A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church says.

But it still suggests that Mary is not saved by her Son.

The Immaculate Conception, though it was bestowed by God, still allows Mary to avoid the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ.

You still have not addressed the problem though, about Mary’s mother and other female ancestors. Did Mary’s mother need to also be conceived immaculately?

Do you believe in the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God?

Catholic teaching states Mary needed a savior just as much as the rest of us. The difference is God saved her before she was born. God can not dwell in sin, that’s why His mother needed to be clean.

Mary is not and was not (a) God, she was a vessel, an ark of the new and everlasting covenant. Jesus was the only begotten Son, of the Father, through the Holy Spirit, one God.

 

[Sabda]

I’m well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church says.

But it still suggests that Mary is not saved by her Son.

The Immaculate Conception, though it was bestowed by God, still allows Mary to avoid the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ.

You still have not addressed the problem though, about Mary’s mother and other female ancestors. Did Mary’s mother need to also be conceived immaculately?

No it does not suggest that Mary did not need a Savior, and it does state that Mary was saved by Jesus. If you really did read the paragraph than I have no clue how you missed it because it’s there, very clearly spelled out. Mary’s Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with her mother. It pertains to Christ and his ability to save Mary at her conception, and actually I did deal with the issue of Mary’s mother. I stated God needed His mother clean of sin because he can not dwell with sin. If Mary’s mother was already clean of sin then God would not have needed to see to it that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

 

[Robert_Michael]

No it does not suggest that Mary did not need a Savior, and it does state that Mary was saved by Jesus. If you really did read the paragraph than I have no clue how you missed it because it’s there, very clearly spelled out. Mary’s Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with her mother. It pertains to Christ and his ability to save Mary at her conception, and actually I did deal with the issue of Mary’s mother. I stated God needed His mother clean of sin because he can not dwell with sin. If Mary’s mother was already clean of sin then God would not have needed to see to it that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

I’m on the Catholic side, but must inquire.

Why, then, did God do this to Mary? Could He have not just kept Christ from sin? If God can keep Mary from sin, why couldn’t He keep Christ from sin in the same exact way? Why was making Mary sinless the “only way”?

 

[Canto]

That is hardly biblical justification for Marian dogma. It certainly does not suggest the Immaculate Conception. Certainly does not grant her the title of “Queen of Heaven” or “Queen of the Apostles.”

Luke 1:28 Kechartiomene - the root charito means to grace
Being a perfect passive participle she recieved the grace sometime in the past
Tradition (2 Thes 2:15) says this time was the moment of her conception
So never was Mary without grace
With grace sin will have no dominion over us

Other examples of the perfect include
-Bleesed is the fruit of your womb
-the Word was made flesh
-It is finished

I’m well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church says.

But it still suggests that Mary is not saved by her Son.

The Immaculate Conception, though it was bestowed by God, still allows Mary to avoid the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ.

You still have not addressed the problem though, about Mary’s mother and other female ancestors. Did Mary’s mother need to also be conceived immaculately?

Mary recieved her amazing grace from God (Luke 1:30), so she was indeed saved by her Son, she was just saved before the Cross, God being God was able to do this (without Mary’s Mum, Gran etc being I.C.). So she did need a saviour.

A pure vesel was made for Jesus. It was fitting.

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

Luther said “. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.” (Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Topic of this thread is NOT Marian dogmas. The topic is the timeline. Please observe the forum rules.

 

[JustaServant]

No monkies here. The assumption that the CC can not err and the assumption that the ECFs could not introduce novelty are not part a proper historical approach. They are assumptions of a faith. Whatever is produced by working from those two assumptions is not “history”, but would be better called propaganda (if someone tries to pass it off as history) or a statement of faith (if it is kept in its proper domain).

The same arguments are used by athiests to disprove Christianity.
The writers of the New Testament either wrote as eyewitnesses of the events they described or recorded eyewitness firsthand accounts of the events.

II Peter 1:16
“For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our LORD Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty”.

