A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Aloysius said:
I
They contend that the early Church was not the Catholic Church at all and I have to protest because our lineage, through Tradition, tells us it was. And there simply was no other Christian church except your various heretical sects. That’s why they left no mark whatsoever on history, they - didn’t exist - while the Catholic Church has a wealth of history from the first years. They brush that off and just insist the Catholic Church is not the early Church. It’s mind boggling! They can chalk up Fathers of the Church as insignificant nobodies in the scheme of Christianity because they aren’t in the Bible. After you explain that they were disciples of the Apostles and their disciples, right through to the present day, they aren’t impressed. They aren’t in the Bible. They refuse to look at history and are content with their theoretical fantasy church. Anything to not have the Catholic Church be who she is.

I’m so glad I found this site where people recognize history, Tradition and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for what it is, the Church of Christ.
Click to expand...
I think of it this way…

Okay, let’s say the early church was not Catholic. Nevertheless, it is through, by means of, because of, the Catholic church and the Fathers of the Church, that we possess Christian scripture today. Without the Catholic church, Europe wouldn’t have believed in the bible at all, but would have remained pagan or become Muslim.

Because it sure wasn’t the “early church,” whatever that is, that went out and evangelized the world and kept Christianity alive. It was the Catholic and Orthodox church. Wtihout a strong central church early Christianity would most likely have bogged down and become just another of the forgotten mystery religions that were numerous in the Roman empire at the time.

There were a variety of heretical Christian groups very early on, which the New Testament itself alludes to, such as the Docetists and Gnostics. Who was it that decided these groups were wrong? The Catholic and Orthodox churches! The early church Fathers!

And it was the Catholic and Orthodox bishops who decided what was Christian scripture, which means Protestants today wouldn’t even have nor believe in scripture if it weren’t already a teaching of the Catholic church!

Protestants take the holy book of an apostate, false religion, the Catholic church, and from that try to construct the true religion! What a total lack of logic. It would be like constructing the true religion from an English translation of the Koran! No sense at all.

Protestant logic is an oxymoron. Definitely mind boggling.
 
They need to watch Coming Home on EWTN.
Look for the truth it in the Catholic Church.
 
jimpres said:
They need to watch Coming Home on EWTN.
Look for the truth in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I think you mean “Journey Home,” Its on at 7 pm, CST, on Monday evenings. It is wonderful program. God Bless, Memaw
 
Bluegoat said:
I don’t think you can actually argue with any validity that there is no evidence of the early heretical or schismatic Christian groups. There is plenty. I don’t think your main point is lost, but it is perhaps best not to say something that isn’t true to back up your argument. Those groups left a variety of documents, other artifacts, and in some cases there are still examples of their descendants around.

Also, keep in mind that different sorts of Protestants that think the Catholic/Orthodox pre-Reformation church was somehow NOT the Church do have different views on how this occurred. Some believe that in fact their is a historical line connecting a rmnant back to the “true” early Church. But this group was, of course, secret, and so left little evidence - though some do actually claim a connection to a real group, so there is evidence of them.

Others, however, think there was a kind of new infusion of the Holy Spirit at some point around the Reformation. Why then? Well, I guess one could equally ask “why then” for Jesus too. Why leave the Jews waiting all that time?

And yet others DO think the pre-reformation Church was part of the real Church, just not in the way they think they were. That is, the Church then, as after the Reformation, was constituted by believers with faith in Christ. The institutional Church was simply the way it was expressed at that time and place.

Now, I think there are good arguments against these positions, but it is worthwhile to understand them. And the third does not perhaps really call for an historical argument to refute it, as it has no real issue with the history, just how it is interpreted.
Click to expand...
With all these different views, its no wonder they, Protestants, are sooo divided on their beliefs. I think its time everyone pulls it all together and follows the TRUTH. Our world is in bad shape and I don’t think God will be mocked forever. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
With all these different views, its no wonder they, Protestants, are sooo divided on their beliefs. I think its time everyone pulls it all together and follows the TRUTH. Our world is in bad shape and I don’t think God will be mocked forever. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I don’t think Protestants see themselves as a sort of “block” though. Catholics sometimes comment on Protestants being so fractured, as if they intend themselves to somehow represent one POV or be one institutional Church. They don’t though. It can be a bit like saying the heritics are fractured, or the non-Christians, and they should try to achieve unity.

In a way, we could say they are all labeled Protestants only due to some historical circumstances, and for convenience, and so people can talk about some similarities of theology.

But even those aren’t absolute - not all Protestants actually have their origins in the same historical thread - the Reformation actually describes a period with several groups breaking away from the RC Church. And as far as theological similarities, mainstream Protestants are a lot closer to Roman Catholics than they are to Mormons, although some would say Mormons are Protestants too.

I think it could fairly be said about all of those groups, even the heretics and the non_christians - that it would be a good idea if people just pulled together and followed the Truth.
 
