C
Church_Militant
Guest
Up early. Gotta scoot for a while so I can make the 6:30 Mass at my parish. Now THAT’s the way to start your day! Talk to ya later Ginger!
- Status
G
Ginger2
Guest
It’s like baptism. There is a symbolic element that is easy to understand, but also a very real spiritual element that seems illusive to most.
It is much more than just a public proclamation.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yes ma’am I agree 100%.
That’s why verses like John 3:5, Acts:2:38, and 22:16 so desperately need inclusion into teachings on salvation. The Christian church is sacramental and always has been, though it took some time for it all to develop as we see it today, but that’s okay.This is my response to those who say otherwise. “I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
A
Arnobius
Guest
Did you forget? Or did you hope we would?Arnobius:
Sure, it may take a day, I have basketball practice tomorrow but I will try to make it tomorrow. Happy to.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Yes. I hoped and prayed that you would not remember.
catacombe.roma.it/en/intro.html
2020site.org/catacombs/history.html
msnbc.msn.com/id/8644832/
Anyway, if this is not convincing to you then I officially concede you are right and I am wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
A
Arnobius
Guest
Well, lets look at the sites. The first site given is a tourist information site, which gives a generalized view of history.
The second citation indicates “the largest number” of tombs were of the 3rd and 4th centuries (AD201-300), but this does not preclude earlier burials but merely indicates when the use of the catacombs was most extensive. I suspect this period they cite was probably coinciding with the Diocletian persecutions (the persecutions tended not to be continuous as a general policy of the Empire but came and went, though mob attacks and local persecutions in various areas made it always dangerous to be a Christian)
The third example is an article that is based on the claim that Jews and Christians practiced similar customs. However, their claim is not substantiated in their dating.
Your fourth example (I am assuming this is the professor you mentioned earlier?) gives his beliefs, but he mentions 36 catacombs, while most of the sources I see mention 60 surviving catacombs. Those 36 he mentions may indeed date from that period, but the question is, does that mean all of them do so?
Some sources I find that claim a 1st century origin for your evaluation:
encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-catacomb.html gives a range from 1st to 5th century
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050720_christianity.html
indicates that catacombs existed from 50BC to AD400 and that in the earliest times it is hard to distinguish between the explicitly Christian and explicitly Jewish ones.
We do need to remember that the persecutions began with Nero and tend to be dated around AD 64-67, though Acts indicates Christians may have been in Rome during the reign of Claudius, based on the account in Acts of the Jews being expelled based on disputes over one “Chrestus”. However we also know that the Pagans cremated their dead while the Christians (believing in the resurrection of the body) buried theirs
The question becomes then, when did the burial of Christians and Jews seperate, and if the Christian catacombs were not created until the second century, then where were they buried before this?
It seems to me that the dating of the catacombs from 50BC indicates an existing practice and as Christians became more ostracized their burial sites would be more exclusively Christian, hence the evolution over time on the structures.
But it seems your claim is not proven.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Arnobius, very good reading. In the question of where were the Christians buried during the Church’s earliest infancy, I would assume they were buried similar to where they lived - with their brother Jews. We find that during the burning of Rome by our good Nero, the Christians and Jews lived together in the same part of the city, if I’m correct.
In my opinion (and this is only MY opinion), if the Jews and the Christians lived together, one could assume that they could be buried together.
RD, thanks for the links. But I find it interesting that one of your articles that you use as proof uses carbon dating to back up it’s argument, while you so readily dispel the carbon dating on the first century Christian infant. I think you merely described it as “Wrong”!
In my opinion (and this is only MY opinion), if the Jews and the Christians lived together, one could assume that they could be buried together.
RD, thanks for the links. But I find it interesting that one of your articles that you use as proof uses carbon dating to back up it’s argument, while you so readily dispel the carbon dating on the first century Christian infant. I think you merely described it as “Wrong”!
B
Bishopite
Guest
What you are proving is that the Catholic Church uses the scriptures for proof. We all know that already, so thanks for the quote!
A
Arnobius
Guest
Yes, I think this is part of the confusion among some Protestants, that the Church views Tradition and Scripture as entirely separate entities that never meet, when in fact the Church views both as essential parts.What you are proving is that the Catholic Church uses the scriptures for proof. We all know that already, so thanks for the quote!
So a saint citing the essential need of scriptures is not making a non-Catholic interpretation.
Y
YADA
Guest
I am not a psychic … but the OP
states that dogmas held by the church [are not biblical] and asks for proofs that they were practiced …
The Church’s dogmas are biblical [either explicit or implict] and they are not in contradiction to the teachings found in the canon of scripture … In fact, the Canon of Sciptures [New TEstament specifically] arises from the Apostolic Tradition.
Ergo, the entire premise of the OP creates a circular argument …
And you failed to address the balance of the post … For example Rightlydivide does not have to address “discipline” because the word "discipline’ is not found in the ‘bible’ …
And yet, clearly in the scriptures [both Old and New] and in the early christian writings [1st century - your criteria] matters of discipline are apparent … At the same time the concept of Trinity [a word not found in the bible, a concept that is implicit; not explicit and over which heresies abounded and was the cause of the ‘word’ Trinity to come into usage and for which a specific definition was established] is okay … the basis of that acceptance … well Rightlydivide approves, ergo Good word … if he does not then bad word, no need for discussion …
that is an attitude that is counter productive …
I have come to the conclusion that non-catholic christians do not have a real problem with a “magesterium” or a “papacy” …the only problem with the concept is that in the catholic church - they are not included in the magesterium and have not been elected pope …
Within protestant christianity any aethiest can see the light, purchase a bible, establish their own individual interpretation upon the scriptures and upon history, rewriting and re-intpretating at will … No need for scripture study, no formal education, not accountable to anyone [except maybe for the IRS - to abtain and maintain “non-profit” status perhaps] … and - perhaps - their flock … it might be hard to maintain a “church” if no one buys your version of salvation history…
G
Ginger2
Guest
Well, I wasn’t really trying to prove anything - just responding to a post, but you are very welcome.What you are proving is that the Catholic Church uses the scriptures for proof. We all know that already, so thanks for the quote!
G
Ginger2
Guest
Yada, Yada, Yada,…
I don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
I’ve given Catholics a chance to talk about their faith - why you believe what you believe. Enjoy the conversation and stoip worrying about suspected motives.
As for rightlydivide…
I have not been following his/her parallel discussion.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I did not state the that Catholic dogmas are not biblical. I asked for proof of dogmas not found in Scripture.
Catholics say that not all dogmas are included in Scripture as some were handed down orally.
I guess, in the sense of certain dogmas not being written in Scripture, it could be taken as “not biblical”
But, if you are suggesting that I meant “not in accord with the Bible” you have misunderstood.
Y
YADA
Guest
But I do not know of any Dogma that is 100% extra - biblical … can you give an example of a dogma that is not found any where in scriptures implicitly …
For you see, even the Assumption of Mary [a dogma] is implicit in scripture and found in the traditions of the early church …
You may look at the scriptures that catholics referecne and dispute the catholic interpretation … that is a difference of ‘opinion’ … but just becuase you read the passage one way and the church [and the adherents ie catholics] interprets it differently is not a ‘proof’ that is is not biblical …
can you see where we are? The church reads Revelation Chapter 11 and 12 and sees the Ark of the Covenant [Jesus being the fulfillment of the “Old Covenant”] described as the Woman Clothed with the Sun … the woman represents:
Many parallels in passages between the hebrew texts and the new testament writings are rich in the theologies and spirituality of the Christian life… the scriptures are God’'s loving communication with his children but they are also the writings of a faith community for a faith community … scripture is not 100 % of the faith … it was never intended to be such …the faith community pre-exists the scriptures [the Hebrew people pre-existed before they began to record [write] the writings that became what we call the Old Testament] and the Christian church existed before the first written text that was created…
For you see, even the Assumption of Mary [a dogma] is implicit in scripture and found in the traditions of the early church …
You may look at the scriptures that catholics referecne and dispute the catholic interpretation … that is a difference of ‘opinion’ … but just becuase you read the passage one way and the church [and the adherents ie catholics] interprets it differently is not a ‘proof’ that is is not biblical …
can you see where we are? The church reads Revelation Chapter 11 and 12 and sees the Ark of the Covenant [Jesus being the fulfillment of the “Old Covenant”] described as the Woman Clothed with the Sun … the woman represents:
- the Ark of the New Covenant - being both Mary, who bore the Word of God Made Flesh [The Tablets of the Ten Commandments {old} becomes Jesus {new}], the Heavenly Food [Manna {old} becomes Jesus - Eucharist {new}], the High Priest the staff of Aaron {old} becomes Jesus the High Priest {new}]
- The Church; the New Jerusalem
Many parallels in passages between the hebrew texts and the new testament writings are rich in the theologies and spirituality of the Christian life… the scriptures are God’'s loving communication with his children but they are also the writings of a faith community for a faith community … scripture is not 100 % of the faith … it was never intended to be such …the faith community pre-exists the scriptures [the Hebrew people pre-existed before they began to record [write] the writings that became what we call the Old Testament] and the Christian church existed before the first written text that was created…
C
ChangingHeart
Guest
Personally, I don’t see any explicit ban on polygamy in the New Testament, and it seems to be acceptable in the Old Testament. Yet, as far as I know (and I must concede that my knowledge is limited, as I have not researched the beliefs of 33,000 different denominations) I don’t know of even one Protestant denomination that considers polygamy to be acceptable. So, that brings us up to 3 Catholic teachings(New Testament canon of Scripture, Trinity, Polygamy is bad) that seem to be universally accepted by Protestants, yet are not specifically contained in the Bible. So the whole, “if it isn’t in the Bible I don’t believe it,” argument would be a fallacy.
