A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic---revised

[joe370]

Yes, by that time, Christianity had reached Egypt, probably via St. Mark, where the religions of the ancient Egyptians and early Christians likely underwent their first encounter and melding. Many of the concepts of Christianity were already familiar to the Egyptians by the time Mark arrived, because they were already present in their own ancient religion. This would include such things as the death and resurrection of Osiris and the Eucharist of Osiris, which was already being practiced in Egypt for at least a thousand years prior. In the Eucharist, Osiris was considered to be the “bread of life,” and the bread was thought to be the very body of Osiris (transubstantiation).

Hey Sufjon, you lost me regarding Osiris and transubstantiation:

Biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, ‘What is meant of Osiris being “raised to life?” Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead. This revived god is in reality a “mummy” god.’… No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ… As Yamauchi observes, 'Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death. But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality - his Ba and Ka - continued to hover over his body.

 

[JustaServant]

Not to be the skunk at the garden party, but I’ve read one fundie-Prot excuse, namely that yes, these early references are highly Traditional and Liturgical if not standardly Catholic. Therefore, they insist that the Great Apostasy began early, immediately, directly, with the waning of the Apostolic generation. That’s the only way they can reject the strong historical resemblance of the early Gentile church to the later Catholic Church: they admit its “catholicity” but claim that this is merely a very early, very ancient apostasy from “pure Bible-Jesus religion”. It’s a poor excuse and an example of very implausible historical “reasoning”, but it’s all they have in the face of the overwhelming catholicity of the early Greco-Roman church.

Yeah and “ancient aliens” built the pyramids.
You’re right of course, some people will go to any lengths to remain blind to cold hard facts.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Many of the concepts of Christianity were already familiar to the Egyptians by the time Mark arrived, because they were already present in their own ancient religion. This would include such things as the death and resurrection of Osiris and the Eucharist of Osiris, which was already being practiced in Egypt for at least a thousand years prior. In the Eucharist, Osiris was considered to be the “bread of life,” and the bread was thought to be the very body of Osiris (transubstantiation). It is within this same very narrow window of time (when Mark encountered Egyptian culture) that terms like this start showing up in Christian thought (i.e. Bread of Life, Body of Christ). I would conclude that the idea of the Eucharist was present among Christians from very early on. This was well in advance of the time when the gospels started to be written (70-90 CE), so these ideas would have been pretty firmly rooted by then, and would have appeared in the first codices of the gospels. Since Mark is generally thought to be the first gospel written, and Mark was also likely to have been the one who encountered Egyptian culture, it follows that if the authors of the Gospel of Mark were actually influenced by Mark, they would probably have conveyed these influences in what they wrote. This is at least supported in part by the fact these ideas are indeed expressed in chapter 14, verses 22 through 25 of that gospel as it exists today. I used the disclaimer “as it exists today,” because there are no known existing gospels earlier than a fragment of John from about 150 CE. Because of this, it cannot be known for certain what the first permutation of Mark or any of the gospels actually said. I am going on the assumption that they at least followed the same basic story line.

Your friend
Sufjon

Hey Sufjon,
Do you have any evidence for the Eucharist Osiris? I’ve heard many supposed pagan parallels to Christ that ended up being bogus. From what I understood Osiris didn’t resurrect, he was torn to pieces and put back together by Isis and became the ruler of the underworld or something.

As for the Gospels,
St. Iranaeus of Lyons in Gaul (130/140-203AD) quotes the New Testament 1819 times,
Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (150-211AD) quotes the New Testament 2406 times, Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa (150/160-220AD) quotes the New Testament 7259 times. A German scholar by the name of Ronsch was able to reproduce most of the NT from the works of Tertullian alone.