THAT is the reason I stayed within a 100 framework of time. Also, keep in mind I left out certain documents contemporary to that period, such as Josephus and Roman pagan writers.
The use of historical methods, draws upon authorship, sources, interpretation, style, and bias of the period we are discussing. That is all we have, so therefore our conclusions must be drawn from that narrow field.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs could have introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

Why are you so suspicious and untrusting of The Church Radical?

You are making assumptions that the Church made error and was corrupted. This is not a natural thought that one would have when first encountering a 2,000 year old religion that has outlived all its enemies. Who put the “novel” idea into your head that the church ever erred and is teaching as you like to say “novelties”?

One thing is absolutely clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence - the Holy Spirit is NOT the author of confusion and divisions. Truth does not divide against itself. The legion of Protestant denominations PROVES that denominalization is NOT a fruit of the Holy Spirit but rather a work of the father of all deceit and lies - Satan. Ask yourself where did denominalization first start? You will see that there were factions from the very beginning apostolic era but these were NOT apostolic in nature. The only disputes among the apostles where on the decision to offer up Christianity to both Jew and Gentile and PETER was the ONE who made the first authoritative decision when HE COMMANDED that that Cornelius be baptised. Paul when he met with stiff rejection of the Judising Jews in his travels had to return to Rome to ask Peter what was he to tell them - “is one saved by faith in Jesus” or by “adherence to the Jewish laws and practices” as the Christian-Jews insisted. It is those groups who “taught a different gospel than had been handed down to them” from NON APOSTOLIC SOURCES whom were found worthy of a curse by St. Paul (Gal 1.9). There is very little surviving apostolic teaching to be found in the Protestant Churches. The pattern of error is well establised in the manufactured modern-day Protestant suspicion that you carry forward here into these forums.

You are chasing a canard - there is no legal standard to be found that will give you 100% iron clad certain forensic evidence that what the Catholic Church teaches is the identical faith that was taught in apostolic times. We are teaching the same faith but it is a much more intellectually and spiritually enlightened faith than the average Christian of the day knew. This is in fact EXACTLY what Jesus promised in sending the Holy Spirit. PAUL WAS A FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - HE REVEALED AFTER JESUS’ RESURRECTION the ideas of Jesus as new Adam - and subsequent to Paul our Saints have made the logical connection to Mary as new Eve. Paul spoke often of the Church - there is no way a Protestant can seperate The Church from Jesus or create false “invisible churches”. The notion of a vibrantly interacting Christian Community was integral with Christianity from the very beginning. The Jews were “the chosen people” and NOT a chosen individuals. There is no concept of Jesus as one’s personal Lord and saviour - there is only a notion of God’s Kingdom and THE LORD of that Kingdom. There is no salvation outside of the people of God - no one separates Church from Jesus.

You can’t reason your way into salvation nor gain any grace by speculation and mistrust. Its’ more than a roulette bet on 1 of 35,000 Protestant denominations. Consider the Church first to be true rather than false - and then go see if you can find a reason for it not to be the one True Apostolic Faith.

What Protestant Church claims to be apostolic???

NONE.

QED: Protestantism is only on the very extreme periphery of Christianity and is so alien to what the early Church taught that they are living in a very precarious and deficient faith. Ignorance may mitigate culpability - but ignorance imparts NO GRACE. Think about that since only by GRACE is anyone able to ascend to heaven. No one gained heaven by a grace of ignorance.

James

 

[JustaServant]

The funny part of this is, I am using the same historical philosophy used in Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict, a Protestant work.

 

[jake23]

Life is too short to argue against protestant ignorance! I grew up protestant and wen’t to Liberty University to become a minister and came out catholic instead. Outside of my congregations bible studies and now in a class room reading and learning history I was amazed at all the truths that where ignored or misconstrude by my fellow protestants. The truths are obviouse however if one chooses to ignore the truth then why put energy fighting them? You cannot help someone find the truth if they do not want the truth. They only want there opinion or the opnion they inherited from family.

