A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[CentralFLJames]

I’m failing to see how this timeline proves the Roman Catholic Church of today faithfully represents the church setup by Christ and his apostles.

I won’t debate your timeline as it is as you say ‘not exact but close’; but looking at the writings all the way up to the Didache are canonical texts. They have been well preserved through the ages.

Now if you take the Didache, some scholars do date it as early as you have it listed, but the manuscript evidence is weak. What we know as the Didache today is based on a greek manuscript written around 1000 AD. There may be a few other fragments, but nothing like the thousands of manuscripts for the inspired, canonical writings.

Elements of the Didache probably did date pre-100AD but what was changed or altered in almost 1000 years?

The Bible is the most reliable historic document we have from that time period. Not to mention it’s written by inspired people… I’ll take it over what someone else says.

Moving on…
How does Clement’s writings prove Roman Catholicism? Here is a quote where he speaks of faith without works is what justifies us. This is clearly contrary to modern day Catholic teaching.

“So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement’s First Letter, 32.3-4)”

Moving on to my last point…
Now the Roman Catholic church is full of history. It is full of history from pagan religions mixed in with Christianity. I’m sure this will upset you as you read this, but please just look at some of the artwork and statues in and around Rome.

The obelisk in St.Peter’s square - from Egypt, designed for sun worship.
Triton Fountain - monument for the pagan god of the sea.
The Popes ‘accessories’ all have origins in pagan idolatry.

The history and tradition you are holding too has it’s roots in pagan idolatry mixed with the inspired writings of the apostles. Are you claiming that Christ and the apostles sanctioned all the paganism found in the roman religion you hold so dear?

Sure, gee, I can see your point about the Dedache. The Bible Canon was establised in 382AD and so Catholics (who everyone knows are gifted fortunetellers and seers) knew in advance that the pagan Catholic traditions they were using since the first and second century were not biblical (even though there was no bible yet). Those deceptive and tricky Catholics just had to be training a super-secret multi-generational conspiracy team to lay low for about 800 years (the plan passed on secretly from generation to generation) to eventually falsify a fake copy of the Dedache in the year 1000 AD just to cover up the Catholic Church’s anti-Christ plans to take over the world. The Catholics also knew that in just 500 more years that the Protestant uprising lawyers would insist that Catholics show a paper trail to justify all their non-biblical sacred traditions (for a bible that they claim was never canonized till Trent) .

The common thread I see in Protestantism is a deep seated paranoia and suspicion of men and institutions. Doubt and suspicion are the hallmarks of Protestant belief. Everyone is out to steal your salvation and deceive you - everyone but the mentally disturbed egotist Martin Luther huh?

As for Clement - of course you know that he wrote a lot more than that one small blurb and that it is ONLY Protestants who teach that Catholic believe in works based salvation and no Catholic believes that? What Catholics believe is that supernatural charitable works (works of love) MUST follow the person who is being sanctified by grace through faith. And if you read Clements very next paragraph you’d know better.
Chapter 33. But Let Us Not Give Up the Practice of Good Works and Love. God Himself is an Example to Us of Good Works.

What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! (Clement, Clement’s First Letter, 33.1-2*

How about Clement’s Chapter 7. An Exhortation to Repentance? Which repentance seems to be out of vogue these days with most Protestant of the OSAS variety?

Or how about Clement’s Chapter 34. Great is the Reward of Good Works with God. Joined Together in Harmony, Let Us Implore that Reward from Him.?

Or how about Clement’s **Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God. or Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.? **Sure, I can see it now Clement was a closet Protestant. Here Clement exhorts us to maintain the ecclesial order of the consecrated ministerial priesthood (bishops & priests, and deacons) - NOT the SECULAR PRIESTHOOD of most Protestant churches…

Sure, Pope Clement (4th Catholic pope) was a closet Protestant in priestly garb.

Geeze, you Protestants must think you have brass klackers to try to hijack our popes and re-outfit them in Protestant polyester suits or preaching gowns.

As for the last point about the obelisk in St. Peter’s square and the Triton Fountain and Papal implements being pagan - you must be kidding right?