Tatian (circa 120-180) was a writer who composed a book called “Diatesseron”, a harmony of the Gospels. He used all the Gospels to compose one continuous narrative of the Gospels. This was lost until 1888 when an Aarabic translation was found and edited by Ciasca. This is important because it shows that the texts of the Gospels of modern times are essentially the same as the ones that Tatian used when writing the Diatesseron around the middle of the 2nd century. Tatian first read the Gospels because of Justin Martyr, who converted him to Christianity. This means these Gospels go back to around 140 AD in Justin Martyr’s time. The first of the Gospels was written around 60-75AD, the period of time from 75-140 AD is too short of time for essential corruptions in the texts to come about. Von Soden (highly esteemed NT textual expert)agrees with that point.

The more diffused a writing is, then harder it will be for corruptions to sneak into the text in the process of transcription. If the text is diffused throughout an area, then corruptions would be quickly recognized and localized. There are several points that show that the Gospels were widely diffused as early as the first half of the 2nd century. Christians in the first half of the 2nd century were acquainted with the Gospels. Justin Martyr says that the Gospels were read to the people on Sundays at services.-

For the Apostles in the records which they have made and which are called the Gospels, have declared that Jesus commanded them to do as follows. “He took bread and gave thanks and said, Do this in commemoration of Me.”- (I Apology 66. 3)
“And on the day which is called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts, and the records of the Apostles…are read as long as there is time.” –(I Apology 67. 3)

For this to happen, there would have to have been many copys of the texts for the different communities. (This Justin Martyr example proves the greek speaking Christians at least had them)
On July 17, 180 AD Proconsul Saturninus of Numidia held a trial and celebrated 12 martyrs from the tiny town of Scillium ordered that the scriptures written in Latin should be burned. This shows that the texts were widely diffused to this area and that Christians were instructed by scriptures, otherwise why else would he have ordered them burned?

As you pointed out, a fragment of the Gospel of John was found in Egypt that dates 140-150AD. The fact that even a piece of the Gospel of John was found in Egypt so soon suggests how rapidly the Gospels were diffused.

Apostolic Fathers from 70-155 AD were well acquainted with scriptures. St. Ignatius of Antioch (died circa 107AD), Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp of Smyrna (died 155/166AD). The Didache (70-100AD) contained around 30 quotations or references from the Gospels.

Given the fact that we have thousands of quotations of the New Testament in the 2nd century, Tatian’s Diatesseron, rapid diffusal of the Gospels at early dates, and many quotations from the apostolic fathers and the Didache, it’s fairly certain that we know that the original Gospels are essentially the same as the Gospels we have today.

I don’t mean to de-rail the original intentions of the thread, please continue discussing the early time line of the Catholic Church

 

[Sufjon]

Hey Sufjon,
Do you have any evidence for the Eucharist Osiris? I’ve heard many supposed pagan parallels to Christ that ended up being bogus. From what I understood Osiris didn’t resurrect, he was torn to pieces and put back together by Isis and became the ruler of the underworld or something.

He was actually resurrected twice, or so the mythology goes. In one of those instances he had been torn into either 14 or 16 pieces and put back together by his wife (Isis). No, I do not have evidence that He actually existed. It is an ancient religious tradition. I am not interested in proving or disproving any particular religion. or anyone’s concept of God. I am simply interested in the stories and the parallels between them.

As for the Gospels,
St. Iranaeus of Lyons in Gaul (130/140-203AD) quotes the New Testament 1819 times,
Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (150-211AD) quotes the New Testament 2406 times, Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa (150/160-220AD) quotes the New Testament 7259 times. A German scholar by the name of Ronsch was able to reproduce most of the NT from the works of Tertullian alone.

Tatian (circa 120-180) was a writer who composed a book called “Diatesseron”, a harmony of the Gospels. He used all the Gospels to compose one continuous narrative of the Gospels. This was lost until 1888 when an Aarabic translation was found and edited by Ciasca. This is important because it shows that the texts of the Gospels of modern times are essentially the same as the ones that Tatian used when writing the Diatesseron around the middle of the 2nd century. Tatian first read the Gospels because of Justin Martyr, who converted him to Christianity. This means these Gospels go back to around 140 AD in Justin Martyr’s time. The first of the Gospels was written around 60-75AD, the period of time from 75-140 AD is too short of time for essential corruptions in the texts to come about. Von Soden (highly esteemed NT textual expert)agrees with that point.