 

[JustaServant]

Life is too short to argue against protestant ignorance! I grew up protestant and wen’t to Liberty University to become a minister and came out catholic instead. Outside of my congregations bible studies and now in a class room reading and learning history I was amazed at all the truths that where ignored or misconstrude by my fellow protestants. The truths are obviouse however if one chooses to ignore the truth then why put energy fighting them? You cannot help someone find the truth if they do not want the truth. They only want there opinion or the opnion they inherited from family.

The only thing we can do is shine the light. It’s us to them to find their own way.

 

[mackbrislawn]

No monkies here. The assumption that the CC can not err and the assumption that the ECFs could not introduce novelty are not part a proper historical approach. They are assumptions of a faith.

Yes, that’s right, they are assumptions of faith. Of course, another assumption of faith is that the Bible cannot err and that it is inspired. Secular historians do not approach the Bible with that assumption, and so find places where they think it has erred.

What is puzzling is why some people reject the CC because of supposed errors but not reject the Bible because of its errors. Doesn’t seem consistent.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Well, since we (the Martians and us) don’t possess a machine by which we can capture and listen to oral testimony from 1900 years ago…I guess the source material that we can access is limited to the written record and some artwork.

This, of course, explains the Protestant mindset. We would like to look to the records produced by the people who lived at the time of the events and not at the records of people who lived 300 or even 100 years after the events.

And this reveals the whole point: Scripture was not written for Martians. So if you are a Martian, scripture was not written to you. So how do you think you can understand it?

This also applies to anybody else who may not have come from Mars, but who do come from outside of the faith community that produced and preserved the scriptures. How can they understand it? They think they can. But that explains the Protestant mindset–the mindset that believes it can look at records of thousands of years ago, of a different time and place and people and language, and thinks it can understand those ancient records properly.

And it then tries to reconstruct a belief system thereby. A daunting task.
The results of this task are as varied as the multiplicity of denominations who have this mindset.

 

[jimpres]

If anyone has watched Coming Home on EWTN you will see that all faiths who look for the true church come home to the Catholic Church. The truth is out there and if you search you will find it. People at high levels of other denominations convert after seeking the truth. They tell why they converted and the erroneous belief they were taught. Even some stray Catholics come back to the CC.

 

[Radical]

Yes, that’s right, they are assumptions of faith. Of course, another assumption of faith is that the Bible cannot err and that it is inspired.

agreed

Secular historians do not approach the Bible with that assumption, and so find places where they think it has erred.

and in some cases they would be correct in concluding that what we now possess does not perfectly match what was originally written

What is puzzling is why some people reject the CC because of supposed errors but not reject the Bible because of its errors. Doesn’t seem consistent.

It has to do with reliability. Consider these questions:

a) Can we say with great confidence (wrt 1 Cor, for example) that, “Here is what a letter, written by Paul, in the mid-first century actually looked like with only a relatively few uncertain words and phrases”?

b) Can we say with great confidence (wrt the Catholic Marian doctrines, for example) that, “Here is what the apostles actually taught word for word, about Mary in the mid-first century by way of oral tradition, with only a relatively few uncertain words and phrases”?

We can answer “yes” to question (a) and have that great confidence b/c of the wealth of manuscripts that we possess and quotations from the ECFs and based on our ability to compare and analyze them. We can therefore say that 1 Cor reliably reflects apostolic teaching w/o needing to make the same sort of faith assumptions as required for (b). The only way you can answer “yes” to (b) with similar confidence is to assume that if the doctrine shows up later in the historical record, then it must have been continuously (but only orally?) taught from the beginning…and that seems to be continguent on those faith based assumptions.

 

[Radical]

But that explains the Protestant mindset–the mindset that believes it can look at records of thousands of years ago, of a different time and place and people and language, and thinks it can understand those ancient records properly.

well, the mindset also assumes that the CC doesn’t possess a monopoly on access to the Holy Spirit such that it possesses any inside track wrt the endeavor

And it then tries to reconstruct a belief system thereby. A daunting task.

Indeed, one must be driven to pursue such a daunting task by some drastic thing…I don’t know what exactly, perhaps an iceberg that is tipped by attempts to sell “get out of purgatory cards”.

The results of this task are as varied as the multiplicity of denominations who have this mindset.

