A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[Memaw]

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.

Don’t look now but YOUR ignorance of Early Church History is showing!!, God Bless, Memaw

 

[JustaServant]

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.

Because they are looking at the world through post-enlightenment, post-printing press eyes. I remember overhearing a group of fundamentalists pondering what a church service looked like in the first century. One said 'they probably just met in their homes and had a Bible study. :banghead:

 

[Memaw]

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.

Sorry, but your ignorance is showing too. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JustaServant]

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.

What is even more amazing is that evangelicals on other threads keep insisting the Catholic Church and Her doctrine did not exist in the Bible or in other first generation christian documents. Yet they refuse to READ what those selfsame first generation christians have to say.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

Yes, historical ignorance is bliss if your goal is to alude to some mysterious, invisible Christian Church that existed in the first centuries that wasn’t Catholic. Where are their writings, their traditions, their central figures? They have left no mark on history while the Catholic Church surely has and can support it’s Tradition with ancient documents and histories.

One poster points to Origen as proof that the Church didn’t decide on the Canon of the Bible because Origen used the same 27 NT books. Of course he did. Origen was a well educated techer in Catholic Catechical schools. The proof that the Catholic Church decided on which texts were inspired is the membership of the Council. They were not simply “Christian leaders” they were Bishops of the Church of Rome. Look it up please.

Here’s some of what Origen wrote. Sounds awfully Catholic to me. Again, you have to know early Church history to get it right.

In accordance with those principles Origen constantly appeals to ecclesiastical preaching, ecclesiastical teaching, and the ecclesiastical rule of faith (kanon). He accepts only four Canonical Gospels because tradition does not receive more; he admits the necessity of baptism of infants because it is in accordance with the practice of the Church founded on Apostolic tradition; he warns the interpreter of the Holy Scripture, not to rely on his own judgment, but “on the rule of the Church instituted by Christ”. For, he adds, we have only two lights to guide us here below, Christ and the Church; the Church reflects faithfully the light received from Christ, as the moon reflects the rays of the sun. The distinctive mark of the Catholic is to belong to the Church, to depend on the Church outside of which there is no salvation; on the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks in darkness, he is a heretic.

 

[Tomb54]

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 .

I actually maybe wrong here but if I remember right, there was a delegation of Eastern part of the Church when filioque was discussed and included in the Nicene Creed to fight heresies at the time. The problem came when this delegation got back to the East and there was an outcry about the change and the eastern church back home did not agree with the delegations decision and went back to the old version. The inclusion was to fight the Arian controversy to the struggles over Nestorianism (a view that Christ consisted of two distinct natures) and Monophysitism (a view that Christ has only one nature), and the so-called Meletian schism.
On more thing I found was an Eastern Church actually introduced it first.
However, a regional council in Persia, in 410, introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in its version the creed, specifying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.”)

No saying I am right but I think it was more a power struggle between to men than anything else. Corrections welcomed because I do not remember were I read it and I am not sure I can find which book it was in.

 

[tammyjean34]

Memaw, it is because of people like you and your judgemental attitude that has me leaving the catholic church today. I came on this site to be encouraged, educated and accepted. What I have seen on this site is more of the negative, arguing as opposed to sharing, judging as opposed to acceptance and un Christ-like name calling, You can be as educated as you believe that you are, but the kingdom of heaven will be waiting when you get out of your catholic purgatory repenting for your non Christian behavior.
And for your information, I have been educating myself a lot on the early Christians behavior and information is available other than the bible and the vatican website.How could the Catholic church even be “organized” in the first century? The Apostles all began preaching the word of God in the different corners of the world and their Gospels were not put on “paper”. The Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were kept because they were the closest to each other. break them apart, they each saw some things differently. Other Gospels were wriiten but not included in the Bible, why? I don’t know, I am still learning. Tammy

 

[catholicsuffer]

I love this thread. If I showed it to my Protestant daughter, and my Protestant twin brother, they wouldn’t even take the time to read it. They would probably say. I don’t read that catholic stuff and I don’t want to discuss it.

I know those feelings well. I was witnessing to my sister whom claims to be a minister(protestant), cast out demons, speak in tongues, the works. And I thought that she was listening and then one day I was telling her about an experience that had occur to me with Saint Mary and she turn around and walk off into her trailer as I was talking. Needless to say the last Vision I had that help me to quit drinking and she wanted to know was not shared with her, nor will any more be.
This is a great thread! As a non-catholic, I must admit that it was the history of the early church that convince me that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Memaw, it is because of people like you and your judgemental attitude that has me leaving the catholic church today. I came on this site to be encouraged, educated and accepted. What I have seen on this site is more of the negative, arguing as opposed to sharing, judging as opposed to acceptance and un Christ-like name calling, You can be as educated as you believe that you are, but the kingdom of heaven will be waiting when you get out of your catholic purgatory repenting for your non Christian behavior.
And for your information, I have been educating myself a lot on the early Christians behavior and information is available other than the bible and the vatican website.How could the Catholic church even be “organized” in the first century? The Apostles all began preaching the word of God in the different corners of the world and their Gospels were not put on “paper”. The Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were kept because they were the closest to each other. break them apart, they each saw some things differently. Other Gospels were wriiten but not included in the Bible, why? I don’t know, I am still learning. Tammy