The more diffused a writing is, then harder it will be for corruptions to sneak into the text in the process of transcription. If the text is diffused throughout an area, then corruptions would be quickly recognized and localized. There are several points that show that the Gospels were widely diffused as early as the first half of the 2nd century. Christians in the first half of the 2nd century were acquainted with the Gospels. Justin Martyr says that the Gospels were read to the people on Sundays at services.-

For the Apostles in the records which they have made and which are called the Gospels, have declared that Jesus commanded them to do as follows. “He took bread and gave thanks and said, Do this in commemoration of Me.”- (I Apology 66. 3)
“And on the day which is called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities or in country districts, and the records of the Apostles…are read as long as there is time.” –(I Apology 67. 3)

For this to happen, there would have to have been many copys of the texts for the different communities. (This Justin Martyr example proves the greek speaking Christians at least had them)
On July 17, 180 AD Proconsul Saturninus of Numidia held a trial and celebrated 12 martyrs from the tiny town of Scillium ordered that the scriptures written in Latin should be burned. This shows that the texts were widely diffused to this area and that Christians were instructed by scriptures, otherwise why else would he have ordered them burned?

As you pointed out, a fragment of the Gospel of John was found in Egypt that dates 140-150AD. The fact that even a piece of the Gospel of John was found in Egypt so soon suggests how rapidly the Gospels were diffused.

Apostolic Fathers from 70-155 AD were well acquainted with scriptures. St. Ignatius of Antioch (died circa 107AD), Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp of Smyrna (died 155/166AD). The Didache (70-100AD) contained around 30 quotations or references from the Gospels.

Given the fact that we have thousands of quotations of the New Testament in the 2nd century, Tatian’s Diatesseron, rapid diffusal of the Gospels at early dates, and many quotations from the apostolic fathers and the Didache, it’s fairly certain that we know that the original Gospels are essentially the same as the Gospels we have today.

I don’t mean to de-rail the original intentions of the thread, please continue discussing the early time line of the Catholic Church

While many of these references were written after the time it is thought that the gospel of Mark is thought to have been written, they would have little to do with what influences helped to develop the Gospel of Mark if they were written after Mark. If they were written at or about the same time as Mark, then it would be likely that they all had an influence on one another to some extent. Many gospels developed in the early history of Christianity. Most were rejected by later leaders of the faith. I would not have an interest in whether they were rightly discarded or wrongly discarded. None, including the four that were eventually adopted were actually written by anyone who ever met the man Jesus. I do find the stories in themselves of interest. It could be argued that Paul met Jesus (post-ascension), but I cannot prove that Paul met Jesus.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[david_ruiz]

‘hidden’ and ‘hard to understand’ are not the same thing. Because the Church says something is hard to understand doesn’t mean they are hiding anything. Without authoritative teaching, many have been finding ‘hidden’ meanings all through the Bible.

Agreed ,there is “teaching” and some have the gift.But notice Polycarp says nothing in this context . What he simply says is to be" well versed" in the Sacred Scriptures .He does not say go into a closet and read, read, read , nor does he say get taught, taught, taught (authoratatively). The responsibility seems to rest on the reader ,the lay person .

 

[david_ruiz]

Where did you get that idea?

Just saying it is in the catechism of the need for the church when studying or knowing scripture,that tradition must teach us Some of the things.At least here Polycarp does not say how but to merely be well versed in scripture for “understanding” (nothing hid).Quite simple.

 

[david_ruiz]

It is not clear to me whether you accept or reject the Catholic teaching. If you reject it, then you reject scripture: “speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)

placido

Good scripture ,thank-you. Perhaps my wording of the catechism was not accurate,but the idea is there,of the need for tradition /church on some scriptural understanding. Polycarp does not say that here, nor does Peter.in 2nd peter 3 .Again ,Polycarp says they studied carefully Paul’s letters.

