); “Today, you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43); ”We must all appear before he judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive a reward for what was done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10 cf. Mat. 17:2-3; Rev. 6:9). As for the rest, “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but to us and to our children the things that are revealed” (Deut. 29:29).
3) Newman claims that doctrines like the duty to worship and that the day of worship is Sunday are not revealed in the Bible. Thus, without the Catholic Church’s “development” of the original deposit of revelation in the Bible and the Catholic teaching Magisterium interpreting this, we would not know on which day to worship.
Response: Not everything in the Bible is taught by direct command. Some things are taught by principle and example. As for Church attendance, Hebrews 10:25 exhorts us “Do not neglect to meet together.” And Jesus set the example for meeting on Sunday by rising from the dead on Sunday (Mat. 28:1), by appearing to his disciples on Sunday (Jn. 20:1), by sending the Holy Spirit to baptize the disciples into the body of Christ on Sunday (Acts 2:1). Following this example, the early disciples met “on the first day of the week they gathered together to break bread” (Act 20:7). And Paul exhorted the Corinthians, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside” to give to the Lord (1 Cor. 16:2). This is sufficient for faith and practice on this matter. No pronouncements by a teaching Magisterium are necessary.
4) Newman argued that
“The Bible does not answer basic questions like how we got “the Canon of Scripture.“ That is, “unless we suppose a new revelation, from the revelation we have, that is by development [deduction]” (151).
Response: A new revelation is not necessary to establish the canon. All that is necessary is, as the Westminster Confession states, that everything we need is “…either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture” (I, VI). The Bible speaks of the Old Testament canon in “the Law and the Prophets” (Lk. 24:27) and in the Jewish “Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:15-16). The epistles speak of the Gospels as “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18). Peter speaks of Paul’s epistles as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15-16), and by “good and necessary consequences” we deduce that the other New Testament books written by apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) were also Scripture (see Geisler, From God to Us in www.BastionBooks.com).
Even Newman admits elsewhere that one does not need an infallible writer to confirm an infallible writing. And he acknowledges that even though “the Apostles were made infallible” in their inspired writings, “yet we are only morally certain that they were infallible” (170). Similarly, we can be morally certain about the canon of Scripture by the Bible’s claim for itself and as confirmed by the early Fathers’ citations from the canon.
Further, contrary to Catholic claim, the Church did not determine the canon of Scripture; God determined it by inspiring the canonical book. The Church merely discovered the books that God had determined to be canonical by noting the earmarks of inspiration such as, was it written by a prophet of God? Was he confirmed to be a prophet of God by miracles (Heb. 2:3-4) or other means? Did it tell the truth about God in accordance with other prophetic writings? If so, then these were collected by the people of God (cf. Duet 31:24-25; Dan. 9:1; Zech. 7:12; 2 Pet. 3:15-16).
All the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments were eventually recognized by the Early Fathers as part of the canon of Scripture by citations, translations, and official listings (see From God to Us, chaps 6-10). By the time of Irenaeus in c. A.D. 180 (who knew Papias the disciple of John the apostle) all the New Testament books (except the tiny one chapter book of 3rd John) were recognized as canonical. Only a few years later (c. A.D. 200) even 3rd John was cited as canonical. By the time of the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) the Christian Church in general had recognized the entire canon of Scripture, including the 27 books of the New Testament as inspired of God and rightfully in the canon of Scripture. For a discussion of The Old Testament Apocrypha see below.
5) Newman claimed that only the Church can properly interpret the Bible.
“We are told that God has spoken. Where? In a book? We have tried it, and it disappoints; it disappoints, that most holy and blessed gift, not from fault of its own, but because it is used for a purpose for which it was not given. The Ethiopian’s reply, when St. Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading (Acts 8:34), is the voice of nature: ‘How can I unless some man guide me?’ The Church undertakes that office; she does what none else can do, and this is the secret of the power” (175).
Response: This does not deny the Protestant principle of the perspicuity which holds only that the main message of the Bible is clear, not every particular detail. The Ethiopian Eunuch was: a) only one man, b) reading one text. He did not represent a failure of believers in general to understand the central message of the Bible in general. Further, the Ethiopian was a new convert who had not yet heard about Jesus, his death and resurrection for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4). There is every indication that once he heard the Gospel that he had no difficulty understanding it. Indeed, once the Ethiopian heard about Jesus he understood the message and wanted to obey him in baptism immediately (Acts 8:35-38) without the help of an ecclesiastical authority.
6) The Claim of Need for Absolute Authority. “The absolute need of spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest argument in favour of its supply” (177). “The only general persuasive in matters of conduct is authority; that is when truth is in question, a judgement which we consider superior to our own” (177). While there are many conflicting authorities, “The question is, which of all these theories is the simplest, the most natural, the most persuasive.
Response: There are several problems with this argument. First, the need for something does not guarantee it will be obtained; it merely shows that it is needed. Thirsty people need water and hungry people need food, but still many die of hunger and thirst. Second, Newman does not demonstrate (but merely posits, but does not prove, that absolute authority is a need). Indeed, he admits elsewhere that infallibility does not need an infallible argument to support it (169). Finally, he assumes a questionable hypothesis that the “simplest” explanation is the best. This is sometimes called “Ockham’s Razor,” but Ockham did not say this. He said “Don’t multiply causes without necessity.” The true explanation may not always be the simplest one.
Newman’s Argument for a Mystical Interpretation of Scripture
Hand in hand with the rejection of sola Scriptura is Newman’s rejection of the sufficiency of the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture. There is a good reason for this because once a sufficiency of knowing God’s Word (that is adequate for faith and practice) is no longer found in the Bible and its historical-grammatical interpretation, one must find a source elsewhere. Newman finds this in the teaching Magisterium (see Pope below) and in a mystical interpretation of the Bible.
Catholicism Can’t be established by Scripture Alone.
Newman argued that the Catholic Faith can’t be proven from Scripture alone without using a mystical interpretation. He wrote,
“Nor am I aware that Post-tridentine writers deny that the whole Catholic faith may be proved from Scripture, though they would certainly maintain that it is not to be found on the surface of it, nor in such sense that it may be gained from Scripture without the aid of Tradition. And this has been the doctrine of all ages of the Church, as is shown by the disinclination of her teachers to confine themselves to mere literal interpretation of Scripture. Her most subtle and powerful method of proof, whether in ancient or modern times, is the mystical sense, which I so frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many occasions to supersede any other” [e.g., Mal. 1 is used by Trent to support the Sacrifice of the Mass] (339).
Response: This is an incredible admission. He admits “…the disinclination of her (the Church’s) teachers to confine themselves to mere literal interpretation of Scripture” (339, emphasis mine). This is a confession that they cannot establish the truth of Catholicism from the Bible alone using the normal method of interpretation. He adds, “Her most subtle and powerful method of proof… is the mystical sense, which is so frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many occasions to supersede any other” For example, Malachi 1 is used by the Council of Trent to support the Sacrifice of the Mass (339). But the inability of the mystical method to be anchored in the objective text of divine Scripture, along with the inability to provide an objective criteria by which to guide one’s understanding of Scripture, is sufficient evidence to show the inadequacy of Rome’s “most powerful method” of establishing its unique but aberrant doctrines.
2) The Bible is not Self-Interpreting
Newman argues that the Bible is not self-interpreting. He wrote:
“The whole Bible, not its prophetical portions only, is written on the principle of development” (156). “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161).
Response: First of all, pointing to fulfilled prophecy is not a good example of Newman’s principle of development which demands more than the Bible to understand the Bible. For using the Bible to understand the Bible is not contrary to sola Scripture; it is an example of sola Scriptura at work. For literal predictions of Christ’s first coming found literal fulfillment in the New Testament, whether it was the place of his birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), the manner of his birth by a virgin (Isa. 7:14), the manner of his death (Isa. 53), or his resurrection (Psa. 16:10 cf. Acts 2:27-31), or numerous other literal predictions and literal fulfillment (cf. Isa. 61:1-2 cf. Lk. 4:16-21).
Second, Newman’s passing reference of miracles to confirm a message from God (“notwithstanding the miracles which attendee it”) is evidence against his view. For if a clear revelation is accompanied by a literal divine confirmation) what need is there of a further gradual development before one can understand it.
Third, if one carried this logic out consistently, then there would be need of a further “development” of divine confirmation for that and so on, ad infinitum. And if one agrees the process can be stopped, then why not stop it with God’s supernatural revelation as confirmed by miracles. In this case there is no reason to add an infallible interpreter for God’s infallible Word. For Newman argued that there is no need of infallible proof for the doctrine of infallibility (169). If moral certainty is sufficient in this case, then why not in the case of miracles confirming a revelation from God.