Should Peter have left the Church when he was rebuked by Paul? Or how about the people that James was calling ignoramuses? Should they have left the church too? Leaving the Church because someone rebuked you or had a poor attitude is not a good reason, (and needless to say, since the members of the Church are human, you are going to run into people with attitudes you don’t care for anywhere you look.)

 

[Tomb54]

Memaw, it is because of people like you and your judgemental attitude that has me leaving the catholic church today. I came on this site to be encouraged, educated and accepted. What I have seen on this site is more of the negative, arguing as opposed to sharing, judging as opposed to acceptance and un Christ-like name calling, You can be as educated as you believe that you are, but the kingdom of heaven will be waiting when you get out of your catholic purgatory repenting for your non Christian behavior.
And for your information, I have been educating myself a lot on the early Christians behavior and information is available other than the bible and the vatican website.How could the Catholic church even be “organized” in the first century? The Apostles all began preaching the word of God in the different corners of the world and their Gospels were not put on “paper”. The Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were kept because they were the closest to each other. break them apart, they each saw some things differently. Other Gospels were wriiten but not included in the Bible, why? I don’t know, I am still learning. Tammy

You keep on learning Tammy and I am sure it will point you back to either the CC or the Orthodox Church. There will always be people that get under your skin and to live like Jesus we must all overcome our negative feelings that come from these comments. As far as acceptance, the early Christians never accepted the actions or believes of those around them if they felt they were against the church, church teachings, sacred tradition or not Christlike. Sometimes it take perseverance and love to change attitudes. There are many on both sides of the road who thinking winning is more important than actually discussing the topics with an open mind. Many Protestant would be surprised how close the beliefs between us really are if they would not be so set against the word Roman Catholic Church. Please just look with an open mind and check out how long the churches were around, what they taught over the years (not necessarily how the people acted), and how true is it to what the early Church Fathers taught. If you decide to stay maybe you can help the church be more loving as St Francis did in his day. In fact you might want to read about him too as the church during is day was in bad shape too and with direction form the Holy Spirit he pointed a new direction and renewal of faithful back to the early teachings of the church.
Unfortunately the church seems to go through these purges ever so often because of men and the devils attacks on it but thanks to the Holy Spirit the teachings of the church on Jesus and God has remained constant through the ages.
I am sad to say I get frustrated too and make comments I should not and I think most here at times do. You need to look with Love to all and I offer my best wishes on your journey in faith.

 

[JustaServant]

Memaw, it is because of people like you and your judgemental attitude that has me leaving the catholic church today. I came on this site to be encouraged, educated and accepted. What I have seen on this site is more of the negative, arguing as opposed to sharing, judging as opposed to acceptance and un Christ-like name calling, You can be as educated as you believe that you are, but the kingdom of heaven will be waiting when you get out of your catholic purgatory repenting for your non Christian behavior.
And for your information, I have been educating myself a lot on the early Christians behavior and information is available other than the bible and the vatican website.How could the Catholic church even be “organized” in the first century? The Apostles all began preaching the word of God in the different corners of the world and their Gospels were not put on “paper”. The Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were kept because they were the closest to each other. break them apart, they each saw some things differently. Other Gospels were wriiten but not included in the Bible, why? I don’t know, I am still learning. Tammy

Tammy, forums are made up of all types of people, some will be nice, others not. That’s the nature of the beast we call the internet. It’s just something you have to get used to. Not saying you should accept it, just be aware of it.

Now, as to your questions. In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our ‘modern’ society is. Without our gagets and toys, we are no different than they were. Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the ‘third world’. African and native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of thier culture far more than our so-called ‘enlightened’ society.
I say all this because I suspect you are looking at these ancient people, as I did, through 21st century western eyes. That is a grave error. Because we are far from being superior.
Was the Church organized in the 1st century? A reading of the works I cited in the OP reveals they indeed were. It was embryonic, yet that culture and time demanded organization. That’s the way the ancient world was.
You’re right, not everything was ‘on paper’. It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown.
Was the early Church caotic? Not at all. There was a common thread that connected all of them.
It was the Eucharist.
Hierarchy was a way of life. in fact it was expected.

