A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Agreed. The papacy might be taught by the early church fathers by a different name. Still, how do you see the papacy in this quote by Clement?

"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.
 
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.
I think the argument can also be clearer if we stick to using the “Catholic Church” instead of the “Roman Catholic Church” if we want to refer to the one Church before the Great East-West Schism.

Definitely, the one Church had the finality in the authority in deciding which books contain authentic message as opposed to those with taints of gnosticism prevalent after the Apostolic age.

I appreciate and learned a lot from these threads. Thanks everyone.
 
40.png
drtimstephens:
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 don’t understand what you are trying to do. Are you trying to tell us that the church set up by Christ no longer exists, or that it still exists, but only as an unfaithful representative of Christ and his apostles?
Let us get that one right before moving on.
40.png
drtimstephens:
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.
Preserved by whom?
40.png
drtimstephens:
Elements of the Didache probably did date pre-100AD but what was changed or altered in almost 1000 years?
The same people who preserved the Bible, preserved the Didache. If you suspect them of altering the Didache, then you have no guarantee they did not also alter the Bible.
40.png
drtimstephens:
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.
The problem is … “someone else” told you “The Bible is the most reliable historic document we have from that time period”. You did not take that statement from the Bible. Someone told you and you took his word.
40.png
drtimstephens:
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)”
Do us a favor and identify the Catholic teaching that is contrary to what Clement said above. Keep in mind that what you quoted above is not the totality of Clement’s writings. You introduced Clement not knowing his writings may eventually prove too much for your liking.
40.png
drtimstephens:
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.
You err not knowing Scriptures. Here is the fatal blow: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”
BTW, what would have been the acceptable alternative for you? Would you have liked the eradication of indigenous cultures, including the banning of their languages? What about Greek and Latin – are they not pagan languages? Are they not now known as Biblical languages? For me, a take-over Christianization is better than eradication and destruction.
40.png
drtimstephens:
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? [/INDENT]
I won’t commend … we were warned not to do that. Start a new thread (but, in the mean time, I feel free to tell you, you are collecting spent cartridges to fight a lost battle).

placido
 
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.
The “formality” you refer to was an act of Pope Damasus I around the year 374. At that time he, in his office as Pope, declared these writings to be the complete inspired written Word of God. No more writings can be added to the canon and (more importantly) none can be taken away.

Up until time, including the time of Origen, there was much debate about which writings were divinely inspired. There are many other writings from apostles and the apostolic fathers (those who were taught directly by apostle), but they were not included. This is not to say there is absolutely holy about some of those writings. As far as that goes, the same can be said about many of today’s writings.

The point is, until the Catholic Church declared which writings were canonical, the collection of writings known as the Bible didn’t exist. If that wasn’t true, what other person, government, or group at the time had the authority to formally make such a statement? Remember, every Bible contains at least one writing that is NOT considered to be given DIRECTLY by the Almighty - the Table of Contents. That took time, prayer, study, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and (ultimately) a magesterium which was given authority to make such a claim. (1 Tim 3:14-15)

I hope and pray this helps in all of our understanding of Christ’s church and sacred writings. This is a very healthy discussion and I, for one, have learned a lot from all of you!

Jeff
 
Okay, lets stick with Clement of Rome. Some 60 years after the Ressurection:

The Primacy of Peter/Rome:
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus]** through us**, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1

Apostolic Succession:
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. **For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry **(Letter to the Corinthians 44:1

Justification:
Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. . . . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? . . . So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4

The Mass:
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate** those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices**. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5

These are just a few…
 
You might notice that the Orthodox kept to the catholic - oh I guess I mean Orthodox definition in the filioque question. If you look at that alone, without resorting to real theological discussion, it puts Rome in the “Protestant” position of leaving, not the Orthodox. But again, in a discussion of this particular time line argument, it shows no evidence that the Orthodox were schismatics rather than the Catholics.

I am not sure that bringing in my affiliation is useful, since I’m not actually making an argument for any particular position at all. It seems a bit ad hominem .
Your Overwhelming Ignorance of the Orthodox Question & status today has been made perfectly clear. There are several “Orthodox” Churchs in existence with varying degrees of difference. 1 primary one is that some fo them are in FULL Communion with the RCC.

Time for you to get some facts & stop the nonsensical blathering.
 
Is Justin Martyr the first to write of ‘mixing water with wine’ … for the Eucharist ?

Wonder when this practice first started ?
My understanding is that putting water into your wine was a usual practice in Roman times. They didn’t drink their wine straight, they cut it with water. Just like today many people don’t drink their whiskey straight, they use it with a mixer.

Therefore, ‘mixing water with wine’ would be following common usage.
 