One shouldn’t ignore that there is considerable agreement amongst Protestant denominations and considerable disagreement within Catholicism

 

[paul_c]

well, the mindset also assumes that the CC doesn’t possess a monopoly on access to the Holy Spirit such that it possesses any inside track wrt the endeavor

Indeed, one must be driven to pursue such a daunting task by some drastic thing…I don’t know what exactly, perhaps an iceberg that is tipped by attempts to sell “get out of purgatory cards”.

One shouldn’t ignore that there is considerable agreement amongst Protestant denominations and considerable disagreement within Catholicism

In general Protestants and Catholic agree on more than they disagree on. A devout Catholic and a devout Protestant may live simularly virtuous lives. The main difference is the sacraments. Catholics have the grace giving sacraments, while Protestants do not.

 

[mackbrislawn]

agreed

and in some cases they would be correct in concluding that what we now possess does not perfectly match what was originally written

It has to do with reliability. Consider these questions:

a) Can we say with great confidence (wrt 1 Cor, for example) that, “Here is what a letter, written by Paul, in the mid-first century actually looked like with only a relatively few uncertain words and phrases”?

b) Can we say with great confidence (wrt the Catholic Marian doctrines, for example) that, “Here is what the apostles actually taught word for word, about Mary in the mid-first century by way of oral tradition, with only a relatively few uncertain words and phrases”?

We can answer “yes” to question (a) and have that great confidence b/c of the wealth of manuscripts that we possess and quotations from the ECFs and based on our ability to compare and analyze them. We can therefore say that 1 Cor reliably reflects apostolic teaching w/o needing to make the same sort of faith assumptions as required for (b). The only way you can answer “yes” to (b) with similar confidence is to assume that if the doctrine shows up later in the historical record, then it must have been continuously (but only orally?) taught from the beginning…and that seems to be continguent on those faith based assumptions.

The thing is, why assume that the bible is inspired at all? Inerrant? Whether the NT manuscripts are copied and translated properly and are a reliable record of apostolic teaching isn’t really the point. Scholars have certitude that our manuscripts are reliably close to the originals. But you need to address the point, is the content reliable? Some historians and theologians (the modern, liberal ones) are doubtful.

 

[mackbrislawn]

well, the mindset also assumes that the CC doesn’t possess a monopoly on access to the Holy Spirit such that it possesses any inside track wrt the endeavor

Indeed, one must be driven to pursue such a daunting task by some drastic thing…I don’t know what exactly, perhaps an iceberg that is tipped by attempts to sell “get out of purgatory cards”.

One shouldn’t ignore that there is considerable agreement amongst Protestant denominations and considerable disagreement within Catholicism

Again, yes, it is a mindset that assumes the CC doesn’t possess a monopoly on access to the Holy Spirit. But what does the Holy Spirit have to do with the question? Oh, I get it–the Holy Spirit guides you in interpreting the bible. Well, that’s what they all say, and they all get different interpretations from the Holy Spirit! So, again, here is another daunting task to convince me that the Holy Spirit is guiding everybody to different conclusions.

Once more, yes, there is considerable agreement amongst Protestant denominations. They all agree on scripture alone and agree that the CC is wrong! However, there are other denominations, too, that probably wouldn’t call themselves Protestant, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, that disagree strongly with Protestants. Nevertheless, these groups go by the Bible and are led by the Holy Spirit!

In regards to disagreement within Catholicism, that’s it, disagreement within Catholicism.

 

[JustaServant]

I still await non-Catholics to give a explaination to the glaring history in front of them.

 

[lax16]

I could, but the fundamentalist/evangelical response is **‘well, Constantine changed the Church **and all these pagan elements came in after 300 years’. I limit this to one generation (roughly 80 to one hundred years). That way we can see the events through the eyes of the people who actually experienced them, or were the children and grandchildren of those early christians. What were they like? How did they think? What did they experience. To walk in their shoes for a short time and see what it was like from the horse’s mouth. How did they view two most important issues that divide Catholics and evangelicals: the Eucharist and Baptism?
Staying within that first generation reveals much.

This is what the Mormons say as well.