Memaw said:
Sooooo what else is new??? God Bless them they have to much time on their hands.
Click to expand...
The CARM forums must be seen to be believed. There are Catholics there to defend the faith but they are woefully out numbered on a minutely moderated board. There is one thread claiming the Catholic Church started the KKK.
I haven’t been interacting with these people. I’ve just cut and pasted what I have posted here hoping some lurkers would get to see and consider.
Word of warning to any brave souls out there. There are people on that forum who have…obvious problems and WILL track people down online.
 
Thomas Babington Macauley, an evangelical, said of the Catholic Church:

“She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all.”

The more complete quotation, in all its Victorian eloquence, is here:
victorianweb.org/authors/macaulay/ranke1.html
 
There are people on that forum who have…obvious problems and WILL track people down online.

Truly? If so, this is … :eek:
 
Memaw said:
What do you mean by ‘track people down online’
Click to expand...
I’ll PM you.

Anyway, the responses were interesting in how they deal with the ECFs. They are either ‘medieval forgeries’ or Catholics are misinterpreting the ECFs. Denial is a powerful thing.
 
JustaServant said:
I’ll PM you.

Anyway, the responses were interesting in how they deal with the ECFs. They are either ‘medieval forgeries’ or Catholics are misinterpreting the ECFs. Denial is a powerful thing.
Click to expand...
Thanks, As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said, "The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it and a lie is still a lie, even if everbody believes it. God Bless, Memaw
 
JustaServant said:
I’ll PM you.

Anyway, the responses were interesting in how they deal with the ECFs. They are either ‘medieval forgeries’ or Catholics are misinterpreting the ECFs. Denial is a powerful thing.
Click to expand...
Yep, entering that forum is like entering a whole 'nother world. I remember one person who described the Mass as a “black satanic worship ritual.” None of the other forum members objected to this description. Also on their home page the Catholic Church is listed under the cult section instead of under the Christian section. That ought to tell you all you need to know about their opinion of Catholics.
 
Sabda said:
Yep, entering that forum is like entering a whole 'nother world. I remember one person who described the Mass as a “black satanic worship ritual.” None of the other forum members objected to this description. Also on their home page the Catholic Church is listed under the cult section instead of under the Christian section. That ought to tell you all you need to know about their opinion of Catholics.
Click to expand...
Thier dismissive attitude toward the writings of the ECF’s in the *first generation *of christianity shows their lack intellectual ability. They cannot deal with anything that runs counter to the history they believe.
 
JustaServant said:
Thier dismissive attitude toward the writings of the ECF’s in the *first generation *of christianity shows their lack intellectual ability. They cannot deal with anything that runs counter to the history they believe.
Click to expand...
Whenever I deal w/ that type of fundamentalism, the term ‘obtuse’ comes to mind… they refuse to let logic or the facts deter them from their agenda!
 
I recently stumbled across several MP3 talks that debunk “The Da Vinci Code” at: bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm. The talks are really good, and mostly by Evangelical scholars and pastors such as Darrell Bock from the Moody Bible Institute. In the talks, the scholars quote several of the early church fathers to make their case against Dan Brown’s book. They rightfully present writings from Justin Martyr, St Ignatius of Antioch, St Irenaeus, and many others to make their case that the early Church believed in the divinity of Christ. Why don’t these learned scholars listen to the ECFs more when it comes to doctrine? I found it ironic that one would listen to Justin regarding the divinity of Christ, but not hear his words about the Eucharist. Or to quote St Ignatius of Antioch without considering his words “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
 
bksumm said:
I recently stumbled across several MP3 talks that debunk “The Da Vinci Code” at: bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm. The talks are really good, and mostly by Evangelical scholars and pastors such as Darrell Bock from the Moody Bible Institute. In the talks, the scholars quote several of the early church fathers to make their case against Dan Brown’s book. They rightfully present writings from Justin Martyr, St Ignatius of Antioch, St Irenaeus, and many others to make their case that the early Church believed in the divinity of Christ. Why don’t these learned scholars listen to the ECFs more when it comes to doctrine? I found it ironic that one would listen to Justin regarding the divinity of Christ, but not hear his words about the Eucharist. Or to quote St Ignatius of Antioch without considering his words “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...
Selective reasoning.
 
bksumm said:
I recently stumbled across several MP3 talks that debunk “The Da Vinci Code” at: bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm. The talks are really good, and mostly by Evangelical scholars and pastors such as Darrell Bock from the Moody Bible Institute. In the talks, the scholars quote several of the early church fathers to make their case against Dan Brown’s book. They rightfully present writings from Justin Martyr, St Ignatius of Antioch, St Irenaeus, and many others to make their case that the early Church believed in the divinity of Christ. Why don’t these learned scholars listen to the ECFs more when it comes to doctrine? I found it ironic that one would listen to Justin regarding the divinity of Christ, but not hear his words about the Eucharist. Or to quote St Ignatius of Antioch without considering his words “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...
Sorry to say, they do the same thing with the Bible. Pick and choose, God Bless, Memaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top