C
ChangingHeart
Guest
I realize that this was a challenge to Protestants to suggest such about Catholic beliefs, but I’d like to answer, as a Catholic, about a dogma of the Catholic Church that can not be specifically backed up by Scripture. The New Testament canon of Scripture can not be backed up by Scripture. Yet, Protestants accept it.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Precisely. Good point
Just because an ECF or some early father cites the Bible doesn’t at ALL mean they support sola scriptura. Tradition is a handing down of truth some of it is inscripturated (Bible) and some of it isn’t as 2 Thes 2:15 points out, yet both affirm one faith handed down to the Church from Jesus Christ.
And I might add, if anyone is looking for all Christian truths strictly from the 1st century then they won’t find much for the Church was in its infancy, undeveloped.
When we were babies we looked different from what we do now, yet we are the same person, just more developed and understand more than we did then.
An acorn is made of the same DNA as it is as a fully developed oak tree; both are the same, one in its infancy (so to speak) the other a maturely grow. The Church is no different.
History proves Catholicism is traced back to Jesus in the 1st century, all others started much later.
A
Arnobius
Guest
Moreover, we do know when heretics introduced new ideas contrary to what had been taught by the Apostles, the Church Fathers were firm in denouncing it. So the question becomes, if this was the case, where were the Church Fathers when the Church allegedly invented new teachings? Where were the teachings originated from? We know where Modalism came from and the other early Church heresies came from… indeed, one of the way the ECF denounced the heresies was to point out how recent the ideas were and who invented them.
So why can’t it be demonstrated where these so-called “invented” beliefs came from and why can’t it be shown where these “invented” teachings were denounced?
So why can’t it be demonstrated where these so-called “invented” beliefs came from and why can’t it be shown where these “invented” teachings were denounced?
B
Bishopite
Guest
But you actually answered your original question because you posted a quote from 110 AD just after the turn of the 1st century, where Christians were
using the scriptures and writing about using them.
You showed evidence of Christians using the scriptures which is a good thing.
And of course, as time went on other ECF’s wrote about the scriptures as well.
This is evidence that the early Christians used the scriptures as it is God’s written word.
However that you posted such an early quote (110 AD) is interesting because this quote I have is ALSO from 110 AD.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (the Bishop of Antioch) writes around 110 AD not long after the turn of the 1st century. That Ignatius was a Bishop means he was obviously a Christian leader, he was also martyred for his Christian faith, he also was orthodox in his Christian faith.
He also used the scriptures from which he taught; but what is most interesting are his writings which tell us WHAT Christians believed at that time (at the turn of the 1st century).
Again, here is what St. Ignatius said in his letter to the Smyrneans:
" From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, 8."
Here Ignatius is speaking of the Eucharist. And what “Church” can show itself going way way back to the year 110 AD which also has the Eucharist, AND holds to it being the “flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.?” Answer: The Catholic Church
Ignatius goes on:
“You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery [priest] as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment.”
Priest and presbyter are synonyms (different words that mean the same thing).
Does your church have priests?
Catholicism does.
“Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape (refering to the Mass–the agape feast); but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.”
Here Ignatius speaks (in 110 AD, mind you) about the Eucharist being considered valid. Does your church have the Eucharist?
And he goes on to say “to hold an agape” which is refering to the “agape love feast” which IS the what we call the Mass two different ways of saying the same thing.
And finally, Ignatius Bishop of Antioch says so explicitly "just as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."
You know, you can’t get much clearer than St. Ignatius about what devout orthodox Catholic Christians believed way, way back at the turn of the 1st century!
One ECF doesn’t necessarily prove the whole teaching of the time, however if it IS a constant teaching taught down through time, then we have sufficient evidence that it wasn’t just one ECF’s personal theory but what was passed down to them and they passed down to the next generation which is “Tradition.” This is passed down through example and writing and the liturgy (worship practice).
Ignatius was the first to use the word Catholic and thereafter many ECF’s also used and passed down what the original Church founded by Jesus was called. It was in 110 AD and still is called the “Catholic Church.”
B
Bishopite
Guest
Another very good point.
These “invented” teachings weren’t denounced because they were NOT invented. They are what has always been taught as the evidence shows.
- Status