Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by JohnDeereFan, Jan 17, 2010.
What contributions have Catholics made to Christian theology?
False doctrines, idol worship.
Those are not contributions.
They did, however, contribute heavily to keeping the Bible extant in western Europe up to the 1500's.
Well, let’s see. They defined for us those writings that are the inspired word of God and arranged them into the canon of sacred scripture. They defeated the Arian heresy at the Council of Nicea and formulated the concept of the Holy Trinity. They gave us the Christmas and Easter holidays (originally called holy days). Augustine developed the concept of original sin. For that matter, why bother to list them all? They gave us every Christian theological concept that is traceable to a time earlier than 1500.
JDF, I wonder if you have read Hitler’s Mein Kampf? In it he posits the question of what contribution have Jews made to civilization. Then he goes at great lengths to show that no Jew has ever made a significant contribution to anything of value in the world. All lies. It was 50 years ago when I read Mein Kampf but somehow it came to mind when I read your post.
Well said. We must remember of course that before the Protestant Reformation that all the Reformers were Catholics. I've read some good posts by Catholics on other forums. Of course I cannot hold to some of their doctrines. But they do hold that Christ is God and also to the doctrine of the trinity. And yes it was the Catholic church that kept the word of God faithfully copied and intact down the centuries.
The Orthodox claim credit for this too.
With good reason.
That was a piece of hate literature. The intent of the thread is similar.
Are there even any Catholics here to defend their beliefs?
Lacking a voice on the other side of the debate - this thread seems completly uncharitable.
Not completely. At least two have defended them.:smilewinkgrin:
Actually, the Catholic Church as we know it did not exist in the 4th century.
They did? That's really interesting, because the church celebrated Christmas and Easter before the Catholic Church even existed.
Again, you do understand that Augustine lived before the Catholic Church as it exists today it even existed, right?
How did you come to that conclusion?
Yes, liberals often try to compare us to Nazis. It's a false and, frankly, stupid comparison, but false and stupid seem to be all too typical among liberals.
Really? What is your evidence for this?
I agree. That's why I said it was after the 4th century.
I disagre but as you have yet to show that the Catholic Church was founded at Pentecost, your point is moot.
What's more, if your claim is true, then how do you respond to Gramhe's acknowledgement that there were thousands of copies of the scriptures before the founding of the Catholic Church, according to you, on the day of Pentecost?
Actually, you do because their existence disproves your claim.
Then how do you explain all of the copies of scripture that existed before the Catholic Church?
No, you're confusing the use of the word "catholic", meaning universal, which is still used today to describe the whole Christian Church, including Protestants (in the Apostles Creed, for instance) and the Romish religous entity under the current structure and authority commonly known today as the Catholic Church.
No, actually, the intent of this thread has nothing to do with hatred. There's a thread currently on Catholic.com asking what Christians have ever contributed to theology and I'm merely asking the same question from the Christian side of the equation.
Interesting how liberals have no problem with Catholics asking a question, but when a Christian asks the same question, you compare him to Nazis and say that he's hateful.
I don't have to. This still doesn't negate what I said. The truth is that there were 1000's of copies both before the Catholic church and after, if you can pinpoint what was before and what was after the Catholic church of course. For the church was always called catholic, or one church. There is no sharp dividing line until you get to the reformation. unless of course you count the great division between the eastern and western churches. But by the time of Nicea the NT canon was already in use by the whole church whether it was the eastern church or the western church. Every NT book was faithfully copied out by monks at that time when the Church was still Catholic or "ONE" church. In other words the church was always catholic. For the word "Catholic" means oneness or wholeness.
This, JDF, is the fatal flaw of your entire reply to my post. The Catholic Church began on the day of Pentecost. It was first called "Catholic" by Ignatius in 110. There is no history of it starting in the 4rh Century. There was no schism, no split, nothing to signify a new denomination.
Compare the schism of 1054 when Rome and Constantinople separated into Catholic and Orthodox. Or consider 1517 when Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door in Wittenberg. These are historical watersheds. However, no credible historian can point to a single event or even a series of events to separate the Catholic Church from the church for the New Testament.
What two posters to this thread are Catholic?
I looked at each poster's profile and saw no one listing their denomination as Catholic.
No, you said the thread was uncharitable. I replied that thefre were two who defended them. I didn't intend to convey that those two were Catholic. I was just showing that the thread was not entirely uncharitable.
Well, as long as it's not "entirely" uncharitable... then I suppose it is appropriate for a Christian forum.
This is not entirely true and based on semantics rather than actual history.
The Catholic Church did not begin on the Day of Pentecost; far from it. What began on the Day of Pentecost was the Church of Jerusalem, and then other churches began after that. There is no where in the NT where ekklesia refers to "catholic" or universal, and that usage is entirely foreign to the early church believers in general.
Even so, Zenas, you should be intelligent enough to know that English was not spoken in the time of Christ, the time of the Apostles, no, not even in the fourth century. There is a fatal flaw therefore in your post.
Secondly, you left out a very important piece of information about Ignatius:
As I attested, there were only churches in the first century. This ECF, Ignatius, not known for sound theology, was the first one to use the word "Catholic" not, of course, as an English word.
Most credible historians will link the origin of the RCC with Constantine.
Apparently you think my post is flawed because I said Ignatius was the first to refer to the Catholic Church. Since "katholikos" (catholicam in Latin) means "universal", Ignatius was speaking of the universal church which is how he referred to the Christian Church. The name "Catholic" just stuck at some point in time, very early in church history. We also see it in the first known written version of the Apostles Creed in 215.
I have read often that the origin of the RCC is closely associated with Constantine, but never anywhere but in the footnotes and margin notes of Protestant bibles. Catholics list a line of popes (correctly designated as bishops of Rome) going back to Peter and all of them are historically verifiable. I have never seen that list with an asterisk by some name about the time of Constantine noting that this was the first pope of the RCC. If you're suggesting that it morphed into what it is today, you would be partly right. All institutions morph over time. Did you know the early Baptists forbade the use of musical instruments? Incidentally, the name of the church in Vatican City is The Catholic Church, NOT The Roman Catholic Church.
Utter and complete nonsense.
What became the abomination now called the Catholic Church of Rome had its genesis around the time of Constantine around the 4th century.
At that point the true church of Jesus Christ...the true "universal" church...that started on the day of Pentecost had been in existance for 4 centuries.