1st Century Church

[VociMike]

Fair enough.

The very first mention found in Church teaching denies the claim of Mary’s sinless perfection: (Origen at Alexandria (185-232))

No documentation from the Church during this same era is found to disagree with Origen claim.

It was almost two hundred later before the first documented instance of a Church official making claim to the immaculate conception of Mary.(ie St. Ephram)

Unlike Origen, St. Ephram did have opposition to his claim. St. Basil & St. Chrysostom both disagreed with Ephram and claim Mary sinned

You misunderstood the standard of proof. It’s not enough to show that individuals opposed a particular belief. I asked that you show that the Church opposed a particular belief, for only the Church accurately and without error guards the deposit of faith. This will be a trivial exercise if the Church really did oppose the belief.

Now, how does one show that the Church opposed a belief? By citing a Council, or a pope speaking ex cathedra.

We await your list of Councils and/or popes speaking ex cathedra declaring Catholic beliefs to be false.

 

[Arnobius]

Well, you are going to have to site the sources as I am not familiar with the documents you are referring to.

I have those documents in text form, so please be patient with me as I try to find them on the internet.

EDIT
Here is a site which lists different translations of the Didache at any rate:
earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

 

[Rightlydivide]

the Catacombs in Rome have numerous tombs of children. Many of these show the birth of the infants as well as when they were baptized. There are more than just a few isolated events, which indicates that this was a common practice among the early Christians.

Wrong

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/catacombs.html

L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

About the same time as the persecution of Decius, middle of the third century, is also when we begin to get the Roman catacombs developing.

 

[Ginger2]

Jesus taught salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

It is not the preaching of men that brings salvation - not even from the Apostles.

 

[Rightlydivide]

But the example of Clement showed that the successor of Peter did have that authority. This shows this was not an authority that was lost with the Apostles.

Remember the Scriptures show Paul was sent by the Church and not of his own wishes, so the role he played shows it was something that was done with the authority of the Church.

Another source you may wish to consider for doctrines held was the Didache, which many hold to have been written in the first century some time between AD 70-90

No Clement does not assert that authority. That never happened. He wrote a letter just like Paul did, who was a companion of his. It never appeals to any for of Papal primacy.

The Didache teaches:
Baptism by immersion.
Churches selecting their own leaders and testing the works of the Apostles. It completely refutes so called Apostolic Succession.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You misunderstood the standard of proof. It’s not enough to show that individuals opposed a particular belief. I asked that you show that the Church opposed a particular belief, for only the Church accurately and without error guards the deposit of faith. This will be a trivial exercise if the Church really did oppose the belief.

Now, how does one show that the Church opposed a belief? By citing a Council, or a pope speaking ex cathedra.

We await your list of Councils and/or popes speaking ex cathedra declaring Catholic beliefs to be false.

You will not find an a nonexistent papacy declaring a nonexistent papacy does not exist in the first century. I will give you that!

 

[VociMike]

You will not find an a nonexistent papacy declaring a nonexistent papacy does not exist in the first century. I will give you that!

So find a Council which rejects the papacy. Do so and you win the argument. Fail to do so and you admit that the papacy is not and was never in opposition to the faith given to the apostles.

 

[Ginger2]

So find a Council which rejects the papacy. Do so and you win the argument. Fail to do so and you admit that the papacy is not and was never in opposition to the faith given to the apostles.

If there was no papacy, why would a council need to meet to condemn or confirm it?

When I was a child, we did not have access to smut on the TV, so there was no need for my parents to discuss blocking smutting TV shows.
As a matter-of-fact, no one ever discussed the issue of smut on TV because it didn’t exist.

But eventually smut began appearing on TV. At first no one said anything because it crept in a little at a time and didn’t seem like a big deal.

Would you like me to find proof that people didn’t approve of smutty TV shows in the 1950’s?

I can’t, because no one discussed the problem of smut on TV back then - it wasn’t a problem

 

[Rightlydivide]

If there was no papacy, why would a council need to meet to condemn or confirm it?

.

EXACTLY

 

[ChangingHeart]

The Didache teaches:
Baptism by immersion.
Churches selecting their own leaders and testing the works of the Apostles. It completely refutes so called Apostolic Succession.

Wrong and wrong.

It shows varying methods of Baptism, not using the term “immersion,” anywhere, yet including the words, “pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” So, such a practice was done back then, even though the surrounding words suggest that it was less common. The Catholic Church has never said that immersion Baptism was intrinsically wrong, but the Didache clearly points out that immersion Baptism is NOT required for the Baptism to be valid.