Did it ever occur to you that ALL your language and writing and and alphabet comes for pagan sources??? Better check out that gold wedding band you put on your finger too - yup - you’re using pagan concepts there bro.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued]

The obelisk in St.Peter’s square - from Egypt, designed for sun worship.
Triton Fountain - monument for the pagan god of the sea.
The Popes ‘accessories’ all have origins in pagan idolatry.
…

The Vaticano obelisk in St. Peter’s square is ANCIENT. It was originally installed by Caligula in AD 37 on the wall of the Circus of Nero, flanking St Peter’s Basilica. The Circus of Nero is where we believe the apostle Peter was crucified on an upside down cross. It is fitting that this symbol of Roman oppression is conquered and placed foremost in the area of The Church founded on Peter (and his remains under the center altar). And so the obelisk was moved to its current location in St. Peter’s square in 1586 and that was an amazing engineering feat itself.

A little trivia - it was "exorcized’ before being erected since it did originally have a pagan dedication/connotation. It is the ONLY obelisk that has not toppled since Roman times. It is a symbol of humanity reaching out to Christ. Originally it was inscribed to “Divine Augustus” and “Divine Tiberius” and now dedicated to the Holy Cross with the inscription - “Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat. Christus ab omni malo plebem suam defendat.”(Christ is the victor, Christ is King,Christ is the ruler May Christ defend His people from all evil) . It is topped by a bronze cross. On The east and west sides are inscribed exorcist formulas.

Although the obelisk can tell time/seasons there is no worship of a sun god as hysterical protestants sometimes claim. It’s in plain site 24/7 and I don’t think anyone has ever seen a priest sneak out and worship the sun - have you? And the other so called 8 sided symbols are not Satanic things as you might imagine - is is simple period art integrated in for historical effect. You need to remember that Rome is/was the center of the world and there is a lot more history there than here in the USA’s fledgling 200 years of relatively uninspiring history.

Do you think that Christ would object to this obelisk?? Or are you jealous that Rome has been able to “keep it up” for so long without it toppling?

The Triton Fountain is nothing but a very artistic fountain designed by the famous artist Bernini. He has other more famous works at the Vatican such as the Baldachin (the main altar of the Basilica of St.Peter which is breathtaking), Ecstasy of St. Teresa (one of my favorites), etc. The fountain was to commemorate the restoration of an aqueduct to provide public water. It’s just very good functional art and its not part of any religious building etc. Why do I get the impression you would object to anyone drinking water out of anything more artistic than paper dixie-cup?

As for the Pope’s accessories you will need to be more specific - all of them are very symbolic and related to ancient apostolic christian themes and customs. You need to remember that the Catholic Church is ancient and has outlived most empires, kingdoms and nations and retains a lot of living history within our social culture. Popes at one time had the civil authority of emperors and had to entertain and receive kings, and dignitaries and has some culture still that relates to all that.

James

 

[E.E.N.S]

The Bible is the most reliable historic document we have from that time period. Not to mention it’s written by inspired people… I’ll take it over what someone else says.

Who was it that protected that document (the Bible) so well for all that time? How do you know that it was written by inspired people? And by who’s authority was it that declared which book were inspired and which weren’t? Was that [set of] decision(s) infallible? How do you know for sure?

I know the answers to these questions. Do you?

 

[deanarrca]

This is an error I see often on this forum. Claiming that the Roman church gave us the Bible shows ignorance of early church history. Study the process of canonization for yourself. It was a formality to identify which books were scripture based on their use and acceptance in churches established by the apostles.

It was formalized to keep out false gospels and letters. It’s said that Origen who lived from 185–254AD used the same 27 books we have in our new testament today. Did the roman catholic church tell him what books to use? No, he used the accepted and circulated scrolls that were considered scripture because they came from the apostles… NOT because they came from some political power who adopted christianity because it was popular at the time.

Wrong - There was no unanimous consensus by the early church of the 27 Books that now make up the Closed Canon of Scripture until 397ad

See the Chart I posted in Post #119 of this thread

Also: Here ya go
Quotes from The Deuterocanonical books in The New Testament

However the New Testament Writers did not quote from the following Old Testament books Ezra, Nehemiah,or Esther

 

[Analyticalpoet]

All the peripheral writings of the early Church have an awfully Catholic like mindset to them! Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and the likes all commented on the very Scriptures Protestants use today, yet all these holy men of God had awfully Catholic minds. In fact, Ignatius of Antioch was the first to mention the term Catholic, in relation to the Church of Christ, and he does so to show the Catholicity of Christ Himself!

It is no myth or work fiction that the Catholic Church pondered and acknowledged the Bible, even Luther had the humility to acknoweledge this point, yet it is modern protestantism that wants rewrite history. Someone has already mentioned the Synods of Catharge, Hippo, and Rome which deliniated and identified the Canon of Scripture from all the lists floating around at the time. Marcion proposed one that denied the Old Testment, however; Athanasius, Ignatius of Antioch and a few others had almost identical lists. At these Synods, the Church acknowledged the one of Athanasius (of Constantinople or Alexandria which both were in communion with Rome). From the Synods this Canon, which used the Septuaghint, was accepted without much resistance until the Re(de)formation. Then at the Council of Trent the List was “ratified”!