Newman’s Arguments for an Infallible Authority (Pope)
Not only do Roman Catholics insist the Bible is not sufficient for faith and practice, but they insist there must be an infallible authority (Pope) to interpret the Bible. Indeed, as retroactive as it is and as arrogant as it seems, Newman claims later Pope are in a better position than the earlier Fathers to know what they meant. He wrote: “Rome knows the meaning of the Fathers better than they did.” So, the “testimony of all the Fathers, supposing such a case, would not have a feather’s weight against a decision of the Pope in Council…” (227). The reasons given for the infallibility of the Pope include the following:
1) There must be an infallible authority to adjudicate the conflict between all the sects and heresies. Newman claims that “The Church is everywhere, but it is one; sects are everywhere, but they are many, independent, and discordant” (275).
Part 3
Newman’s Rejection of Sola Scriptura
Of course, accepting the Catholic starting point means rejecting sola Scripture. Many arguments against the Protestant principle of the Bible alone are offered by Newman. However, all of them fail to dethrone the doctrine. Let’s examine them carefully.
1) He rejects sola Scripture saying,
“It may be objected that inspired documents, such as the Holy Scriptures, at once determine its doctrine without further trouble. But they were intended to create an idea, and that idea is not in the sacred text, but in the mind of the reader” (149). But that idea is complete and accurate and only “…comes to perfection in the course of time” (149).
Response: this argument begs the question by assuming that the Bible is not sufficient in itself to convey a central message. Rather, he believes that its purpose is “…to create an idea, and that idea is not in the sacred text.” But the Bible as a revelation of God’s true in itself and not merely an instrument to create an idea in our minds.
Furthermore, the idea conveyed by the sacred text does not have to wait for centuries to come to perfection. “The Law of the Lord is perfect” (Psa. 19:7). And when that idea is conveyed to our minds by the Holy Spirit enlightening them to God’s truth, neither centuries of development nor a teaching Magisterium is necessary to do the Holy Spirit’s work for Him.
Newman’s attempt to counter this misses the point. He wrote, “Nor is the case altered by supposing that inspiration did for the first recipients of the Revelation what the Divine Fiat did for herbs and plants in the beginning, which were created in maturity. Still, the time at length came, when its recipients ceased to be inspired; and on these recipients the truth would fall, as in other cases, at first vaguely and generally, and would afterwards be completed by development” (149). However, any distortions that occur after a perfect and mature revelation are given are irrelevant to the point which is that God gave a complete and clear understandable revelation in the Bible
2) Newman claimed that important theological questions like “the intermediate state between death and Resurrection” are not answered in Scripture but imply a later development (153).
Response: The Bible tells us all we need to know about the intermediate state. It is found in many verses like these: “it is far better to depart and to be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23); “Absent from the body, present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8); “Today, you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43); ”We must all appear before he judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive a reward for what was done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10 cf. Mat. 17:2-3; Rev. 6:9). As for the rest, “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but to us and to our children the things that are revealed” (Deut. 29:29).
3) Newman claims that doctrines like the duty to worship and that the day of worship is Sunday are not revealed in the Bible. Thus, without the Catholic Church’s “development” of the original deposit of revelation in the Bible and the Catholic teaching Magisterium interpreting this, we would not know on which day to worship.
Response: Not everything in the Bible is taught by direct command. Some things are taught by principle and example. As for Church attendance, Hebrews 10:25 exhorts us “Do not neglect to meet together.” And Jesus set the example for meeting on Sunday by rising from the dead on Sunday (Mat. 28:1), by appearing to his disciples on Sunday (Jn. 20:1), by sending the Holy Spirit to baptize the disciples into the body of Christ on Sunday (Acts 2:1). Following this example, the early disciples met “on the first day of the week they gathered together to break bread” (Act 20:7). And Paul exhorted the Corinthians, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside” to give to the Lord (1 Cor. 16:2). This is sufficient for faith and practice on this matter. No pronouncements by a teaching Magisterium are necessary.
4) Newman argued that
“The Bible does not answer basic questions like how we got “the Canon of Scripture.“ That is, “unless we suppose a new revelation, from the revelation we have, that is by development [deduction]” (151).
Response: A new revelation is not necessary to establish the canon. All that is necessary is, as the Westminster Confession states, that everything we need is “…either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture” (I, VI). The Bible speaks of the Old Testament canon in “the Law and the Prophets” (Lk. 24:27) and in the Jewish “Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:15-16). The epistles speak of the Gospels as “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18). Peter speaks of Paul’s epistles as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15-16), and by “good and necessary consequences” we deduce that the other New Testament books written by apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) were also Scripture (see Geisler, From God to Us in www.BastionBooks.com).
Even Newman admits elsewhere that one does not need an infallible writer to confirm an infallible writing. And he acknowledges that even though “the Apostles were made infallible” in their inspired writings, “yet we are only morally certain that they were infallible” (170). Similarly, we can be morally certain about the canon of Scripture by the Bible’s claim for itself and as confirmed by the early Fathers’ citations from the canon.
Further, contrary to Catholic claim, the Church did not determine the canon of Scripture; God determined it by inspiring the canonical book. The Church merely discovered the books that God had determined to be canonical by noting the earmarks of inspiration such as, was it written by a prophet of God? Was he confirmed to be a prophet of God by miracles (Heb. 2:3-4) or other means? Did it tell the truth about God in accordance with other prophetic writings? If so, then these were collected by the people of God (cf. Duet 31:24-25; Dan. 9:1; Zech. 7:12; 2 Pet. 3:15-16).
All the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments were eventually recognized by the Early Fathers as part of the canon of Scripture by citations, translations, and official listings (see From God to Us, chaps 6-10). By the time of Irenaeus in c. A.D. 180 (who knew Papias the disciple of John the apostle) all the New Testament books (except the tiny one chapter book of 3rd John) were recognized as canonical. Only a few years later (c. A.D. 200) even 3rd John was cited as canonical. By the time of the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) the Christian Church in general had recognized the entire canon of Scripture, including the 27 books of the New Testament as inspired of God and rightfully in the canon of Scripture. For a discussion of The Old Testament Apocrypha see below.
5) Newman claimed that only the Church can properly interpret the Bible.
“We are told that God has spoken. Where? In a book? We have tried it, and it disappoints; it disappoints, that most holy and blessed gift, not from fault of its own, but because it is used for a purpose for which it was not given. The Ethiopian’s reply, when St. Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading (Acts 8:34), is the voice of nature: ‘How can I unless some man guide me?’ The Church undertakes that office; she does what none else can do, and this is the secret of the power” (175).
Response: This does not deny the Protestant principle of the perspicuity which holds only that the main message of the Bible is clear, not every particular detail. The Ethiopian Eunuch was: a) only one man, b) reading one text. He did not represent a failure of believers in general to understand the central message of the Bible in general. Further, the Ethiopian was a new convert who had not yet heard about Jesus, his death and resurrection for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4). There is every indication that once he heard the Gospel that he had no difficulty understanding it. Indeed, once the Ethiopian heard about Jesus he understood the message and wanted to obey him in baptism immediately (Acts 8:35-38) without the help of an ecclesiastical authority.
6) The Claim of Need for Absolute Authority. “The absolute need of spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest argument in favour of its supply” (177). “The only general persuasive in matters of conduct is authority; that is when truth is in question, a judgement which we consider superior to our own” (177). While there are many conflicting authorities, “The question is, which of all these theories is the simplest, the most natural, the most persuasive.
Response: There are several problems with this argument. First, the need for something does not guarantee it will be obtained; it merely shows that it is needed. Thirsty people need water and hungry people need food, but still many die of hunger and thirst. Second, Newman does not demonstrate (but merely posits, but does not prove, that absolute authority is a need). Indeed, he admits elsewhere that infallibility does not need an infallible argument to support it (169). Finally, he assumes a questionable hypothesis that the “simplest” explanation is the best. This is sometimes called “Ockham’s Razor,” but Ockham did not say this. He said “Don’t multiply causes without necessity.” The true explanation may not always be the simplest one.
Newman’s Argument for a Mystical Interpretation of Scripture
Hand in hand with the rejection of sola Scriptura is Newman’s rejection of the sufficiency of the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture. There is a good reason for this because once a sufficiency of knowing God’s Word (that is adequate for faith and practice) is no longer found in the Bible and its historical-grammatical interpretation, one must find a source elsewhere. Newman finds this in the teaching Magisterium (see Pope below) and in a mystical interpretation of the Bible.
Catholicism Can’t be established by Scripture Alone.
Newman argued that the Catholic Faith can’t be proven from Scripture alone without using a mystical interpretation. He wrote,
“Nor am I aware that Post-tridentine writers deny that the whole Catholic faith may be proved from Scripture, though they would certainly maintain that it is not to be found on the surface of it, nor in such sense that it may be gained from Scripture without the aid of Tradition. And this has been the doctrine of all ages of the Church, as is shown by the disinclination of her teachers to confine themselves to mere literal interpretation of Scripture. Her most subtle and powerful method of proof, whether in ancient or modern times, is the mystical sense, which I so frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many occasions to supersede any other” [e.g., Mal. 1 is used by Trent to support the Sacrifice of the Mass] (339).
Response: This is an incredible admission. He admits “…the disinclination of her (the Church’s) teachers to confine themselves to mere literal interpretation of Scripture” (339, emphasis mine). This is a confession that they cannot establish the truth of Catholicism from the Bible alone using the normal method of interpretation. He adds, “Her most subtle and powerful method of proof… is the mystical sense, which is so frequently used in doctrinal controversy as on many occasions to supersede any other” For example, Malachi 1 is used by the Council of Trent to support the Sacrifice of the Mass (339). But the inability of the mystical method to be anchored in the objective text of divine Scripture, along with the inability to provide an objective criteria by which to guide one’s understanding of Scripture, is sufficient evidence to show the inadequacy of Rome’s “most powerful method” of establishing its unique but aberrant doctrines.
2) The Bible is not Self-Interpreting
Newman argues that the Bible is not self-interpreting. He wrote:
“The whole Bible, not its prophetical portions only, is written on the principle of development” (156). “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161).
Response: First of all, pointing to fulfilled prophecy is not a good example of Newman’s principle of development which demands more than the Bible to understand the Bible. For using the Bible to understand the Bible is not contrary to sola Scripture; it is an example of sola Scriptura at work. For literal predictions of Christ’s first coming found literal fulfillment in the New Testament, whether it was the place of his birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), the manner of his birth by a virgin (Isa. 7:14), the manner of his death (Isa. 53), or his resurrection (Psa. 16:10 cf. Acts 2:27-31), or numerous other literal predictions and literal fulfillment (cf. Isa. 61:1-2 cf. Lk. 4:16-21).
Second, Newman’s passing reference of miracles to confirm a message from God (“notwithstanding the miracles which attendee it”) is evidence against his view. For if a clear revelation is accompanied by a literal divine confirmation) what need is there of a further gradual development before one can understand it.
Third, if one carried this logic out consistently, then there would be need of a further “development” of divine confirmation for that and so on, ad infinitum. And if one agrees the process can be stopped, then why not stop it with God’s supernatural revelation as confirmed by miracles. In this case there is no reason to add an infallible interpreter for God’s infallible Word. For Newman argued that there is no need of infallible proof for the doctrine of infallibility (169). If moral certainty is sufficient in this case, then why not in the case of miracles confirming a revelation from God.
Newman’s Arguments for an Infallible Authority (Pope)
Not only do Roman Catholics insist the Bible is not sufficient for faith and practice, but they insist there must be an infallible authority (Pope) to interpret the Bible. Indeed, as retroactive as it is and as arrogant as it seems, Newman claims later Pope are in a better position than the earlier Fathers to know what they meant. He wrote: “Rome knows the meaning of the Fathers better than they did.” So, the “testimony of all the Fathers, supposing such a case, would not have a feather’s weight against a decision of the Pope in Council…” (227). The reasons given for the infallibility of the Pope include the following:
1) There must be an infallible authority to adjudicate the conflict between all the sects and heresies. Newman claims that “The Church is everywhere, but it is one; sects are everywhere, but they are many, independent, and discordant” (275).
Sep 3, 2018 04:54:35 #
FALSE
Part 4
The Teaching Magisterium Rome (the Pope)
Did Jesus establish Peter as the first Pope, the first infallible interpreter of God’s infallible Word? According to Rome, the infallible Scriptures need an infallible interpreter, and God chose Peter to be the first one. The chief biblical text used to support this doctrine is Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Other verses used by Rome are even less convincing (see Geisler, Is Rome the True Church?, Chap. 5).
Matthew 16:16-18 Does not Make Peter Alone the Basis of the Church
Despite Rome’s current claim, this text does not support their claim that Peter alone was given this Magisterial authority and that it was infallible.
Response: First, Peter alone was not given the authority to bind and loose since all the disciples were given this authority only two chapters later (in Matt. 18:18).
Second, the church was not built on Peter alone but on “the apostles [plural] and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Indeed, the names of all the apostles (not just Peter’s name) are inscribed on “the twelve foundations” of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).
Third, even though Peter preached the sermons that opened the kingdom to the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts 10), these were only one-time events. Indeed, after the conversion of Paul (Acts 9), Paul becomes the dominant apostle through most of the rest of the book of Acts. Indeed, Peter fades into the background. When the first big doctrinal dispute occurred, it was not Peter alone who made the decision, but “the apostles and elders” together (Acts 15:6, 22). And James seemed to be the leader of the apostles since it was he who spoke last and summed up the decision (Acts 15:13, 19), saying, it is “my judgment.” Indeed, the New Testament speaks of “pillars” (plural) in the church (Gal. 2:9), not only one pillar. Peter himself spoke of Christ as the chief “Cornerstone” of the church (1 Pet. 2:7).
Fourth, the authority in the early church was the “apostles” as a body, not a single individual. Paul spoke of the church being built on them (Eph. 2:20; Rev.21:14) and they had the power to do its work (Mat. 18:18) in “the laying on of hands of the apostles” (Acts 8:18) to anoint others to do the work of building the church (Mat. 18:18; Acts 2:42), and in performing special confirming miracles (Acts 5:12; Heb. 2:3-4).
Fifth, with regard to Peter being the alleged Rock on which the Church was built, there is strong evidence to indicate that it was not a reference to Peter alone: (1) The term “rock” is in the third person whereas Peter (“you”) is in the second person; (2) “Peter” is masculine singular” but “rock” is feminine singular; (3) “Peter” (petros) means little rock, but the Church was built on petra, the big Rock, Christ. (4) No Catholic commentator gives Peter primacy in evil a few verses later because Jesus called him “Satan” (v. 23); (5) Peter himself refers to Christ as “the chief Cornerstone” (1 Pet 2:7); (6) Even some great Catholic commentators, like St. Augustine, affirm that the “Rock” is Christ; “’Upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed…will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee (Augustine Sermons on the NT), XXVI, p. 340 (in Schaff Vol. VI of Nicene and Ante-Fathers); (7) According to Catholic dogma of Vatican I, no dogma of the Church should be established apart from “the unanimous consent of the Fathers,” but even Catholic authorities (see Ludwig Ott, Sources of Catholic Dogma, 996) admits many early Fathers did not affirm the primacy of Peter. Peter was only the little rock (petros) who confessed the big Rock (petra) on whom the Church of Christ was built.
Peter was not Given Infallibility in His Official Teaching
Not only was Peter never given the sole authority for defining faith and practice, neither he nor the apostles were given infallible authority to do this. So, Newman’s claims for the infallibility of the Pope are groundless. Indeed, even he recognizes some serious problems with Rome’s claim to infallibility.
First of all, he defines infallibility thus: “When we say that a person is infallible, we mean no more than that what he says is always true, always to be believed, always to be done” (170). But when we examine this more carefully, we discover that it is infallibility only when speaking ex cathedra, that is, “out of the chair” [of St. Peter]. And when we examine that, we find that there is no infallible way to determine when that is. It is certainly not anytime he engages in teaching doctrine for even Newman admits there were heretical Pope’s. He even names three, saying, “Three Popes, Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, have left to posterity the burden of their defence” (15). So, the Popes do not even have infallibility whenever they teach doctrine, but only when they do it while sitting in St. Peter’s chair. However, there seems to be no real way to know when this is. It certainly is not in the regular teachings and writings of the Pope. At a minimum it probably has only been a couple times in the last two centuries, once pronouncing the Pope infallible (1870) and once declaring the Bodily Assumption of Mary (1950). In between, the faithful must accept an authoritative but fallible Pope.
