A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[Guyonthestreet]

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:

Origen also dealt with infant baptism.

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

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

I’m sure there are others out there.

Sabda, this is excellent. Many thanks for taking the time to find it.

 

[JustaServant]

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

I’m sure there are others out there.

Here is a quote by Tertullian around 200AD, some 70 years after this timeline ends:

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’

This is around the time he left the Church for a heretical sect.

 

[JustaServant]

Do the fathers write anything specifically on infant baptism?

Oh yes, much.
Within the 100 year timeline in the OP we have:

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9

From Irenaeus we this quote 50 years after this timeline ends:

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age. Against Heresies 2:22:4

And from Polycrates a decade later:

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7

I can find more if you wish, but it will go beyond the first generation we are focusing on.

 

[guanophore]

the book of ACTS is the best way to know the church as it suppose to be…yesterday…today…and tommorrow.

God loves you…God bless

Really? Where does it say THAT in the book of Acts, or elsewhere, for that matter?

It is interesting that the book of Acts does not say this about itself.

When was the last time you were stoned for preaching the gospel, and if you have not, why are you not living up to the ideal of what it is to be Church?

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

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.

The only problem with assuming the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox is history. There were several schisms before the Great Sschism and, each time, the Eastern Church returned to the fold and swore fidelity to the Bishop of Rome. That shows what the real situation and relationship was between East and West.

The excuse of the wording of the Creed was just that, a theological rationalization for what was at it’s heart, a political move by some Eastern Patriarchs. The majority of Eastern Catholics actually remained with the Church. Today they they are still in Communion with the Church in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.

 

[JustaServant]

Really? Where does it say THAT in the book of Acts, or elsewhere, for that matter?

It is interesting that the book of Acts does not say this about itself.

When was the last time you were stoned for preaching the gospel, and if you have not, why are you not living up to the ideal of what it is to be Church?

What they do not understand is that Acts was only one of several histories written in the early Church. Acts was accepted into the NT. But it does not tell us everything. It’s history though fits snuggly into the other non-NT works written in the first generation. And that would include works written by non-christians like Josephus.
Do you see how they rip the NT books out of the early church historical context and separate them in a way that was never intended?

 

[Memaw]

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. ((NOW whose being judgmental???, Memaw)

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”. ( Have you ever heard of the HOLY SPIRIT? Christ promised to protect HIS Church from error, And HE has.Memaw),

each other. break them apart, they each saw some things differently. Other Gospels were wriiten but not included in the Bible, why? (Because the Catholic Church found them not inspired works, they may be good in some ways but NOT inspired to be included in the Bible.Memaw) I don’t know, I am still learning. Tammy

And for your information, ignorance means 'lack of knowledge" it is not name calling, look it up!! Did you read St. Aloysius on # 147? Might help. Maybe if you looked in the places where you can get the TRUTH of the Catholic Church, instead of those who try to find fault with Christ’s Church, you will decide you are in the right place after all and just need to realize that. As Peter said to Jesus, "Lord where would we go? YOU have the words of Eternal Life!!! Do you really want to trade your Holy Catholic Faith, the Eucharist, the 7 Sacraments, the Love and Protection of Our Blessed Mother, etc. for all that confusion out there??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

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.

Thank You St. Al, ignorance is not bliss if it leads you away from the TRUTH. Not in the long run. Its a good thing I stirred up all this great conversation. Maybe I am not such a bad person after all. God Bless, Memaw

 

[allhers]

JUST MY $0.02 thrown in …
No, I do not believe they ‘forgot’ the meaning of universal … and references such “Catholics” and “Roman Catholic” as identifiers for Christians arose out of the Reformation … with Roman Cartholic being a perjoritive. … and has become almost a necessity since the reformation so quickly degraded the unity [universal] character of Christianity that Jesus so prayed for and wept over in the Garden of Gethsemene. Jesus prayed for us to be one, Paul wrote to the Church [singular] that resided in various geographical locations.

Oh, I don’t know … perhaps it is because every single day a Protestant comes to the Forums to challange and tell us how wrong, stupid, ignorant, unChristian we are … they come to tell us where we are wrong and they are right.

Even your attempt to be rather benign with this “the early church existed before the Roman Catholic church in its current form” is rather insulting IMHO … you see you have just defined the “formm” of the ealy church as any thing but something that resembles the Church without defining what that “form” is …

whereas the OP and others have provided referecnes to “Form” as foundational beliefs [Jesus’s True Flesh & Blood in the Eucharist, Baptism by Immersion and Pouring, Church organization including rspect for the Bishop of Rome as the Succcessor of Peter, compilation of the Scriptures. There are descriptions of the liturgy that are very similar to the Mass today

I believe that they living their life in enjoyment of Christ. The OP is followin their baptismal calling to be a “priest, prophet and king”… They are [to the best of their ability] sharing the Good News of Salvation in Jesus Christ. Jesus gave us a Church not a book, Jesus gave us the Eucharist - His very Flesh and Blood for our Savation, not a mere empty symbolic representation of some long ago meal eaten without purpose. Jesus gave us a visible head to last through the ages with an office that ontinues to this very day that was entrusted with the very “Keys” to heaven. A hierarchy of leadership witht he power to bind and loose our sins - not to condemn us to Hell but to assist us in raching the Christian goal of eternal life with Jesus in Heaven … Yes I believe they know Christmmore fully then you do, they receive His very Flesh and Blood - nourished for the journey … They hear God’s Word Proclaimed and ingest God’s Word … Now that is what I call “Enjoying CHrist”

Now what will you do with this information and how will it impact how you view your faith? If you were not ever aware of the timeline are you aware of the various writings? what these early Christians wrote and thought? - reading their words as they came to more fully apprecate and understand what a faith in Jesus was, the Trinity, how Jesus was God and Man, how God entered into time, the Eucharist …

You see, the Church today is not the same Church. We have fullfilled the mission to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the World … very continent, every country

think of your time line … at one point the Gospel had been spread through Asia and Europe, the ‘known’ world [yes, from the perpsepctive of history written from the Roman Empire and its successors] … they thought that the mission was occomplished … then the Western Hemisphere and all of the peoples found there are a wake up call … there was more “Ends of the Earth” to evangelize …

Today we have a world that runs on technological advances, travel, communications, commerce, science … so yes the Church as all organizations appear or operate differently … but alas things change they also remain the same … The Eucharist - like Jesus- is the same: yesterday, today and tomorrow

Pax Christe

Just stumbled across this thread today, loved the timeline, it reminded me of the ones that the Sisters use to show us in grade school. (wish I had paid better attention then.) History was my downfall.

But…this post is AWESOME too, I mean really, just amazing. You captured it too!!

 

[JustaServant]

Dear JustaServant,
Why do you find it necessary to challenge Protestants? Perhaps it is the Roman Catholic church that looks like (or thinks that it looks like) the early church? That is a matter of perspective, though I think a correct one since the early church existed before the Roman Catholic church in its current form.
I doubt that you will get the response that you desire from this forum. Your baiting is rather too subtle for the average user to respond meaningfully to. May I suggest that you rather enjoy Christ?

1. Looking at the first generation of Christians, have you read the NT books chronilogically? It gives a far different perspective. (especially since the first written was James).
2. Have you read the other non-canonical books within this same generation? Lets go a step further, have you read non-christian works of this period related to christianity (like Josephus)? Both canonical and non-canonical (christian) sources agree with each other.
3. If you have not, why not?

 

[pickguard1]

Yes, interesting in that it shows the CC as a branch off of the mainline Orthodoxy.

Perhaps more of a Y divide can be acceptible to both, … rather than a primary mainline & secondary offshoot

So perhaps soon the < divide will rejoin, Christ returns, and paints a picture for us: <><

 

[allhers]

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

…and lets not forget those Nuns like Mother Angelica’s who have Perpetual Adoration praying for the entire world. EWTN has been such a blessing for so many, reminding some of us what we were taught when younger, and bringing it right into our homes.

Devotions such as the most Holy Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy and so many others…too numerous to mention all at one time.

One last thing…the original missionaries were those Apostles that Jesus chose…today, their sucessors are still missionaries to the world!

 

[pickguard1]

The only problem with that is who can prove who the sucessor is? There is alot of false teaching in the church today…alot of wolves dressed like sheep.

God loves you…God bless

How can you prove Acts was written prior to 1924? of 1756? How can you prove that George Washington was the first president of the US? This is a poor argument.

 

[pickguard1]

I see what you are saying here, but the problem you are talking about, abuses and people leaving or not leaving because of them, is not a small one. \

I can’t see many serious Catholics leaving today over systematic abuses in the Church because actually they are pretty above board, but I occasionally find myself reminding Catholics who are very down on the Protestant Reformers - if the Catholic Church decided to start doing all the things the Reformers were so upset about, and actually did it, many good Catholics would leave. I am sure they would be torn, especially about what it would mean for the idea of the True Church, and obedience, etc. But the kinds of late medieval and Renaissance abused among the clergy, and systematic abuses of the hierarchy would be to much for them to associate themselves with if it was actually happening.

Of course, this is a bit of an anachronism, it isn’t really a good historical way of thinking. But I think it can be helpful for Catholics who are having trouble understanding the Rformers position to think about, as a kind of mind exercise.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, that if there were a profusion of abuses, such as the reformers, particularly Luther, sought to address, many Catholics would likely leave. That doesn’t change the fact that they wouldn’t be justified in doing so. The correct thing to do is to remain, pray and direct one’s focus at correcting the abuses, rather than abandoning ship.

Look at it this way: If the Church is an unsinkable ship, it shouldn’t matter how many icebergs it hits, and leaks it springs along its journey. No one should jump overboard to a very sinkable lifeboat when they know that if given enough time, those leaks will be mended - the ship can’t ever be sunk anyway!