 

[Birdchest]

Hello Socrates, I might recommend Karl Adams’ Spirit of Catholicism. You can find it at the EWTN website, although it is also in print. I read it last week, and it has a chapter on the bishops and the Bishop of Rome. The term “Pope” is anachronistic to the first century-however, we (RCs) would say that the primacy of Peter was always recognized. Witness the overwhelming attention given to St Peter over the other apostles, in the NT. Also there is Matthew 16:18ff, John 21:15ff and Luke 21:30f. Then there is the fact that he went to Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire. It seems to me that once you connect the dots you get a “pope”. Sure, not all the doctrine was fully developed all at once. But then the Trinity wasn’t defined till the fourth century either. It’s a question of the Church drawing out all the implications of revelation, whether written or handed down orally. Hope I’m being clear. I am a revert to the Church, but it took me a while to be convinced. And now I am! Regards, birdchest.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

Thank you, Granny. Please tell me, what do the books say?

 

[RNRobert]

Hello Socrates, I might recommend Karl Adams’ Spirit of Catholicism. You can find it at the EWTN website, although it is also in print. I read it last week, and it has a chapter on the bishops and the Bishop of Rome.

Awesome book- I second the recommendation! I have a 1954 paperback copy that I’m currently re-reading (picked it up in a second hand book sale a dozen years ago).

 

[RNRobert]

Memaw, it is because of people like you and your judgemental attitude that has me leaving the catholic church today. I came on this site to be encouraged, educated and accepted. What I have seen on this site is more of the negative, arguing as opposed to sharing, judging as opposed to acceptance and un Christ-like name calling, You can be as educated as you believe that you are, but the kingdom of heaven will be waiting when you get out of your catholic purgatory repenting for your non Christian behavior.

Tammy, as others have pointed out, you will meet all kinds of people on this forum. I would also point out (from experience) that the apoloegtics forum can be quite contentious at times. There are other, less rough and tumble areas here- You might want to check out the spirituality forum- I usually head there when I need a rest from the vigorous debating on some of the other forums. CAF also has various groups that cater to various interests- you might want to check them out.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

And, oh dear…look at what the Didache says about Baptism:

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. **Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days **Didache 7:1.

I think the biggest protestant objection Ive seen regarding baptism is not the formula but the fact it is babies that are being baptised.

The above from the didache is obviously referring to adults - bolded part. Do the fathers write anything specifically on infant baptism?

 

[imkingdad]

Memaw, it is because of people like you and your judgemental attitude that has me leaving the catholic church today. I came on this site to be encouraged, educated and accepted. What I have seen on this site is more of the negative, arguing as opposed to sharing, judging as opposed to acceptance and un Christ-like name calling, You can be as educated as you believe that you are, but the kingdom of heaven will be waiting when you get out of your catholic purgatory repenting for your non Christian behavior.
And for your information, I have been educating myself a lot on the early Christians behavior and information is available other than the bible and the vatican website.How could the Catholic church even be “organized” in the first century? The Apostles all began preaching the word of God in the different corners of the world and their Gospels were not put on “paper”. The Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were kept because they were the closest to each other. break them apart, they each saw some things differently. Other Gospels were wriiten but not included in the Bible, why? I don’t know, I am still learning. Tammy

Tammy, I sincerely hope you can find your way through the wilderness & remain a Catholic. I noticed somethig in your various conversations that perhaps you might care to reflect upon. As a Catholic it is our Responsibility to conform to the Church. We are not to expect nor desire the Church to conform to us.

Please do not let Pride or any other sinful tendency obstruct that mission. Let us all pray for a Meekness & Humility that will allow us to submit in Faith to the third Pillar, the Teaching Magistarium. yours in Christ.

 

[Sabda]

I think the biggest protestant objection Ive seen regarding baptism is not the formula but the fact it is babies that are being baptised.

The above from the didache is obviously referring to adults - bolded part. Do the fathers write anything specifically on infant baptism?

There is something actually. I’m looking for it right now and not having much luck finding it. In the early Church there was a debate over infant baptism. However, the debate was not whether the infant should be baptized but when the infant should be baptized. Some believed that since baptism replaced circumcision and circumcision in the Jewish custom was done at 8 days old, baptism should also be done at 8 days old. Others debated that waiting tell 8 days was not needed or something to that affect. There is a letter that deals with this. Like I said I’m looking for it.

 

[Sabda]

Found it! Source is The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I by William Jurgens. Page 233.

Letter of Cyprian and of his Colleagues in Council to the Number of Sixty-Six: To Fidus. A.D. 251/252.

He states:

As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.

If in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another.

Origen also dealt with infant baptism.

He states in his Homilies on Leviticus, post A.D. 244. Page 208

Every soul that is born into the flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin… And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned consideration the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.

and his Commentaries on Romans, post A.D. 244. Page 209

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.

I’m sure there are others out there.

 

[holy_moly]

Because they are looking at the world through post-enlightenment, post-printing press eyes. I remember overhearing a group of fundamentalists pondering what a church service looked like in the first century. One said 'they probably just met in their homes and had a Bible study. :banghead: