1st Century Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Ginger2

Guest
I joined a thread that asked this question:

“Please provide proof of one doctrine, dogma, discipline, or anything that comes from the early Christian church not found in the Bible. Prove that it comes from … the first century.”

The thread didn’t seem to be addressing that specific issue, so I asked about it and was told:
Apparently you didnt read the OP very carefully - or perhaps you are psychic, because my guess is that the OP actually meant to scrutinize Catholic beliefs - not simply look at the extrabiblical traditions of the early church …
Click to expand...
Then the thread fell silent. So, I am starting this thread.
My question is:

Can you provide proof, from the 1st century, of dogma held by the Catholic Church that is not found in the Bible? Can you prove that it was practiced in the 1st century?
 
It would be helpful if you could ask for specific examples, being that the Mass and all the Sacraments are found in the Bible, as is Purgatory. One Tradition of the Catholic Church that did not come to be until the end of the Fourth Century, however, is the specific New Testament canon, as Christianity knows it, today.
 
Ginger2 said:
I joined a thread that asked this question:

“Please provide proof of one doctrine, dogma, discipline, or anything that comes from the early Christian church not found in the Bible. Prove that it comes from … the first century.”

The thread didn’t seem to be addressing that specific issue, so I asked about it and was told:

Then the thread fell silent. So, I am starting this thread.
My question is:

Can you provide proof, from the 1st century, of dogma held by the Catholic Church that is not found in the Bible? Can you prove that it was practiced in the 1st century?
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that you limit it to the first century (that is, prior to the year 100 AD). There are very few writings that I’m familiar with that were written that early - other than the NT gospels and epistles of course. Re other writings, the Epistles of Clement and Ignatius come to mind.

And that brings up the other hindrance to your getting a response, namely, the time and effort it would take to search out, read and study the documents. Even then we might pass over something (eg. Catholic teaching on Eucharist) because we consider it a doctrine clearly found in Scripture - yet Protestants do not.

The major doctrinal decrees made in the early Church had to do with the Trinity and also Jesus’ nature. They were not defined in Scripture clearly enough to prevent varying interpretations or understandings. So, in that sense you might say that they are Catholic doctrines that are not found in Scripture. However, most of these doctrines were not infallibly defined until later than the first century.

I was wondering Ginger2 why you wanted this particular info. Also, why the first century limit? It might help us to be more to the point in our responses if we know that.

Nita
 
Nita said:
Part of the problem is that you limit it to the first century (that is, prior to the year 100 AD). There are very few writings that I’m familiar with that were written that early - other than the NT gospels and epistles of course. Re other writings, the Epistles of Clement and Ignatius come to mind.

And that brings up the other hindrance to your getting a response, namely, the time and effort it would take to search out, read and study the documents. Even then we might pass over something (eg. Catholic teaching on Eucharist) because we consider it a doctrine clearly found in Scripture - yet Protestants do not.

The major doctrinal decrees made in the early Church had to do with the Trinity and also Jesus’ nature. They were not defined in Scripture clearly enough to prevent varying interpretations or understandings. So, in that sense you might say that they are Catholic doctrines that are not found in Scripture. However, most of these doctrines were not infallibly defined until later than the first century.

I was wondering Ginger2 why you wanted this particular info. Also, why the first century limit? It might help us to be more to the point in our responses if we know that.

Nita
Click to expand...
My own perspective is that if a practice was common and universal among the Apostles and other 1st century Christians, how did it come to pass that this supposedly very common practice was lost for 200, 300 or even one thousand years before someone noticed and re-instituted the practice?

Shouldn’t there be some evidence that Christians actually did the specific practice or held the specific belief before simply accepting the word of someone in high rank within the church? How could something of such importance as to be proclaimed dogma, have been lost to begin with?

I will look up a couple examples and post them for discussion.

Also, changing traditions that we know were followed by Jesus, the Apostles and other 1st century Christians, seems wrong to me.

One such example of this might be communion.

The Council of Lambeth in 1281 forbid the laity from receiving the cup. Later, at the Council of Constance in 1416, the rule of communion under both kinds was officially abolished

Jesus commanded both bread and wine.
 
There were infant baptisms in the first century. Most faiths believe that this is not explicitly taught in the Bible.
 
Let’s even out the “prove-it” field here and also ask for proof that the 1st Century Church denounced any doctrine or dogma taught by the “later” Catholic Church.
 
One such example of this might be communion.
Click to expand...
The Council of Lambeth in 1281 forbid the laity from receiving the cup. Later, at the Council of Constance in 1416, the rule of communion under both kinds was officially abolished
Click to expand...
Jesus commanded both bread and wine.
Click to expand...
Regarding Jesus commanding both bread and wine - I take it you are referring to His words at the Last Supper. He was speaking to the apostles (first priest bishops) and establishing the sacrificial rite for the New Covenant - which today we refer to as the Mass. You will note that throughout the years the rite has always included bread and wine, both of which must be consumed by the priest. Permission to receive bread only did not include priests, but only the laity. (There were no “laity” present at the Last Supper.)