One might also look at it as: if the icebergs chip the paint, the hull is still as indestructible as ever. Jumping off an unsikable ship in rough waters into a newly painted liferaft just because the paint looks nice is a silly thing to do (at least by my estimation ). The paint on the hull can always be repaired.

 

[ATL_Granny]

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

How many pages should I take up in the response? Rather than taking up huge amounts of white space, I’ll just give you a link to each book on Amzaon. You can read the reviews – and each book is under $15.

Stephen Ray is a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. What particularly impressed me with both of these books is that Ray has a true love for our Jewish roots and does an excellent job of explaining the Jewish Culture in which the Apostles lived. I had so many “AhHA” moments when I was able to understand better the dynamic of the culture. Also, I found it extremely helpful that every page has the actual source material at the bottom – not just a link or title. In that way, if you choose, you can stop mid-sentence and look below to see exactly what Ray is referencing rather than flipping to the back of the book or having to go search out the original source material.

For me, these two books have become invaluable reference books.

*Upon This Rock *covers the Primacy of Peter and the Papacy:
amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251137782&sr=1-1

Crossing The Tiber is Stephen Ray’s original book. (The Tiber referring to the river which leads into Rome.) In this book he goes into great detail regarding the Eucharist and Baptism:
amazon.com/Crossing-Tiber-Evangelical-Protestants-Historical/dp/0898705770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251139805&sr=1-1

Socrates – if you’re on the fence about Catholicism, reading these threads is a great tool. However, having a book which you can underline and dog-ear and pull off a shelf goes so much further in helping you understand these critical elements of our Faith.

I wish you well and hope to hear that your fence-jumping days are coming to and end!:extrahappy:

Joyfully in Christ:

ATL Granny

 

[Bluegoat]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, that if there were a profusion of abuses, such as the reformers, particularly Luther, sought to address, many Catholics would likely leave. That doesn’t change the fact that they wouldn’t be justified in doing so. The correct thing to do is to remain, pray and direct one’s focus at correcting the abuses, rather than abandoning ship.

Look at it this way: If the Church is an unsinkable ship, it shouldn’t matter how many icebergs it hits, and leaks it springs along its journey. No one should jump overboard to a very sinkable lifeboat when they know that if given enough time, those leaks will be mended - the ship can’t ever be sunk anyway!

One might also look at it as: if the icebergs chip the paint, the hull is still as indestructible as ever. Jumping off an unsikable ship in rough waters into a newly painted liferaft just because the paint looks nice is a silly thing to do (at least by my estimation ). The paint on the hull can always be repaired.

I tend to agree, if you assume that they still feel confident, to some degree, in the Church’s assessment of what it is. That is, if they think the ship is indeed unsinkable, rather than a kind of Titanic scenario. There would also be the practical problem of how to remain part of the institution without being somehow involved in the abusive behavior.

 

[pickguard1]

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:

 

[pickguard1]

I tend to agree, if you assume that they still feel confident, to some degree, in the Church’s assessment of what it is. That is, if they think the ship is indeed unsinkable, rather than a kind of Titanic scenario. There would also be the practical problem of how to remain part of the institution without being somehow involved in the abusive behavior.

Well, if you’re Catholic (in the sense that you hold to all the doctrines and dogmas of the Church) one of the fundamental doctrines is the Indefectability of the Church - meaning it will be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. What often gets confused is the error of an idividual (or group of individuals) and the Magisterium of the Church. The former having occured since the very beginning (think 1st council of Jerusalem and the dissentions it addressed as well as the writings of St. Paul among others) the latter always preserving what has been handed down. So, if you’re Catholic, a Titanic scenario is an impossibility.

Now human beings are weak, and scandal can easily pull the sheep away from the shepherd, which is why Christ admonished those who will bring scandal, but His guarantee of protection should serve as enough for anyone who witnesses abuse to remain (I can think of plenty of contemporary things done by members of the Church that are scandalous). However, I don’t think that remaining in the Church makes anyone “more at risk” of becoming part of the problem - it’s leaving the flock to the wolves that would be the real practical problem. How does one leave the Church in such a situation without tacitly conceding defeat to the devil?

 

[pickguard1]

Hierarchy was a way of life. in fact it was expected.

Really, it is (yes, even today in our “enlightened” age) the only thing that keeps society from devolving into chaos.

 

[pickguard1]

1. Looking at the first generation of Christians, have you read the NT books chronilogically? It gives a far different perspective. (especially since the first written was James).
2. Have you read the other non-canonical books within this same generation? Lets go a step further, have you read non-christian works of this period related to christianity (like Josephus)? Both canonical and non-canonical (christian) sources agree with each other.
3. If you have not, why not?

JustaServant, do you have an idea as to why the books of the New Testament are ordered the way they are, rather than chronoligically? I had always assumed that they were ordered chronologically (at least the Gospels). Thanks for this thread and the timeline post by the way - truly enlightening!