 

[david_ruiz]

So, because one Father, among dozens of others, doesn’t speak much about tradition – it somehow*** nullifies***** it? What kind of logic is that? Polycarp is writing directly to the Philipians and so mentions Paul’s letter to them. Philipians was not written to each individual Philipian – it was written to the body of Christians** in Philipi. The entire case for Christianity was not summed up in that letter – or ANY** individual Letter.**

As for the interpretation of Scripture not being left to the presbyters – you’re wrong. the Scriptures themselves support this practice:
Acts 8:30-31
***Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” ***
He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

That is the main problem with Protestantism in a nutshell: Everybody interpreting for themselves and ALL claiming that the Holy Spirit inspired them to interpret it differently than their neighbor. The Holy Spirit cannot lead one into error, yet the various denominations ALL have errors that stems from a particular leader’s *personal *interpretations . . .

As for some things being hard to understand – this is ALSO supported by Scripture:
2 Pet. 3:15-16
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

Since you believe that Scripture is our final authority - how could you have missed this?

Thank-you .as far as 2nd peter ,another brother kindly brought that up also ,and my wording could have been better .Perhaps you could cite the catechism where it says something of needing tradition/church for understanding of some scripture -that is all i was trying to say .Peter nor Polycarp do not say that in above quotes,merely to be well versed.As far as Philip,was he interpreting or was he teaching ? There is a difference I believe . I do not see interpreters of scriptures as being one of the giftings of the church that we have listed in scripture , but there are “teachers”,and it does not say they are presbyters.Every believer is to have light ,a fountain of life flowing out to the lost world, but i would not consider that interpreting scripture for the lost world, per say…Again ,I am reading fathers one at a time ,and have only read the first two. You are correct that the journey will take me more and more to Catholic foundation, to things we are apart on. But so far Clements two epistles and Polycarp are right on (may i say they remind me of Billy Graham ,with mostly," the bible (scripture) says", over and over again.

 

[david_ruiz]

**

Fair enough.

Thank-you for the fair enough .As far as tradition,you are right ,he does not condemn it ,but like i said he does not condone it either.You know ,i did not study close enough to see which quotes were scriptural and which were extra-scriptural.As far as scripture being a tradition,I think Polycarp says that the church knew right away what to study carefully(Paul’s letters) and they did not have to wait for a council/church to cannonize "inspired writings) …I think i answered about interpretations above ,but just in case, I never said anything about private interpretation ,I don’t think so .I will repeat ,Polycarp does not say go into closet and read,read,read, nor does he say you need a magisterium either, just be well versed.

 

[david_ruiz]

david,
Both Ignatius and Polycarp were students of St. John the evangelist and both described their church as the Catholic church. There are many instances of other church fathers referring to the Catholic church before the time of St. Augustine. There are also many signs of Hierarchy pior to the time of St. Augustine as well. We have consistent references to the Catholic church from Ignatius all the way through history up to present day. At which point does the term Catholic cease to mean only “universal” and begin to describe the Catholic church?

Thank-you for your calm line of thought and question .Not sure but somewhere ,something happened .One could ask at what time did other “elements” of the church stop being “universal”. The impetus could be on the mother church , for at what point did she start
defining ,even increasing just what "universal 'is ,so much so that that definition is no longer applies to all ? Maybe the universal church is all our shared dogmas ,and we have many.maybe that was enough for Polycarp and Clement .things were simple ,and basic ,this being a christian-you were or you were not .you are written in the book of life or not etc,etc.
Protetsants consider themselves “catholic” also.

 

[david_ruiz]

PRECISELY.
There was (and IS) only ONE Universal Church - not thousands of offshoots with differing doctrines and belief systems.

How can a universal church be universal if she separates from others over doctrines.She is no longer universal .yet Orthodox,and Protetsants are part of that Universal Church. Polycarp says we are a spiritual church since, before the moon and sun.Is not our faith ,the same as Abraham ,is not the mode of operendum the same ,even back to the garden of eden,the promise was handed down,man to man - the just shall live by faith ,since before the foundations of the earth God foreknew our good works… We are all “elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Actually David, a more logical way of reading these books from where you are is this chronilogical order:
Scripture is bolded.

The Epistle of Barnabus
Gospel of John
1, 2, and 3 John
Epistle of Clement
**Revelation **
The writings of Papias
The Epistles of Ignatius
The Epistle of Polycarp
The Letter to Diognetus
The Epistle of Aristides
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Shepherd of Hermas
The writings of Justin Martyr

Ok Thanks

 

[placido]

I know .A Roman Cathoilc must be warmed by the word "catholic ",gaining connection to the early beginnings.

That is prejudice rearing its ugly head.

.It means universal here ,and anything else is conjecture.

It means Universal, yes, and the is what Catholic still means: One, Holy, Apostolic, Universal Church.

For sure ,by Augustines time you have more of a visible heirarchy, and the term could be inclisuve of that, but not here so early.

You have more of a visible hierarchy by Augustine’s time because that is what Jesus predicted … the seed of a mustard developing into a big tree.

Even if it did it is a connection for all of us, for even from your viewpoint ,we (protetstants) are out of Catholicism.

Yes, you are out of Catholicism … like a branch that fell from a tree; it was once part of that tree but is no longer part of that tree.

Again ,when I see"Catholic Church ",in Polycarp ,I see "Universal Church ".

That is what we see too: a visible universal Church with only one set of doctrines. That excludes those teaching contrary, heretical doctrines.

placido

 

[placido]

Not to be the skunk at the garden party, but I’ve read one fundie-Prot excuse, namely that yes, these early references are highly Traditional and Liturgical if not standardly Catholic. Therefore, they insist that the Great Apostasy began early, immediately, directly, with the waning of the Apostolic generation.

That would means that they got the canon of scriptures from an apostate church.

That’s the only way they can reject the strong historical resemblance of the early Gentile church to the later Catholic Church: they admit its “catholicity” but claim that this is merely a very early, very ancient apostasy from “pure Bible-Jesus religion”. It’s a poor excuse and an example of very implausible historical “reasoning”, but it’s all they have in the face of the overwhelming catholicity of the early Greco-Roman church.

A poor excuse indeed!

placido

 

[placido]

Good scripture ,thank-you. Perhaps my wording of the catechism was not accurate,but the idea is there,of the need for tradition /church on some scriptural understanding. Polycarp does not say that here, nor does Peter.in 2nd peter 3 .Again ,Polycarp says they studied carefully Paul’s letters.

You agree that some scriptures are hard to understand, but you don’t think God provided a solution to that. He founded His church for nothing … it can not even guide believers in understanding scriptures since Polycarp does not say that. But we have Polycarp SAYING something about scriptures, why is that? Isn’t it perhaps because scriptures are really hard to understand? Simply because a mathematics teachers tells students to read and study really hard, does not mean the teacher is no longer needed.

placido

 

[placido]

Thank-you for your calm line of thought and question .Not sure but somewhere ,something happened .One could ask at what time did other “elements” of the church stop being “universal”. The impetus could be on the mother church , for at what point did she start
defining ,even increasing just what "universal 'is ,so much so that that definition is no longer applies to all ?

The moment you leave the Mexico, for instance, and give up your citizenship, you are no longer a citizen of Mexico. Whenever people talk about citizens of Mexico you are no longer included. If you want remain a citizen of Mexico don’t give up your citizenship … you understand what I mean?

Maybe the universal church is all our shared dogmas ,and we have many.maybe that was enough for Polycarp and Clement. things were simple ,and basic ,this being a christian-you were or you were not .you are written in the book of life or not etc,etc.

Yes, things like accepting the Eucharist … but the moment you reject that, you are out of the universal church.
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" – Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.
It is worth noting that the Martyrdom of Polycarp was written the same year: 110 AD.

Protetsants consider themselves “catholic” also.

O yes, a person can consider himself a millionaire without being one.

placido

 

[placido]

How can a universal church be universal if she separates from others over doctrines. She is no longer universal.

Yes, those who separated from the Universal Church over doctrine are no longer in perfect communion with the Universal Church; they are our separated brothers.

yet Orthodox,and Protetsants are part of that Universal Church.