My understanding is that putting water into your wine was a usual practice in Roman times. They didn’t drink their wine straight, they cut it with water. Just like today many people don’t drink their whiskey straight, they use it with a mixer.

Therefore, ‘mixing water with wine’ would be following common usage.
Actually our Priest just talked about this – this pass Sunday. He said that the water was so bad tasting that a little wine was added to water to help make it drinkable.

It could also have been mixed a little so the wine was not as strong to drink at supper (guess not to get drunk all the time).

Another time I heard that the water with wine (at consecration) was to show the last bit of blood was given up by Jesus. I guess if you bleed to death the you get a new injury like the spear then you get small amount of blood and some water (or at least clear liquid) that comes out with this last bit of blood.
 
Your Overwhelming Ignorance of the Orthodox Question & status today has been made perfectly clear. There are several “Orthodox” Churchs in existence with varying degrees of difference. 1 primary one is that some fo them are in FULL Communion with the RCC.

Time for you to get some facts & stop the nonsensical blathering.
Which Orthodox Churches might those be?
 
For those following along who want to see all the Early Church Father Writings and others here is a good reference:

New Advent:The Fathers of the Church

👍

James
Great rescource. Although I am old-fashioned, I like having it my hands as opposed to reading it online.😃
One of the things that shocked me when I was still Protestant was how many of these works were read in the churches as an addition to Scripture. Obviously the New Testament works were read, but so also were Clement (read widely and very nearly made it into the NT canon in the 5th century), but also the Didache, Hermes, and others. It was the TRADITION they held in high esteem, the NT works being part of that tradition.
 
Which Orthodox Churches might those be?
Orthodox Churches that are currently in communion with Rome

Byzantine Greek Catholic Church, Chaldeans. Ethiopian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Syro-Malanka Catholic Church.

and I believe there are more I think about 20 some total.
 
Orthodox Churches that are currently in communion with Rome

Byzantine Greek Catholic Church, Chaldeans. Ethiopian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Syro-Malanka Catholic Church.

and I believe there are more I think about 20 some total.
Those are not Orthodox Churches, they are Catholic Churches. What are generally called Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
Those are not Orthodox Churches, they are Catholic Churches. What are generally called Eastern Catholic Churches.
Yes they are check their History

But this is not a knowledgeable area of mine- There are others that know more- So I will concede that I could be wrong- I have never really investigated this too deeply.
 
Great rescource. Although I am old-fashioned, I like having it my hands as opposed to reading it online.😃
One of the things that shocked me when I was still Protestant was how many of these works were read in the churches as an addition to Scripture. Obviously the New Testament works were read, but so also were Clement (read widely and very nearly made it into the NT canon in the 5th century), but also the Didache, Hermes, and others. It was the TRADITION they held in high esteem, the NT works being part of that tradition.
I think if Protestants (excepting some "Catholic/High Anglicans) knew just how reverent the Catholic Faith is and how truly devoted it is to scripture and prayer they would faint in shame for ever calling Catholics “non-biblical” and feel silly to imagine they thought they were “above” Catholics in their spirituality. It’s really laughable as much as it sad.

Most Protestants just do not have much historical grasp and so do not understand that what most of them are “into” is a secular Christianity which was never before seen in Christendom until the so called “reformers” came along to reform the necessity for striving to be “holy as God is holy” right out of the lifestyle. That “old” “Catholic” idea just didn’t fit in with the new Protestants Pharisaical “forensic” justification theories, theories that looked more like a plagiarism of antinomianism than it did apostolic Christian).

The early Christian Communities often integrated their faith into a pious-religious lifestyle – praying daily and reverenced God as often as they could within their work, home-life and daily habit – especially the Jewish converts (e.g. all the apostles). To the early Christian the church community was for them their true society and their true social-lifestyle and even their government within whatever nation-governments they happened to land in as God blew His Christian-seed wherever He choose. The Catholic monastic/eremitical lifestyle (religious communities devoted to prayer, contemplation of sacred scripture, chastity etc.) evolved very early on in the Church (2nd century) and the Monks who’s habit was to daily pray the 150 psalms helped formalize the Divine Office as we have today. As early as the fourth century, the characteristics of the canonical hours more or less took their present shape.

But most Protestants (and sadly some less informed lay Catholics) have never heard of the Catholic “Liturgy of the Hours/Divine Office”. Our Orthodox brothers, also being very spiritual embrace this too. This living tradition of prayer centered around the psalms, gospel readings, the hymns and writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Saints that is prayed at 7 prescribed times daily – and more in some religious monasteries. It is essentially a non-stop 24/7 east-to-west liturgical continuation of the Holy Mass for public worship of God. ALL consecrated Catholic religious are canonically obligated to pray these daily and increasingly the laity are getting excited about it and are also electing of freewill to join in too; the latter often electing the Little Office of Our Ladyof only 2 daily prayer periods (morning/evening) due to limits of work and family obligations. The Divine Office/LoH is the way that Catholics world wide commune with each other and God in continuous prayer as “One Holy People” set apart for God.