Second, neither can we say the Pope is infallible only when he sits in Council with the other Bishops for even then we run into two serious problems. First of all, this contradicts an infallible dogma of the Church given at the First Vatican Council (in 1870) which declares that the Pope’s definitions are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church” whenever he is speaking ex cathedra. That is, they do not need the council and consent of the Bishops. Second, this infallible statement itself is contradicted by the Council of Florence (1413-18) which declared (in Haec Sancta) that “this Council holds its power direct from Christ; Everyone, no matter his rank of office, even it be papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith….” Here we have an irresistible dogmatic force hitting an immovable dogmatic object! In short, this is a flat and unequivocal contradiction of allegedly infallible pronouncements.
Newman admits, “It is possible for the Pope, even as Pope, and with his own assembly of counselors, or with General Council, to err in particular controversies of fact, which chiefly depend on human information and testimony” (174). However, “whether it is possible for him to err or not, [he] is to be obeyed by all the faithful” (174).
Newman proposes a way out of this dilemma in his progress of dogma theory. However, his position collapses upon careful scrutiny because of the contradictions of dogma with Scripture and of Dogma with Dogma. Even the dogma of infallibility is questioned by Newman. He wrote: “Again, it may be discussed whether infallibility is a principle or a doctrine of the Church of Rome, and dogmatism a principle or doctrine of Christianity” (127). According to Newman, principles don’t change but dogmas do. But herein is a dilemma of Rome. If the infallibility of the Pope is only a dogma which can change, then how can it be infallible?. One of the characteristics of infallibility is irreformability. That is, what is infallible cannot change, and what changes is not infallible. If, on the other hand, infallibility is a principle that cannot change, then they are left with no explanation of the contradiction between two infallible Church councils (the 16th and 20th). The first (Council of Constance, 1413-1418) declared the Council could act apart from the Pope). And the later (First Vatican Council, 1870) declared that the Pope could make infallible pronouncements apart from the Council.
The Doctrine of Development
According to Newman, the Doctrine of Development is “…the doctrines of which the present Catholic religion consist are prima facie the correct, true, faithful, legitimate development of the doctrines which preceded them, and not their corruption.” He adds, no “case can be made out against that religion, to prove that it is materially corrupt, and not in its substance Apostolic” (240). “If there are developments in Christianity, the doctrines propounded by successive Popes and Councils through so many ages, are they” (183).
Further, “We have no reason to suppose that there is so great a distinction of dispensation between ourselves and the first generation of Christians, as that they had a living infallible guidance, and we have not” (173). We can argue “…on the analogy of Nature, and from the fact of Christianity. Preservation is involved in the idea of creation… (173). “And, then, in addition, is the high antecedent probability that Providence would watch over His own work, and would direct and ratify those developments of doctrine which were inevitable” (193).
“From necessity, then of the case, from the history of all sects and parties in religion, and from the analogy and example of Scripture, we may fairly conclude that Christian doctrine admits of formal, legitimate, and true development, or of development contemplated by its Divine Author” (164). “It has now been made probable that developments of Christianity were but natural, as time went on, and were to be expected; and that these natural and true developments, as being natural and true, we of course contemplated and taken into account by its Author, who in designing the work designed its legitimate results” (165).
“If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught , admits of true and important developments…this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon these developments” (168). ”There are various revelations all over the earth, which do not carry with them the evidence of their divinity” (168). “Thus developments of Christianity are proved to have been in contemplation of its Divine Author, by an argument parallel to that by which we infer intelligence in the system of the physical world [given by Butler]” (154), namely, “gaps” in the creeds, like gaps in nature, imply a Divine Author (154). Likewise, earlier prophecies imply and expect later ones (155). “But the whole Bible, not its prophetical portions only, is written on the principle of development” (156). “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161).
Response: First of all, Newman makes the same error that some divine design in nature theorist did. It is called the “God-of-the-gap” fallacy. For gaps as such do not prove divine intervention. They simply show the lack of evidence. Newman superimposed divine design on his human attempt to explain the widespread lack of evidence that all these major Catholic doctrines were found in seminal form from the very beginning—even if the evidence is lacking or contrary.
Second, of course, granted the Christian view of God’s providence, we can accept the idea that God will preserve the truth He has provided for the saints of all time. However, serious question can be raised as to whether God granted a living infallible authority for the saints of all the ages. Again, the analogy of nature breaks down. Of course, God will provide for his creation now as he did in the past. However, it is a giant step to assume that an infallible authority is like God’s provision for nature.
Third, there are in fact is good reasons to believe that God never intended to perpetuate a living infallible authority for the church on earth between the First and Second advents of Christ. An infallible Bible is sufficient (see sola Scriptura above). We don’t need an infallible interpreter of it. Even Newman admits that a less than infallible authority is sufficient to establish an infallible authority (169). Even so, a less than infallible guide is sufficient for understanding God’s infallible Word. Likewise, if the Bible can be infallible without another infallible authority for it, then why is it necessary to have another authority after Christ even in the first century—let alone in the centuries to come. Sola Scriptura plus the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture (dependent on the Historical-Grammatical interpretation) is sufficient for understanding the main message of the Bible.
Fourth, the evidence is lacking that Peter was a living infallible authority in the first century. And if he was not, then there is no succession of infallible authorities after him. There was not even a first link in the chain, to say nothing of an unbroken chain after Peter. Consider the following:
(1) Peter made a serious mistake in “faith and practice,” and had to be rebuke by the Apostle Paul for it. Paul wrote: “When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him [Peter] to his face, because he stood condemned…. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the gospel…,” I rebuked them for their “hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:11-13).
(2) The doctrinal dispute was not settled by Peter, but by the whole group of “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:23).
(3) The first opportunity Peter had to exercise his alleged infallible authority not to mislead the faithful in “faith of practice” he totally blew it so that Jesus had to say “Get behind me Satan” (Mat. 16:23). “Immediately after Peter had earned commendation by his acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah, the doctrine of the crucified Messiah was proposed to him and he rejected it.” So if “…the Apostles had believed that the words ‘On this Rock I will build my church’ constituted Peter their infallible guide, the very first time they followed his guidance they would have been led to miserable error” (Salmon, Infallibility, 343).
Fifth, even according to Newman, “development” of doctrine cannot include contradictions (123). Yet these two infallible pronouncements (from Councils 16 and 20) are contradictory. The Council of Constance (1413-1418) declares flatly that the Council can make infallible pronouncements without consulting with the Pope. And the First Vatican Council (1869-70) declared that the Pope can make infallible statements without consulting the Council of Bishops. Both of these cannot be true without violating the law of non-contradiction. The only way out of this dilemma is to deny the absolute truth of one or both infallible pronouncementfound in the Jewish
Part 4
The Teaching Magisterium Rome (the Pope)
Did Jesus establish Peter as the first Pope, the first infallible interpreter of God’s infallible Word? According to Rome, the infallible Scriptures need an infallible interpreter, and God chose Peter to be the first one. The chief biblical text used to support this doctrine is Matthew 16:18-19: Jesus said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Other verses used by Rome are even less convincing (see Geisler, Is Rome the True Church?, Chap. 5).
Matthew 16:16-18 Does not Make Peter Alone the Basis of the Church
Despite Rome’s current claim, this text does not support their claim that Peter alone was given this Magisterial authority and that it was infallible.
Response: First, Peter alone was not given the authority to bind and loose since all the disciples were given this authority only two chapters later (in Matt. 18:18).
Second, the church was not built on Peter alone but on “the apostles [plural] and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Indeed, the names of all the apostles (not just Peter’s name) are inscribed on “the twelve foundations” of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14).
Third, even though Peter preached the sermons that opened the kingdom to the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts 10), these were only one-time events. Indeed, after the conversion of Paul (Acts 9), Paul becomes the dominant apostle through most of the rest of the book of Acts. Indeed, Peter fades into the background. When the first big doctrinal dispute occurred, it was not Peter alone who made the decision, but “the apostles and elders” together (Acts 15:6, 22). And James seemed to be the leader of the apostles since it was he who spoke last and summed up the decision (Acts 15:13, 19), saying, it is “my judgment.” Indeed, the New Testament speaks of “pillars” (plural) in the church (Gal. 2:9), not only one pillar. Peter himself spoke of Christ as the chief “Cornerstone” of the church (1 Pet. 2:7).
Fourth, the authority in the early church was the “apostles” as a body, not a single individual. Paul spoke of the church being built on them (Eph. 2:20; Rev.21:14) and they had the power to do its work (Mat. 18:18) in “the laying on of hands of the apostles” (Acts 8:18) to anoint others to do the work of building the church (Mat. 18:18; Acts 2:42), and in performing special confirming miracles (Acts 5:12; Heb. 2:3-4).