Yet Orthodox and Protestants do not see eye to eye over doctrine. They would quarrel over Sacred Tradition, with Protestant rejecting it as heretical; they would quarrel over infant baptism, with some Protestants rejecting it as unBiblical … in fact they would quarrel about almost every doctrine.

placido

 

[JustaServant]

Ok Thanks

I would also suggest you read The History Of The Church By Eusibius ( although a forth century work, it fills in many of the ‘gaps’. I also recomend selected portions of Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews”. The events of 70AD with the destruction of Jerusalem was the 911 of its day, the world (at least for Christians and Jews) changed dramatically.
I would also suggest read these works objectively, not like WC Fields who read the Bible “looking for loopholes”. IOW, put aside your opinions, agreeing or disagreeing with what is written is not what you are doing. You are just soaking up the atmosphere of the first one hundred years of Christianity.
Keep in mind the “forensic evidence” is all we have to work with and the personal integrity of the men who gave them their oral tradition and Christian teachings. Let’s never forget that almost none could read and write in the day – including many of the apostles.
If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles?
I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material. The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.
We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use.
Lets us the American Civil War as an example. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies. But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’.
We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.
BTW, I am using the same historical philosophy used in Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, a Protestant work.

 

[JustaServant]

Thank-you for your calm line of thought and question .Not sure but somewhere ,something happened .One could ask at what time did other “elements” of the church stop being “universal”. The impetus could be on the mother church , for at what point did she start
defining ,even increasing just what "universal 'is ,so much so that that definition is no longer applies to all ? Maybe the universal church is all our shared dogmas ,and we have many.maybe that was enough for Polycarp and Clement .things were simple ,and basic ,this being a christian-you were or you were not .you are written in the book of life or not etc,etc.
Protetsants consider themselves “catholic” also.

“Catholic, as used in the Nicene Creed, means “universal” of “all-embracing”. Jesus Christ intended his church to embrace all people, as he demonstrated in his own ministry to Greeks and Jews, rich and poor,woman or man, free person and slave alike. The early Christians shared this understanding that there were no limitations on who could enter the church”.

page 89 Basics of the Faith: A Catholic Catechism by Alan Schreck

“As Christianity spread through the Roman Empire and beyond in the second and third centuries after Christ, certain small groups began to disagree with the beliefs of the way of life of this universal Church. These groups- the Montanists, Gnostics, Novationists and others-considered themselves the true church of Jesus Christ because they thought they alone faithfully preserved the true Christian teaching and way of life. In order to distinguish it form these small groups, the term “Catholic Church” began to be applied to the large universal Church from which the smaller groups divided. So Catholic was used as a formal name for this great universal body of Christian spread throughout the known world, which also claimed to posses the fullness of Christian truth.”

Compact History of the Catholic Church by Schreck
page 10

 

[elvisman]

How can a universal church be universal if she separates from others over doctrines.She is no longer universal .yet Orthodox,and Protetsants are part of that Universal Church. Polycarp says we are a spiritual church since, before the moon and sun.Is not our faith ,the same as Abraham ,is not the mode of operendum the same ,even back to the garden of eden,the promise was handed down,man to man - the just shall live by faith ,since before the foundations of the earth God foreknew our good works… We are all “elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity”.

You are absolutely correct when you say that a Church is no longer universal when it splits from others over doctrines. THIS is the legacy of Protestantism.

The Orthodox cannot be compared to Protestantism because their split was not a total departure from doctrine. Protestantism, on the other hand, was a divorce from the Catholic Church. And, whereas, the Orthodox can be included in what is called the Church - Protestants can only be considered ecclesial communities in need of return to Christs Church because of their self-divorce.

**As for living by faith - we MUST show our faith by our fruits/works. You cannot simply say that you believe - because even the demons believe and they cannot be considered to be part of the Church.

Finally - just because God "foreknew" our workas - he didn’t cause them. God does not coerce - he gives us a free will to follow him or not.