The inspiration for the Divine Office is ancient and comes from the practices of the OT Jews where God commanded the Aaronic priests (c.1280 BC) to offer a morning and evening sacrifice (Ex. 29:38-29). During the Babylonian Exile (587-521 BC), when the Temple did not exist, the synagogue services of Torah readings and psalms and hymns developed as a substitute for the bloody sacrifices of the Temple, a sacrifice of praise. The Psalmists words form the core inspiration: “Seven times a day I praise you” (Ps. 119:164), as well as, “the just man mediates on the law day and night” (Ps. 1:2).

The Jews had Morning and Evening Prayer to accompany the sacrifices and the new exile tradition of prayer at the Third, Sixth and Ninth Hours of the day. The Acts of the Apostles notes that Christians continued to pray at these hours (Third: Acts 2:15; Sixth: Acts 10:9; 10: 3, 13). And, although the Apostles no longer shared in the Temple sacrifices—they had its fulfillment in the “breaking of the bread” (the Eucharist)—they continued to frequent the Temple at the customary hours of prayer (Acts 3:1).

And so we Catholic continue to worship God not only in our daily mass 24/7 around the world but also in the 7 prayer hours of each day. And to this day we have the canonical hours of: Lauds (Morning Prayer) offered at sunrise, Prime (1st hour of the day), Terce (3rd hour, or Mid-morning), Sext (6th hour or Midday), None (9th hour or Mid-Afternoon), Vespers (Evening Prayer) offered at sunset, and Compline (Night Prayer) before going to bed. Catholic Monks being prayer warriors also rose from their sleep all through the night and wee morning hours to give prayer.

More here:
Summary of Liturgy of Hours/Divine Office

Universalis: Online Daily Liturgy of the Hours

James
 
I think if Protestants (excepting some "Catholic/High Anglicans) knew just how reverent the Catholic Faith is and how truly devoted it is to scripture and prayer they would faint in shame for ever calling Catholics “non-biblical” and feel silly to imagine they thought they were “above” Catholics in their spirituality. It’s really laughable as much as it sad.
I remember when I was still a Protestant and attended a Mass (weekday) for the first time. When the priest and lector came in the lector was holding the lectionary above his head. I asked my friend what that was. He explained what it was and that he was holding it over his head to show that it was the word of God. I was shocked- I didn’t know Catholics used the Bible! :eek:
 
To address tehe question, “Does a Peter a Pope make?”…

Pope is simply a title, another name for the Bishop of Rome which Clement was. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and if he were in that position today, he would be called Pope. So, yes, Peter was the first Pope since he was the first Bishop of Rome.

Let’s not confuse the authority of the Bishop of Rome with his title. It is the office that descends from Peter, not any exact title. The King of Russia was also called Czar, but the wording is irrelevant. The office is not.

Pope simply means father from the Italian, papa. It became tradition to call the BIshop of Rome, the head of the Catholic Church, Pope. Because the title didn’t exist in Peter’s time doesn’t mean he wasn’t the first Pope. He was the first in long line of men who have been Bishop of Rome and, as such, he is truly the first Pope.
 
It amazes me when people refer to the Catholic Church as unbiblical when for the first four centuries of it’s existence, there was no Bible. The Catholic Church finally compiled the Canon that we know today as well.

So for 4 centuries the Church existed on scattered texts and Tradition, fighting heresies until it could unify the texts and establish a set of beliefs that would be universal throughout Christiandom. It is those first four centuries closest to Christ that makes Sacred Tradition a pillar of the Church with the Bible as the other pillar.
 
Thanks for the timeline, Justa. Extremely helpful!

👍

I’m personally trying to decide if the Catholic Church is the church i should trust. Can anyone fill me in on when the papacy is first mentioned in the writings of the early church fathers? Or does anyone know who is the first church father who referred to himself as Pope?

Thanks in advance.

🙂
Socrates:

I can think of no better book to help you understand the origins of the Papacy than “Upon This Rock” by Steven Ray. His books have copious footnotes on each page which show the original texts.

His other book, *“Crossing The Tiber” *is also excellent in that it goes into great detail about how the early Church believed in the Eucharist and infant Baptism from the very beginning.

Good luck in your search. I hope you can get off the fence and walk confidently into The Church very soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top