Fifth, with regard to Peter being the alleged Rock on which the Church was built, there is strong evidence to indicate that it was not a reference to Peter alone: (1) The term “rock” is in the third person whereas Peter (“you”) is in the second person; (2) “Peter” is masculine singular” but “rock” is feminine singular; (3) “Peter” (petros) means little rock, but the Church was built on petra, the big Rock, Christ. (4) No Catholic commentator gives Peter primacy in evil a few verses later because Jesus called him “Satan” (v. 23); (5) Peter himself refers to Christ as “the chief Cornerstone” (1 Pet 2:7); (6) Even some great Catholic commentators, like St. Augustine, affirm that the “Rock” is Christ; “’Upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed…will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee (Augustine Sermons on the NT), XXVI, p. 340 (in Schaff Vol. VI of Nicene and Ante-Fathers); (7) According to Catholic dogma of Vatican I, no dogma of the Church should be established apart from “the unanimous consent of the Fathers,” but even Catholic authorities (see Ludwig Ott, Sources of Catholic Dogma, 996) admits many early Fathers did not affirm the primacy of Peter. Peter was only the little rock (petros) who confessed the big Rock (petra) on whom the Church of Christ was built.
Peter was not Given Infallibility in His Official Teaching
Not only was Peter never given the sole authority for defining faith and practice, neither he nor the apostles were given infallible authority to do this. So, Newman’s claims for the infallibility of the Pope are groundless. Indeed, even he recognizes some serious problems with Rome’s claim to infallibility.
First of all, he defines infallibility thus: “When we say that a person is infallible, we mean no more than that what he says is always true, always to be believed, always to be done” (170). But when we examine this more carefully, we discover that it is infallibility only when speaking ex cathedra, that is, “out of the chair” [of St. Peter]. And when we examine that, we find that there is no infallible way to determine when that is. It is certainly not anytime he engages in teaching doctrine for even Newman admits there were heretical Pope’s. He even names three, saying, “Three Popes, Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, have left to posterity the burden of their defence” (15). So, the Popes do not even have infallibility whenever they teach doctrine, but only when they do it while sitting in St. Peter’s chair. However, there seems to be no real way to know when this is. It certainly is not in the regular teachings and writings of the Pope. At a minimum it probably has only been a couple times in the last two centuries, once pronouncing the Pope infallible (1870) and once declaring the Bodily Assumption of Mary (1950). In between, the faithful must accept an authoritative but fallible Pope.
Second, neither can we say the Pope is infallible only when he sits in Council with the other Bishops for even then we run into two serious problems. First of all, this contradicts an infallible dogma of the Church given at the First Vatican Council (in 1870) which declares that the Pope’s definitions are “irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church” whenever he is speaking ex cathedra. That is, they do not need the council and consent of the Bishops. Second, this infallible statement itself is contradicted by the Council of Florence (1413-18) which declared (in Haec Sancta) that “this Council holds its power direct from Christ; Everyone, no matter his rank of office, even it be papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith….” Here we have an irresistible dogmatic force hitting an immovable dogmatic object! In short, this is a flat and unequivocal contradiction of allegedly infallible pronouncements.
Newman admits, “It is possible for the Pope, even as Pope, and with his own assembly of counselors, or with General Council, to err in particular controversies of fact, which chiefly depend on human information and testimony” (174). However, “whether it is possible for him to err or not, [he] is to be obeyed by all the faithful” (174).
Newman proposes a way out of this dilemma in his progress of dogma theory. However, his position collapses upon careful scrutiny because of the contradictions of dogma with Scripture and of Dogma with Dogma. Even the dogma of infallibility is questioned by Newman. He wrote: “Again, it may be discussed whether infallibility is a principle or a doctrine of the Church of Rome, and dogmatism a principle or doctrine of Christianity” (127). According to Newman, principles don’t change but dogmas do. But herein is a dilemma of Rome. If the infallibility of the Pope is only a dogma which can change, then how can it be infallible?. One of the characteristics of infallibility is irreformability. That is, what is infallible cannot change, and what changes is not infallible. If, on the other hand, infallibility is a principle that cannot change, then they are left with no explanation of the contradiction between two infallible Church councils (the 16th and 20th). The first (Council of Constance, 1413-1418) declared the Council could act apart from the Pope). And the later (First Vatican Council, 1870) declared that the Pope could make infallible pronouncements apart from the Council.
The Doctrine of Development
According to Newman, the Doctrine of Development is “…the doctrines of which the present Catholic religion consist are prima facie the correct, true, faithful, legitimate development of the doctrines which preceded them, and not their corruption.” He adds, no “case can be made out against that religion, to prove that it is materially corrupt, and not in its substance Apostolic” (240). “If there are developments in Christianity, the doctrines propounded by successive Popes and Councils through so many ages, are they” (183).
Further, “We have no reason to suppose that there is so great a distinction of dispensation between ourselves and the first generation of Christians, as that they had a living infallible guidance, and we have not” (173). We can argue “…on the analogy of Nature, and from the fact of Christianity. Preservation is involved in the idea of creation… (173). “And, then, in addition, is the high antecedent probability that Providence would watch over His own work, and would direct and ratify those developments of doctrine which were inevitable” (193).
“From necessity, then of the case, from the history of all sects and parties in religion, and from the analogy and example of Scripture, we may fairly conclude that Christian doctrine admits of formal, legitimate, and true development, or of development contemplated by its Divine Author” (164). “It has now been made probable that developments of Christianity were but natural, as time went on, and were to be expected; and that these natural and true developments, as being natural and true, we of course contemplated and taken into account by its Author, who in designing the work designed its legitimate results” (165).
“If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught , admits of true and important developments…this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon these developments” (168). ”There are various revelations all over the earth, which do not carry with them the evidence of their divinity” (168). “Thus developments of Christianity are proved to have been in contemplation of its Divine Author, by an argument parallel to that by which we infer intelligence in the system of the physical world [given by Butler]” (154), namely, “gaps” in the creeds, like gaps in nature, imply a Divine Author (154). Likewise, earlier prophecies imply and expect later ones (155). “But the whole Bible, not its prophetical portions only, is written on the principle of development” (156). “But this progress of events, vague and uncertain as it seemed to be, notwithstanding the miracles which attended it, has been directed by Him who works out gradually what He has determined absolutely” (161).
Response: First of all, Newman makes the same error that some divine design in nature theorist did. It is called the “God-of-the-gap” fallacy. For gaps as such do not prove divine intervention. They simply show the lack of evidence. Newman superimposed divine design on his human attempt to explain the widespread lack of evidence that all these major Catholic doctrines were found in seminal form from the very beginning—even if the evidence is lacking or contrary.
Second, of course, granted the Christian view of God’s providence, we can accept the idea that God will preserve the truth He has provided for the saints of all time. However, serious question can be raised as to whether God granted a living infallible authority for the saints of all the ages. Again, the analogy of nature breaks down. Of course, God will provide for his creation now as he did in the past. However, it is a giant step to assume that an infallible authority is like God’s provision for nature.
Third, there are in fact is good reasons to believe that God never intended to perpetuate a living infallible authority for the church on earth between the First and Second advents of Christ. An infallible Bible is sufficient (see sola Scriptura above). We don’t need an infallible interpreter of it. Even Newman admits that a less than infallible authority is sufficient to establish an infallible authority (169). Even so, a less than infallible guide is sufficient for understanding God’s infallible Word. Likewise, if the Bible can be infallible without another infallible authority for it, then why is it necessary to have another authority after Christ even in the first century—let alone in the centuries to come. Sola Scriptura plus the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture (dependent on the Historical-Grammatical interpretation) is sufficient for understanding the main message of the Bible.
Fourth, the evidence is lacking that Peter was a living infallible authority in the first century. And if he was not, then there is no succession of infallible authorities after him. There was not even a first link in the chain, to say nothing of an unbroken chain after Peter. Consider the following:
(1) Peter made a serious mistake in “faith and practice,” and had to be rebuke by the Apostle Paul for it. Paul wrote: “When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him [Peter] to his face, because he stood condemned…. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the gospel…,” I rebuked them for their “hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:11-13).
(2) The doctrinal dispute was not settled by Peter, but by the whole group of “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:23).
(3) The first opportunity Peter had to exercise his alleged infallible authority not to mislead the faithful in “faith of practice” he totally blew it so that Jesus had to say “Get behind me Satan” (Mat. 16:23). “Immediately after Peter had earned commendation by his acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah, the doctrine of the crucified Messiah was proposed to him and he rejected it.” So if “…the Apostles had believed that the words ‘On this Rock I will build my church’ constituted Peter their infallible guide, the very first time they followed his guidance they would have been led to miserable error” (Salmon, Infallibility, 343).