 

[Analyticalpoet]

One more thing, Luther and a few other protestant re(de)formers wanted to exclude books from NT part Bible. The two that come to mind right now, are the Epistle of James and Revelations, and Luther did remove books from the Old Testament.

 

[JustaServant]

drtimstephens.
Lets try to get re-focused here on the first 100 years, the first generation of Christians. I’ll let you remove the the Didiche and even Barnabus. But Clement and Ignatuis, we have exact dates. You have yet to explain the following:

The Ressurection is now 70 years old, and here is what Ignatuis says about the Eucharist:

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
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.

. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore
Letter to the Ephesians 20.

And, oh, look what Clement of Rome has to say about Saved by Faith and Works, and Not Faith Alone:

“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. ‘For God,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30.

“For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 31.

“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.

Oh, and compare what Ignatuis says about the Eucharist:

…the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.

to what John wrote in his Gospel just twenty years before:

John 6 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

 

[JustaServant]

Also, within a generation we have Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass:

St. Justin Martyr - circa 155

On the day we call the day of the sun [Sunday], all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place [the church].

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. [The Liturgy of the Word]

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. [The homily]

Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. [Prayers of the Faithful]

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. [Sign of Peace]

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. [The Offeratory]

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. [The Eucharistic Prayer]

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’ [The Great Amen]

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” [this is something special… not just bread] bread [Communion], wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

 

[brb2]

Also, within a generation we have Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass:

Is Justin Martyr the first to write of ‘mixing water with wine’ … for the Eucharist ?

Wonder when this practice first started ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

As a lifelong catholic, I am questioning the decisions made by many of the catholic leaders of the long past. There is a difference between the catholicism of the past and today. The Catholic church was originally comprised of many different types of beliefs and interpretations of the different books which later became the bible. The bible was put together during the 3rd or 4th century when the Nicene Convention was held, bringing together the different Christian churches, this is where we get the Nicene Creed and the decision on which books would become the New testament of the bible. I suppose it was at that time that all the books were to be translated in Latin. During the middle ages, many poor did not know Latin and many lived very far from church making it almost impossible to attend. When they did they did not understand what was going on, so the Germans began to have the Bible translated in German so that they could practice the faith in their own homes. What they found was an angry Pope who began a seek and destroy mission of the bibles and those harboring them. It was then that Martin Luther began to feel that many things that were being taught by the Catholic Leaders was not in the Bible. It was there that Protestanism began. Jesus did not speak Latin, The Books of the bible were not in Latin so what was wrong with having the bible translated into all the languages of the world to spread Jesus’ message? Of course the bible is now written in more languages than anyone person could name. The only difference between the two bibles is a book of the old testament in missing in one of them. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Tammyjean-

I think you would benefit from reading a short book that is available for free online…you can find it here:

WHERE WE GOT THE BIBLE: OUR DEBT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
By Rev. Henry G. Graham
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Good reading!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m failing to see how this timeline proves the Roman Catholic Church of today faithfully represents the church setup by Christ and his apostles.

I won’t debate your timeline as it is as you say ‘not exact but close’; but looking at the writings all the way up to the Didache are canonical texts. They have been well preserved through the ages.

Now if you take the Didache, some scholars do date it as early as you have it listed, but the manuscript evidence is weak. What we know as the Didache today is based on a greek manuscript written around 1000 AD. There may be a few other fragments, but nothing like the thousands of manuscripts for the inspired, canonical writings.

Elements of the Didache probably did date pre-100AD but what was changed or altered in almost 1000 years?

The Bible is the most reliable historic document we have from that time period. Not to mention it’s written by inspired people… I’ll take it over what someone else says.

Moving on…
How does Clement’s writings prove Roman Catholicism? Here is a quote where he speaks of faith without works is what justifies us. This is clearly contrary to modern day Catholic teaching.

“So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement’s First Letter, 32.3-4)”

Moving on to my last point…
Now the Roman Catholic church is full of history. It is full of history from pagan religions mixed in with Christianity. I’m sure this will upset you as you read this, but please just look at some of the artwork and statues in and around Rome.