Regarding the use of bread alone for the laity, the following is from the Council of Trent Catechism:

Quote:
Christ the Lord, it is true, as has been explained by the Council of Trent, instituted and delivered to His Apostles at His Last Supper this most sublime Sacrament under the species of bread and wine; but it does not follow that by doing so our Lord and Saviour established a law ordering its administration to all the faithful under both species. For speaking of this Sacrament, He Himself frequently mentions it under one kind only as for instance, when He says: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

End quote

So, you could say this regulation/discipline is provided for in Scripture.

Nita
 
Rightlydivide said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ginger2 said:
Can you provide proof, from the 1st century, of dogma held by the Catholic Church that is not found in the Bible? Can you prove that it was practiced in the 1st century?
Click to expand...
You probably mean things that protestants don’t agree are found in the bible, right?

Here’s one:
What: The practice of the Bishop of Rome writing encyclicals to instruct the believers in other cities.
Where: First and Second epistles of Clement.
 
VociMike said:
Let’s even out the “prove-it” field here and also ask for proof that the 1st Century Church denounced any doctrine or dogma taught by the “later” Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

It is ridiculous to ask me to prove the non-existence of something that has no evidence of ever existing.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
You probably mean things that protestants don’t agree are found in the bible, right?

Here’s one:
What: The practice of the Bishop of Rome writing encyclicals to instruct the believers in other cities.
Where: First and Second epistles of Clement.
Click to expand...
If I understand your point, you are wrong.

Paul wrote letters to churches and ask that his letters be circulated to all the churches.
 
Ginger2 said:
If I understand your point, you are wrong.

Paul wrote letters to churches and ask that his letters be circulated to all the churches.
Click to expand...
Clement, the Bishop of Rome, near the end of the first century, wrote an epistle to the church at Corinth, instructing them on matters pertaining to the faith.

This is proof that the catholic dogma that the Bishop of Rome should instruct other churches, was practiced in the first century.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Clement, the Bishop of Rome, near the end of the first century, wrote an epistle to the church at Corinth, instructing them on matters pertaining to the faith.

This is proof that the catholic dogma that the Bishop of Rome should instruct other churches, was practiced in the first century.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute…
Paul, according to Catholicism, was not the Bishop of Rome, yet Paul was instructing other churches including Rome…
 
Ginger2 said:
:rolleyes:

It is ridiculous to ask me to prove the non-existence of something that has no evidence of ever existing.
Click to expand...
OK, let’s approach this methodically. Take any Catholic belief that you don’t think existed in the early Church. Now prove that it didn’t exist in the early Church. You can so prove by demonstrating when and where the Church first attacked the “new” belief as being outside of the faith of the apostles.

Note that each and every belief that you claim was not a part of the early Church must, if it was truly not part of the early Church, must have generated such Church opposition in the beginning of the new belief. So your job should be almost trivially easy.

And yet, it will turn out, you cannot find such Church-wide opposition to any of the Catholic beliefs you claim are later inventions.
 
Ginger2 said:
If I understand your point, you are wrong.

Paul wrote letters to churches and ask that his letters be circulated to all the churches.
Click to expand...
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
 
There is a teaching handed down in Tradition and in the liturgy that says the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus by the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

This teaching that the bread and wine are transformed BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is not found in the bible. But, it is in the prayers of the mass, that came from the apostles, thus the first century, according to the universal testimony of the early Christians who learned from the apostles.

In fact the prayers of the mass come from the apostles, though parts of them are also in the bible.

Jesus never taught that any part of His Gospel had to be in the bible. Jesus taught salvation comes from believing the Gospel the apostles preached. And the bible does NOT claim to present this Gospel that they PREACHED anywhere in scripture.
The bible is only salvation history, and only contains certain elements of the Gospel, but not the whole Gospel the Church handed down.

The apostles did not proclaim the Gospel by reading scripture. When someone wanted to learn about Jesus, the apostles did not start reading Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. They simply taught the Catholic faith.
The Gospel the apostles proclaimed was the Catholic faith.
 
Arnobius said:
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
Click to expand...
Well, you are going to have to site the sources as I am not familiar with the documents you are referring to.
 
VociMike said:
OK, let’s approach this methodically. Take any Catholic belief that you don’t think existed in the early Church. Now prove that it didn’t exist in the early Church. You can so prove by demonstrating when and where the Church first attacked the “new” belief as being outside of the faith of the apostles.

Note that each and every belief that you claim was not a part of the early Church must, if it was truly not part of the early Church, must have generated such Church opposition in the beginning of the new belief. So your job should be almost trivially easy.

And yet, it will turn out, you cannot find such Church-wide opposition to any of the Catholic beliefs you claim are later inventions.
Click to expand...
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top