Fifth, even according to Newman, “development” of doctrine cannot include contradictions (123). Yet these two infallible pronouncements (from Councils 16 and 20) are contradictory. The Council of Constance (1413-1418) declares flatly that the Council can make infallible pronouncements without consulting with the Pope. And the First Vatican Council (1869-70) declared that the Pope can make infallible statements without consulting the Council of Bishops. Both of these cannot be true without violating the law of non-contradiction. The only way out of this dilemma is to deny the absolute truth of one or both infallible pronouncementfound in the Jewish
Sep 3, 2018 05:02:14 #
Sep 3, 2018 12:36:43 #
Jack what a bunch of hooie that you posted.
Symbolism in all cultures and all churches is not paganism.
You have taken the first commandment and have distorted what it says out of contest to your myopic understanding in Christianity.
We know this because the Israelites had symbolism in their religion and it was not condemned
What was in the Ark of the covenant, it was Revered and were shipped because God dwelt in it here on earth.
First we have the rod of Arron is it an icon or symbols.
secondly we have the manna sent down from heaven that was stored in the golden bowl
thirdly we have the serpent Symbol or the or medical conduce that saved the Israelites in the desert from being bitten by a poisonous snakes.
Lastly we have the menorah as symbolism of the Jewish culture.
The ancient temple in Jerusalem had numerous types of symbols
We know this have the Babylonian kings that conquered the Israelite nation iand the kingdom of Judea took the treasures and many symbolic images out of the temple.
We also have the Romans who took the treasures out of the Jewish temple which was Recorded. When the Roman empire sacked looted and destroyed the Jerusalem Temple In 70 A.D. The Roman empire army sacked looted and destroyed the Jerusalem Yes they were countless objects in the temple that were symbolism and that the Jewish people came to venerate and worship. Yes they were countless objects in the temple that were symbolism and that the Jewish people came to venerate and worship.
The Jewish and Israelite high priests at the Temple and the high priest vestments all had symbols in the jewels that were attached to the vestments we’re also symbols.
When we look at the Catholic Church the Eastern orthodox church and the Coptic Church we see all kinds of symbols.
Jack,what you’re doing is looking at current day evangelistic mindset thinking and are taking a myopic point of view in discussing paganism, and equating and joining paganism to the Catholic Church eastern orthodox church and the Coptic Church with their symbolism statues, icons stain glass windows and relics.
Nice try jack, you’re guilty of your thinking and methodically, your squid in your critical thinking skills and protestant biasis.
Protestantism from after 1517 has taken over 11 centuries of Christianity tradition and teachin to a new low in understanding and has taken The Israelite first commandment, totally out of context and understanding.
Jack you don’t understand from early Jewish an Israelite culture from that time.
And around the world the world was totally illiterate, only the simpilest possibility of 1% could read and write.
Why do you think how Jesus was do successful in his ministry and he’s teaching because he spoke in symbolism you just don’t get it
We also know until the Gutenberg press was built that all Bibles were hand written. Not until mass printing Bibles in all languages there was still a literacy throughout the world.
The Catholic Church was instrumental in setting up universities and schools of learning and to teach the laiety how to read and understand the Bible.
This Gutenberg press and education Gutenberg press and education was the beginning of mass communication and literacy around the world.
How do know this, because in the United States and its origins, The government knew that an educated society in the United States government create the institution of education of its people to know what their God given freedoms.
So Jack symbolism was an idea to instruct people because they were illiterate and how to remember the Bible we also know that the borrowed from bards from the Celtic world was instrumental in remembering written words through storytelling by the Catholic Church this is what oral tradition of salvation to the people understanding the sacred word of Jesus Christ
These two methods of symbolism icons statues stain glasses and the oral tradition tradition kept Christianity alive throughout the century’s.
These two methods of symbolism icons statues stain glasses and the Christian oral tradition of bards To teach the illiterate people throughout the world is a legacy to teach the illiterate people throughout the world is a legacy.
So wh n you see a statue of the holy family, what can you teach the
Illiterate people of the world
Your notion that the Catholic Church the Eastern Orthodox Church the Coptic Church and many other churches that use symbolism to teach is paganism is a inconceivable stretch of the imagination.
Your absurd in your notion in understanding of what the first commandment teachers you have a narrow mindedness and understanding of Christianity and a lack of understanding on what Catholic tradition And teaching is all about.
You are a literal translation of fundamentalism is totally a whack start looking outside of the little box that you live in and start trying to understand history of the Bible the Scriptures am not sure own personal interpretation of what you think the world is all about good with a check grow up. You’re a literal translation fundamentalism is totally a whack start looking outside of their little box that you live in and start trying to understand history the Bible the Scriptures I’m not sure on personal interpretation of what you think the world is all about kid with a jack call up
Doc110
Symbolism in all cultures and all churches is not paganism.
You have taken the first commandment and have distorted what it says out of contest to your myopic understanding in Christianity.
We know this because the Israelites had symbolism in their religion and it was not condemned
What was in the Ark of the covenant, it was Revered and were shipped because God dwelt in it here on earth.
First we have the rod of Arron is it an icon or symbols.
secondly we have the manna sent down from heaven that was stored in the golden bowl
thirdly we have the serpent Symbol or the or medical conduce that saved the Israelites in the desert from being bitten by a poisonous snakes.
Lastly we have the menorah as symbolism of the Jewish culture.
The ancient temple in Jerusalem had numerous types of symbols
We know this have the Babylonian kings that conquered the Israelite nation iand the kingdom of Judea took the treasures and many symbolic images out of the temple.
We also have the Romans who took the treasures out of the Jewish temple which was Recorded. When the Roman empire sacked looted and destroyed the Jerusalem Temple In 70 A.D. The Roman empire army sacked looted and destroyed the Jerusalem Yes they were countless objects in the temple that were symbolism and that the Jewish people came to venerate and worship. Yes they were countless objects in the temple that were symbolism and that the Jewish people came to venerate and worship.
The Jewish and Israelite high priests at the Temple and the high priest vestments all had symbols in the jewels that were attached to the vestments we’re also symbols.
When we look at the Catholic Church the Eastern orthodox church and the Coptic Church we see all kinds of symbols.
Jack,what you’re doing is looking at current day evangelistic mindset thinking and are taking a myopic point of view in discussing paganism, and equating and joining paganism to the Catholic Church eastern orthodox church and the Coptic Church with their symbolism statues, icons stain glass windows and relics.
Nice try jack, you’re guilty of your thinking and methodically, your squid in your critical thinking skills and protestant biasis.
Protestantism from after 1517 has taken over 11 centuries of Christianity tradition and teachin to a new low in understanding and has taken The Israelite first commandment, totally out of context and understanding.
Jack you don’t understand from early Jewish an Israelite culture from that time.
And around the world the world was totally illiterate, only the simpilest possibility of 1% could read and write.
Why do you think how Jesus was do successful in his ministry and he’s teaching because he spoke in symbolism you just don’t get it
We also know until the Gutenberg press was built that all Bibles were hand written. Not until mass printing Bibles in all languages there was still a literacy throughout the world.
The Catholic Church was instrumental in setting up universities and schools of learning and to teach the laiety how to read and understand the Bible.
This Gutenberg press and education Gutenberg press and education was the beginning of mass communication and literacy around the world.
How do know this, because in the United States and its origins, The government knew that an educated society in the United States government create the institution of education of its people to know what their God given freedoms.
So Jack symbolism was an idea to instruct people because they were illiterate and how to remember the Bible we also know that the borrowed from bards from the Celtic world was instrumental in remembering written words through storytelling by the Catholic Church this is what oral tradition of salvation to the people understanding the sacred word of Jesus Christ
These two methods of symbolism icons statues stain glasses and the oral tradition tradition kept Christianity alive throughout the century’s.
These two methods of symbolism icons statues stain glasses and the Christian oral tradition of bards To teach the illiterate people throughout the world is a legacy to teach the illiterate people throughout the world is a legacy.
So wh n you see a statue of the holy family, what can you teach the
Illiterate people of the world
Your notion that the Catholic Church the Eastern Orthodox Church the Coptic Church and many other churches that use symbolism to teach is paganism is a inconceivable stretch of the imagination.
Your absurd in your notion in understanding of what the first commandment teachers you have a narrow mindedness and understanding of Christianity and a lack of understanding on what Catholic tradition And teaching is all about.
