As Reformation anniversary approaches, the earliest church was Catholic

[catholic1seeks]

Lots of debates and discussions will be centered on how the Protestant movement sought to return to early Christianity – before the Roman Catholic Church corrupted it.

Here is a good summary blog post on early 2nd century Christianity. I think it shows that the basic structure of Catholic belief, practice, and organization was there from the beginning

Feel free to use it and share it. I wrote it a while back. My blog is not really active at the moment, but this post included a lot of research. I hope it helps.

Any other ideas on what I could add?

 

[JonNC]

And Luther never claimed He did.

Straw man

 

[JonNC]

There are few if any things in the early Church that orthodox western non-Catholics would dispute. Most of what we dispute are innovations that happened primarily after the Great Schism, the primary one being universal jurisdiction.

If we were to reset Church teaching to the time if the seventh ecumenical council, there would be considerable unity, including East and West.

 

[stpurl]

It’s a very, very complex situation. At least in its beginnings there were good intentions on both sides, and wrong actions on both sides, but the problem is that in today’s society where every wrong action is considered done on the part of “The Catholic Church” or “The Lutheran Church” or “The Baptist Church” instead of 'individuals within the Catholic Church, individuals within the Lutheran Church, individuals within the Baptist Church", people think that it was ‘just the same’ in AD 1517. It wasn’t.

It was not “The Catholic Church” which sold indulgences. It was not “the Lutheran Church” as we know it today (whether LMS or ELCA) which put up the 95 Theses, OR cut down the 7 sacraments.

And we are all Christians. . .hopefully we’re trying to be good Christians.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I have to disagree. See blog post above. Early Christians even in the 2nd and 3rd century were clear on the role of the bishop, the meaning of the Eucharist, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome - and the necessity of being in union with him. One can claim “innovations” that allow for or justify a break with the church centered in Rome, but you can’t easily get away with saying early Christianity thought the Roman church was so easily dispensable. Cyprian said communion with the “chair of Peter” was necessary to be in the church. Irenaeus said that sure doctrine comes from this church, and that “all churches” in the “whole world” must agree with it. I see any developments in papal doctrine as natural and organic. Some may not be necessary and can change due to circumstance, but the early church set clear foundations for papal supremacy.

And back to the point about non-Christians agreeing with early Christianity. I hardly believe that to be the case. Many Christians today see no necessity in having bishops. Many Christians do not believe in the real presence. And hardly any other Christian group would claim the necessity of looking to Rome for correct doctrine and church unity, as Irenaeus and Cyprian do. And then there’s baptismal regeneration, the role of penance and confession, the communion of saints, and the role of church authority and Tradition, and so on.

 

[JonNC]

I have to disagree. See blog post above. Early Christians even in the 2nd and 3rd century were clear on the role of the bishop, the meaning of the Eucharist, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome - and the necessity of being in union with him.

All of these are true, along with the necessity of him being in communion with the other patriarchs. First among equals, but not supremacy

And back to the point about non-Christians agreeing with early Christianity. I hardly believe that to be the case. Many Christians today see no necessity in having bishops.

That’s why I said orthodox western non-Catholics.