The obelisk in St.Peter’s square - from Egypt, designed for sun worship.
Triton Fountain - monument for the pagan god of the sea.
The Popes ‘accessories’ all have origins in pagan idolatry.

The history and tradition you are holding too has it’s roots in pagan idolatry mixed with the inspired writings of the apostles. Are you claiming that Christ and the apostles sanctioned all the paganism found in the roman religion you hold so dear?

Tough to answer all these unsubstantiated charges in a single post…though the allegations are easy to throw out there, aren’t they?

Perhaps you’d like to post one topic per thread so that we can discuss this issues one at a time in a systematic fashion?

Regarding Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, the point of mentioning this is that it illustrates the authority of the Bishop of Rome exercised over another diocese (Corinth). IOW, the Corinthians accepted Clement’s letter and NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority to intervene. Why? Precisely because Clement was the successor of Peter, the head of the universal Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is an error I see often on this forum. Claiming that the Roman church gave us the Bible shows ignorance of early church history. Study the process of canonization for yourself. It was a formality to identify which books were scripture based on their use and acceptance in churches established by the apostles.

It was formalized to keep out false gospels and letters. It’s said that Origen who lived from 185–254AD used the same 27 books we have in our new testament today. Did the roman catholic church tell him what books to use? No, he used the accepted and circulated scrolls that were considered scripture because they came from the apostles… NOT because they came from some political power who adopted christianity because it was popular at the time.

Since the Catholic Church was founded upon Peter, the rock, and the Apostles, it has existed from the beginning. There was no time in Christian history when the Catholic Church has not existed, and all of the men who wrote the NT were “Catholics”. They were believers in Christ before they were called Christians at Antioch and before they were called Catholic by Ignatius of Antioch, but they were members of the one Church which began calling itself the “Catholic Church” as early as the end of the first century - within the lifetime of John the Apostle.

So, yeah, the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, and the following small book, available for free online lays this out:

WHERE WE GOT THE BIBLE: OUR DEBT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
By Rev. Henry G. Graham
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[pismopal]

You should do the first 400 years…that way we can get the Bible in there too.

Some have to leave the Church out of the equation for very obvious reasons. It is so nice to have it all:thumbsup:

 

[imkingdad]

Feel free, the more info out there the better.
I still await a protestant response.

TY for your series of excellent posts. We/I can always use these types of responses where we have the Knowledgable today combining with the ECF to help educate us all. I gives us good insight to the ECF and can serve as a tool in our attempts at apologitics.

Regards, Vivat Jesus

 

[E.E.N.S]

Regards, Vivat Jesus

Tempus fugit, memento mori.

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Please remain on topic, which is the discussion of JustAServant’s timeline and other information so far.

Other issues, such as the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square should be dealt with in a separate thread.

Off topic posts have been pruned from this thread,

Carry on.
Your servant in Christ,***

 

[RNRobert]

One more thing, Luther and a few other protestant re(de)formers wanted to exclude books from NT part Bible. The two that come to mind right now, are the Epistle of James and Revelations, and Luther did remove books from the Old Testament.

He also added ‘alone’ to the passage in Romans where it says we are saved by faith.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

"Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to the sleeping and the lazy; rather, the violent take it by force (Matthew 11:12) . . . On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid tribute (Matthew 17:27), quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you!’ " (Matthew 19:27; Mark10:28). - Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the Rich Man that Is Saved?” 200 A.D.

Thanks, Tomster, but i don’t see the words Pope or papacy in Clement’s quote. The question i’m hoping this timeline will help answer is this: Does a Peter a Pope make?

 

[sambos671]

Wrong - There was no unanimous consensus by the early church of the 27 Books that now make up the Closed Canon of Scripture until 397ad

See the Chart I posted in Post #119 of this thread

Also: Here ya go
Quotes from The Deuterocanonical books in The New Testament

However the New Testament Writers did not quote from the following Old Testament books Ezra, Nehemiah,or Esther

excellent post.

 

[JustaServant]

Thanks, Tomster, but i don’t see the words Pope or papacy in Clement’s quote. The question i’m hoping this timeline will help answer is this: Does a Peter a Pope make?

Hi Soc.
You’re making a common mistake. You are assuming because a certain word is not there, that means the concept is absent. The word ‘Trinity’ is found nowhere in the Bible. Yet the concept is there. The word ‘Pope’, which means ‘papa’ or ‘father’ is not used in Clement because it is a word that required time to fill in the concept already there.
I suspect the real question you are asking is, was the concept of the Bishop of Rome having authroity over the other churches, present in Clement’s writings?