You are a literal translation of fundamentalism is totally a whack start looking outside of the little box that you live in and start trying to understand history of the Bible the Scriptures am not sure own personal interpretation of what you think the world is all about good with a check grow up. You’re a literal translation fundamentalism is totally a whack start looking outside of their little box that you live in and start trying to understand history the Bible the Scriptures I’m not sure on personal interpretation of what you think the world is all about kid with a jack call up
Doc110
Sep 3, 2018 17:37:27 #
Hmmmm,
Jack you really don't have much to say on the Article, by Dr Kenneth Howell, Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History.
Except to post a Cardinal Newman critique. Its nothing but double speak and not getting right down what Cardinal Newman spoke about.
Jack you know nothing, of Cardinal Newman, or the Early Church Patristic Fathers, of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century saints, theologians and their written documents.
You have no grasp of the knowledge or understanding of what has been passed down through 19 centuries of ancient Christian Church documents of the Christian Church and cannon.
You even fail to even acknowledge that these manuscripts even existed, which defiantly shows your lack of historical ignorance and lack of Christian understanding.
How boring and UnChristian of you, and how you deflected from the OPP article.
To divert, from what the article and the YouTube demonstrated, about being Deep In History: and Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History.
Please forgive my previous reply, and typo errors, I was using my iPhone and not on my computer.
Saint Peter, the First Pope, and Church leader in the Catholic Christian Church said this, in Second Epistle of Peter:
"Even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them" (2 Peter 2:1).
19th century former Anglican Bishop, and Catholic convert Cardinal John Henry Newman said it best, To be Deep into History, is to stop being Protestant.
Think long and hard, about the Christian historical and factual implication of those very statement and your responses.
You my friend, you really need to go back in Early Christian history, and the sacred writings documents of the Catholic Church and look at the Scriptures, and manuscripts and reread what they say about the Early Christian church.
Jack, If you don't read them and or take the manuscripts as a whole and totality.
Then your even blind and ignorant to the teaching and understanding of "Sola Scriptura" e.g the "Bible Alone" Protestant teaching and heretic made up protestant Theology.
Jack, you are totally ignoring history of the early Church teaching, and have a convoluted infantile inkling, of what Protestant understanding is on Church history.
And your limited notion of the teaching of "Sola Scriptura" mindset, e.g. and "Bible Alone" thinking.
Jack you have not come to grasp and understand the false Protestant theological illogical scriptural justification and Early Christian Church pretext.
Protestant theology is nothing, unless you look at the totally of what the Early Church teaches and has continued to this very day for 1,986 years of 19 centuries of traditionalistic Church Teaching.
The Protestant reformists thrown out 1,484 years of Church Tradition and biblical scriptural teaching.
Hmmmmm ?
An example, to explain this phenomenon are, "Horse blinders." They are to limit what the horse sees infront of him, and views only 70 to 90 percent from his viewing prospective, without the horse blinders, the horse could see 150 to 170 degrees in front of him.
This is what limits Protestant reformation leaders, into a particular sub-strait ideas and notion of Protestantism, Blinders. or is it Horse blinders.
Hmmmmm ?
When Jesus Christ taught, He used all of the Old Testament and his God given talents and grace, to explain His Church that he founded. Past, Present and the Future to his apostles, priests, deacons and laity. Guided by the Holy Spirit to this given day, and to the end of time.
Jack, Aside from passing scriptural references and maybe letters like in, first Corinthians.
Protestants believe that the "Sermon" is paramount and is first, in speaking of the worship day celebration and not the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine.
Where some churches practice weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly and sometimes not even at all.
Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic and other Churches believe in that the Eucharist is the center and primary order of the Mass by receiving daily and weekly the: divinity, body, blood, soul of Jesus Christ.
As Jesus said, unless you eat of the flesh and drink my blood, that you have no life within me.
Hmmmmm ?
This is another one of those teachable moments Jack.
Thats because Jesus spoke with authority about this very same subject on many occasions in the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and in all the letters of the New Testament.
There is no systematic discussion of liturgy at all, in the New Testament and how it is to be practiced at Church.
Except the Eucharist. Do you not agree, Jack
Hmmmmm ?
So how are we to know, how true Christians worship is to be derived from ?
And how the people are to worship in their Protestant Church? We know what the Catholic Church has taught for 1,986 years, for 19 centuries.
Hmmmmm ?
The only example I can tell you is the division and the more than 30,000 protestant, Independent and nondenominational churches that are now in the 21st century and they are all different in how they are to celebrate the Mass every Sunday ?
Let me list the major churches in the Protestant Churches. And not one founders name begins with Jesus Christ, or Apostles but by Reformation leaders.
Hmmmmm ?
(End Part 1)
Jack you really don't have much to say on the Article, by Dr Kenneth Howell, Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History.
Except to post a Cardinal Newman critique. Its nothing but double speak and not getting right down what Cardinal Newman spoke about.
Jack you know nothing, of Cardinal Newman, or the Early Church Patristic Fathers, of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century saints, theologians and their written documents.
You have no grasp of the knowledge or understanding of what has been passed down through 19 centuries of ancient Christian Church documents of the Christian Church and cannon.
You even fail to even acknowledge that these manuscripts even existed, which defiantly shows your lack of historical ignorance and lack of Christian understanding.
How boring and UnChristian of you, and how you deflected from the OPP article.
To divert, from what the article and the YouTube demonstrated, about being Deep In History: and Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History.
Please forgive my previous reply, and typo errors, I was using my iPhone and not on my computer.
Saint Peter, the First Pope, and Church leader in the Catholic Christian Church said this, in Second Epistle of Peter:
"Even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them" (2 Peter 2:1).
19th century former Anglican Bishop, and Catholic convert Cardinal John Henry Newman said it best, To be Deep into History, is to stop being Protestant.
Think long and hard, about the Christian historical and factual implication of those very statement and your responses.
You my friend, you really need to go back in Early Christian history, and the sacred writings documents of the Catholic Church and look at the Scriptures, and manuscripts and reread what they say about the Early Christian church.
Jack, If you don't read them and or take the manuscripts as a whole and totality.
Then your even blind and ignorant to the teaching and understanding of "Sola Scriptura" e.g the "Bible Alone" Protestant teaching and heretic made up protestant Theology.
Jack, you are totally ignoring history of the early Church teaching, and have a convoluted infantile inkling, of what Protestant understanding is on Church history.
And your limited notion of the teaching of "Sola Scriptura" mindset, e.g. and "Bible Alone" thinking.
Jack you have not come to grasp and understand the false Protestant theological illogical scriptural justification and Early Christian Church pretext.
Protestant theology is nothing, unless you look at the totally of what the Early Church teaches and has continued to this very day for 1,986 years of 19 centuries of traditionalistic Church Teaching.
The Protestant reformists thrown out 1,484 years of Church Tradition and biblical scriptural teaching.
Hmmmmm ?
An example, to explain this phenomenon are, "Horse blinders." They are to limit what the horse sees infront of him, and views only 70 to 90 percent from his viewing prospective, without the horse blinders, the horse could see 150 to 170 degrees in front of him.
This is what limits Protestant reformation leaders, into a particular sub-strait ideas and notion of Protestantism, Blinders. or is it Horse blinders.
Hmmmmm ?
When Jesus Christ taught, He used all of the Old Testament and his God given talents and grace, to explain His Church that he founded. Past, Present and the Future to his apostles, priests, deacons and laity. Guided by the Holy Spirit to this given day, and to the end of time.
Jack, Aside from passing scriptural references and maybe letters like in, first Corinthians.
Protestants believe that the "Sermon" is paramount and is first, in speaking of the worship day celebration and not the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine.
Where some churches practice weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly and sometimes not even at all.
Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic and other Churches believe in that the Eucharist is the center and primary order of the Mass by receiving daily and weekly the: divinity, body, blood, soul of Jesus Christ.
As Jesus said, unless you eat of the flesh and drink my blood, that you have no life within me.
Hmmmmm ?
This is another one of those teachable moments Jack.
Thats because Jesus spoke with authority about this very same subject on many occasions in the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and in all the letters of the New Testament.
There is no systematic discussion of liturgy at all, in the New Testament and how it is to be practiced at Church.
Except the Eucharist. Do you not agree, Jack
Hmmmmm ?
So how are we to know, how true Christians worship is to be derived from ?
And how the people are to worship in their Protestant Church? We know what the Catholic Church has taught for 1,986 years, for 19 centuries.
Hmmmmm ?
The only example I can tell you is the division and the more than 30,000 protestant, Independent and nondenominational churches that are now in the 21st century and they are all different in how they are to celebrate the Mass every Sunday ?