It doesn’t even remotely refute Apostolic Succession. It says nothing of the sort of the parishioners selecting their own leaders. There is nothing in the Didache that denies Apostolic Succession. What it does show, however, is that the process of Apostolic Succession does not guarantee that all who received valid Holy Orders are guaranteed to infallibly speak the truth, and that we therefore need to test that what they say is consistent with the Apostolic faith. On the grounds that the New Testament was not canonized for another three centuries, however, the Bible was not the litmus test, but the consistency of the verbal preaching, the Didache, clearly being written to those who had received previous verbal instructions regarding the faith.

 

[VociMike]

If there was no papacy, why would a council need to meet to condemn or confirm it?

Well at some point there was a papacy. And at some point, according you your view, the papacy went against “the true faith”. So at some point soon after that the Church which was up to that point guarding the true faith would have denounced the error.

And you can’t trot out the “boiled frog” argument either. If the error is plain enough for you to see, it would have been plain enough for them to see also. The very fact that you claim to see an error clearly prevents you from claiming that they couldn’t see the error.

Why all this dancing around anyway? Why not just provide the Conciliar and/or papal evidence showing that current Catholic doctrine was once denounced by the Church?

BTW, I am making your job much, much easier by not limiting your counciliar or papal proof to the 1st century. I will accept a council or papal denounciation from any era whatsoever, regardinging any Catholic doctrine whatsoever. That should be a slam dunk if what you claim is actually true.

 

[ChangingHeart]

If there was no papacy, why would a council need to meet to condemn or confirm it?

There was a Papacy, and I can show you a first century council that CONFIRMED it.

Turn to Acts 15, verse 12, reading in context of the fact that the Pope has just spoken and made a declarative statement. How did that council react? “The whole assembly fell silent.” They knew that the Pope had the final word.

END OF STORY

Next issue, please?

 

[VociMike]

EXACTLY

Umm, so you claim is that in the Catholic Church there is not now, and there has never been, a papacy? That’s a unique claim to say the least.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Wrong and wrong.

It shows varying methods of Baptism, not using the term “immersion,” anywhere, yet including the words, “pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” So, such a practice was done back then, even though the surrounding words suggest that it was less common. The Catholic Church has never said that immersion Baptism was intrinsically wrong, but the Didache clearly points out that immersion Baptism is NOT required for the Baptism to be valid.

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord
Remotely? Word for word more like it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There was a Papacy, and I can show you a first century council that CONFIRMED it.

Turn to Acts 15, verse 12, reading in context of the fact that the Pope has just spoken and made a declarative statement. How did that council react? “The whole assembly fell silent.” They knew that the Pope had the final word.

END OF STORY

Next issue, please?

Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring

They got quiet to listen to these two.
If the Pope has the final word then why do three men speak after him?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Apostolic Succession.

Yes that’s another one. For any of the major cities of early christianity you can easily look up a list of the bishops from the time of the apostles. In some cases the first bishop was an apostle, in other cases the first bishops were appointed by the apostles. You can follow the list of succeeding bishops right down to today.

 

[ChangingHeart]

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord
Remotely? Word for word more like it.

You are presupposing that the audience here is the laity. That is where your logic falls flat. If you notice, that language is similar to 1 Timothy 3:1-10, which was instructions for Timothy, who at that point had already been ordained. The audience here in the Didache is clergy who will have the task of further Apostolic Succession. Keep in mind, the laity would only hear this if read at Mass, so they could not possibly be the intended audience of those instructions.

 

[cascherman]

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord
Remotely? Word for word more like it.

Do you have an idea in your mind of a group of people with absolutely no leadership electing bishops and deacons? What are their guidelines for choosing one and not the other if you have never been taught by a leader what is right or wrong?

or maybe, just maybe…

with the leadership of existing bishops, presbyters, and deacons indeed bishops and deacons were chosen for themselves to pass on the torch, so to speak.

REMOTE possibility??? I imagine a little better than remote. Either way you can’t prove my second possibility wrong by the text you are using.

 

[cascherman]

Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring

They got quiet to listen to these two.
If the Pope has the final word then why do three men speak after him?

If you read they spoke on a separate issue altogether. The topic Peter spoke on indeed was settled.

 

[ChangingHeart]

Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring

They got quiet to listen to these two.
If the Pope has the final word then why do three men speak after him?

Why don’t you finish the verse and see that Paul and Barnabas “described all the signs and wonders God had worked among the gentiles through them.” What they were saying was in no way conflicting, or expounding upon the Pope’s final word. The issue at question was over. It was then time for friendly discussion, as the doctrinal declaration had already been made.

Did I really need to point that out to you, though? That was REALLY grasping for straws on your part.

If you approach this discussion with a genuine heart for the truth, rather than a pre-conceived idea that you already know it, then you would see that my points are sound and solid.