Let me list the major churches in the Protestant Churches. And not one founders name begins with Jesus Christ, or Apostles but by Reformation leaders.
Hmmmmm ?
(End Part 1)
Sep 3, 2018 17:51:55 #
Rebuttal, Deep In History: Breaking through the Myth’s of Christian History, (Part 2)
Let me list the major churches in the Protestant Churches. And not one founders name begins with Jesus Christ, or Apostles but by Reformation leaders.
What is the History of Your Church?
Church Year Established Founder Year Established
Catholic 33 AD Jesus Christ Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire
Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic Bishops. Constantinople, Eastern Roman Empire
Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany
Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer Germany
Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England
Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland
Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland
Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland
Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland
Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam, Netherlands
Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York, English Colonies
Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts, England Colonies
Quakers 1649 George Fox England
Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France
Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London, England
Methodist 1739 John & Charles Wesley England
Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London, England
Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies, USA
United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehn Maryland, USA
Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander Campbell Kentucky, USA
Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York, USA
Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States
Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone & Alexander Campbell Kentucky, USA
Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, New Hampshire, USA
Christadelphian
Brethren of Christ 1844 John Thomas Richmond, Virginia, USA
Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London, England
Holiness 1867 Methodist United States
Jehovah’s Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania, USA
Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas, USA
Church of Nazarene 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, Texas, USA
Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, Kansas, USA
Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines
Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, Arizona, USA
Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines
Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple McPherson Los Angeles, California, USA
United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and Congregationalist Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA, USA
United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United Brethren Dallas, Texas, USA
Born-again Christians 1970s Various religious bodies United States
Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, California, USA
Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California, USA
Non-denominational 1990s various United States
Let me list the major churches in the Protestant Churches. And not one founders name begins with Jesus Christ, or Apostles but by Reformation leaders.
What is the History of Your Church?
Church Year Established Founder Year Established
Catholic 33 AD Jesus Christ Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire
Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic Bishops. Constantinople, Eastern Roman Empire
Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany
Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer Germany
Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England
Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland
Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland
Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland
Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland
Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam, Netherlands
Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York, English Colonies
Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts, England Colonies
Quakers 1649 George Fox England
Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France
Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London, England
Methodist 1739 John & Charles Wesley England
Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London, England
Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies, USA
United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehn Maryland, USA
Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander Campbell Kentucky, USA
Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York, USA
Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States
Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone & Alexander Campbell Kentucky, USA
Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, New Hampshire, USA
Christadelphian
Brethren of Christ 1844 John Thomas Richmond, Virginia, USA
Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London, England
Holiness 1867 Methodist United States
Jehovah’s Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania, USA
Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas, USA
Church of Nazarene 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, Texas, USA
Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, Kansas, USA
Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines
Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, Arizona, USA
Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines
Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple McPherson Los Angeles, California, USA
United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and Congregationalist Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA, USA
United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United Brethren Dallas, Texas, USA
Born-again Christians 1970s Various religious bodies United States
Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, California, USA
Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California, USA
Non-denominational 1990s various United States
Sep 3, 2018 17:59:04 #
So what are these Ancient Early Church written Documents
broaden your limited obstructionist Christian knowledge & horizons.
Here is a URL link and list of over 202, (Early Church Patristic Fathers) that were written and taught by the Apostles, and 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation of Early Church Patristic Fathers.
Listed below are the most notable saints, Pope's, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monks, and Catholic laity writers and leaders.
Wikipedia also lists 202 Early Church Fathers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Church_Fathers
a. Barnabas, 61 AD, disciples of Paul, Missionary, and Martyr
b. Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens, 24-100 AD, disciples of Paul the Apostle
c. Justin Martyr 165 AD, early Christian apologist, regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century. He was martyred,
d. Papias, Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis, and author who lived c. 60–163 AD. disciples of John the Apostle
e. Pope Clement I, 35-99 AD, Bishop of Rome, epistle offers valuable insight into Church ministry at that time and into the history of the Roman Church
f. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop 35-108 AD, disciples of John the Apostle and Martyred.
g. Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum, 130-202 AD, martyr. Defined Christian Catholic Orthodoxy.
h. Origen of Alexandria, Bishop, 184–253 AD, Biblical hermeneutics, Christian apologetics, Christian theology, Biblical Textual criticism
I. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father.
j. Quadratus of Athens 129 AD One of the first Christian apologists.
k. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, 155 AD, Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. Disciples of John the Apostle and Martyred.
l. Theophilus of Antioch 180 AD, First writer to use the term Trinity.
m. Tertullian 150-220 AD, a prolific Christian writer, called "the father of Latin Christianity, early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, Christian Gnosticism.
n. Athanasius of Alexandria, Bishop 296-373 AD, Doctord of the Catholic Church.
o. Athenagoras of Athens, 130-190 AD, treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead, clearly teaches the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection body.
Here are the "Origins" of the Catholic Church, as mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
It is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26).
The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church."
There was only one Church. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name, and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however, the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Catholic-Universal Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since, e.g. The Catholic-Universal Church.
The church founded by Jesus Christ, was just known as the Church, singular.
By 107 AD, the Catholic-Universal Church was first used, historically by Bishop St. Ignatius of Antioch.
In a farewell martyr letter he wrote to his fellow Christians Catholic in Smyrna.
He made the first written mention reference in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2).
Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
St. Polycarp also uses the Catholic Church in 155 AD in a letter also addressed to Catholic Church Smyrna before his martyrdom, he speaks of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world." e.g Catholic-Universal Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church:
"The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, e.g.
"[Because] She proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature'" (no. 868).
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
In 107 AD, First historical reference by Bishop St. Ignatius and written usage term "The Catholic Church." Facts Karpenter, you're not thinking ? Emperor Constantine 320 AD ?
a. Church Name: Catholic Church,
b. Year Established: 33 AD
c. Founder: Jesus Christ
d. World Location:Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire
broaden your limited obstructionist Christian knowledge & horizons.
Here is a URL link and list of over 202, (Early Church Patristic Fathers) that were written and taught by the Apostles, and 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation of Early Church Patristic Fathers.
Listed below are the most notable saints, Pope's, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monks, and Catholic laity writers and leaders.
Wikipedia also lists 202 Early Church Fathers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Church_Fathers
a. Barnabas, 61 AD, disciples of Paul, Missionary, and Martyr
b. Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens, 24-100 AD, disciples of Paul the Apostle
c. Justin Martyr 165 AD, early Christian apologist, regarded as the foremost interpreter of the theory of the Logos in the 2nd century. He was martyred,
d. Papias, Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis, and author who lived c. 60–163 AD. disciples of John the Apostle
e. Pope Clement I, 35-99 AD, Bishop of Rome, epistle offers valuable insight into Church ministry at that time and into the history of the Roman Church
f. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop 35-108 AD, disciples of John the Apostle and Martyred.
g. Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum, 130-202 AD, martyr. Defined Christian Catholic Orthodoxy.
h. Origen of Alexandria, Bishop, 184–253 AD, Biblical hermeneutics, Christian apologetics, Christian theology, Biblical Textual criticism
I. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father.
j. Quadratus of Athens 129 AD One of the first Christian apologists.
k. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, 155 AD, Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. Disciples of John the Apostle and Martyred.
l. Theophilus of Antioch 180 AD, First writer to use the term Trinity.
m. Tertullian 150-220 AD, a prolific Christian writer, called "the father of Latin Christianity, early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, Christian Gnosticism.
n. Athanasius of Alexandria, Bishop 296-373 AD, Doctord of the Catholic Church.
o. Athenagoras of Athens, 130-190 AD, treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead, clearly teaches the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection body.
Here are the "Origins" of the Catholic Church, as mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
It is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26).
The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church."
There was only one Church. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name, and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however, the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Catholic-Universal Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since, e.g. The Catholic-Universal Church.
The church founded by Jesus Christ, was just known as the Church, singular.
By 107 AD, the Catholic-Universal Church was first used, historically by Bishop St. Ignatius of Antioch.
In a farewell martyr letter he wrote to his fellow Christians Catholic in Smyrna.
He made the first written mention reference in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2).
Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
St. Polycarp also uses the Catholic Church in 155 AD in a letter also addressed to Catholic Church Smyrna before his martyrdom, he speaks of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world." e.g Catholic-Universal Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church:
"The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, e.g.
"[Because] She proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature'" (no. 868).
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
In 107 AD, First historical reference by Bishop St. Ignatius and written usage term "The Catholic Church." Facts Karpenter, you're not thinking ? Emperor Constantine 320 AD ?
a. Church Name: Catholic Church,
b. Year Established: 33 AD
c. Founder: Jesus Christ
d. World Location:Jerusalem, Judea, Roman Empire
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.