Beliefs of the Early Church

[mayra_hart]

an i quoted: " the god ordained religion that moses had helped to set up required the faithful transmission of oral tradition from generation to generation. otherwise the practice of judaism in a way pleasing to god would have been impossible. i had always thought of the jews as “people of the book”, yet the book was not enough! this flew in the face of everything i had ever been taught. and yet, for us christians in this age of grace,had not jesus changed all that? hadn’t jesus condemned all the traditions(binding oral tradition)of the jews when he taught here on earth?the next step in my thinking came when i understood that the answer to that question is an emphatic"no". this was not my own insight;i encountered it in a verse that had been pointed out by scott hahn. jesus actually commanded the jewish people of his day to OBEY the pharisees’ tradition teachings,orally transmitted: " the teachers of the LAW and the pharisees sit in moses’ seat. so you must OBEY them and do EVERYTHING they tell you"(mt23:2–3). but the seat of moses itself is NOT to be found anywhere in the OT! the seat of moses was a product of that historic ORAL TRADITION so important to the israelite faith. jesus gives the authority of tradition his UNQUALIFIED APROVAL and commands his temporaries to OBEY tradition’s precept. they are not given the OPTION of obeying only those tradition they could justify with a “chapter and a verse”. jesus explicitly includes “everything they tell you”. nor are there any “IFS,ANDS, OR BUTS” to qualify the obligation to obey. the main problem jesus have with the pharisees is the evidence in the rest of the passage;they did not obey their own teaching. the authoritative nature of tradition is expressly taught here by jesus himself. we evangelicals have always (rightly, i think) made a rather large point of the fact that jesus gave his aproval to the OT books by qouting from them. we view that as his vote of confidence in their inspiration and canonicity. how could i have gone to BIBLE school,CHRISTIAN college, and seminary without having this verse hit me between the eyes before? it established the fact that tradition(along with scripture)had an absolutely valid right to my belief and obedience if i were living in the time of the old covenant. the protestant dichotomy between truth found in scripture and the truth taught verbally by GOD’S leaders through the generations had no place in jesus’ thinking." thank you david currie.

 

[JRJ26]

there are a few married priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Usually, they are either Anglican or Orthodox priests that convert and were married before. Also, it is clear that Eastern Catholic(not talking about Orthodox) priests are allowed to be married before being ordained.

 

[kepha1]

Which of the following oral traditions that the Apostles taught are not found in the Old Testament?

A) Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

B) Matthew 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

C) 1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

D) All of the above.

 

[mtr01]

WBB:

If the doctrine of the Trinity was plain as day from the beginning of the Church, then why did the Church need a lengthy Council called Nicea to define it? Why was the heresy of Arianism so prevalent in the early church? Perhaps it is because it wasn’t always “plain as day.” Like I said, we have centuries of hindsight and yes, Tradition, to understand it.

This is so very true. Scripture is not always “plain as day”. I would also like to add in the same vein, the belief that Jesus is one divine person with two natures (human and divine) in hypostatic union. I would say the vast majority of Christians hold this belief. However, this is one doctrine that is not evident from Scripture. If Ahimsaman believes this doctrine, I would ask why? Where is that one in Scripture?

And as a little side note, as far a celibacy goes, there are several examples (e.g., 1 Cor 7:25-28, 33-35) of St. Paul urging people to follow his example of celibacy. In fact, he even talks about marriage as a concession - for those who can’t control their urges (1 Cor 7:7-9). As others have mentioned, this is a discipline, not a doctrine. The Church has decided for various reasons that celibacy is to be preferred in the Latin Rite. Even so, nobody is forcing it on anyone. Any man who wants to be a priest, does so knowingly and freely choosing a celibate lifestyle.

 

[WBB]

mtr01:

This is so very true. Scripture is not always “plain as day”. I would also like to add in the same vein, the belief that Jesus is one divine person with two natures (human and divine) in hypostatic union. I would say the vast majority of Christians hold this belief. However, this is one doctrine that is not evident from Scripture. If Ahimsaman believes this doctrine, I would ask why? Where is that one in Scripture?

And as a little side note, as far a celibacy goes, there are several examples (e.g., 1 Cor 7:25-28, 33-35) of St. Paul urging people to follow his example of celibacy. In fact, he even talks about marriage as a concession - for those who can’t control their urges (1 Cor 7:7-9). As others have mentioned, this is a discipline, not a doctrine. The Church has decided for various reasons that celibacy is to be preferred in the Latin Rite. Even so, nobody is forcing it on anyone. Any man who wants to be a priest, does so knowingly and freely choosing a celibate lifestyle.

Ahimsaman has already dealt with the hypostatic union. He quoted the first chapter of John’s gospel as his source. However, I again say that if it was plain as day, why did we have to have the Council of Chalcedon? And thank you for helping me to clarify that the celibate priesthood is a free choice, not a forced obligation.

Brian

 

[WBB]

JRJ26:

there are a few married priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Usually, they are either Anglican or Orthodox priests that convert and were married before. Also, it is clear that Eastern Catholic(not talking about Orthodox) priests are allowed to be married before being ordained.

In the case of the priest I know, he was Methodist. But he is still a priest.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

If the doctrine of the Trinity was plain as day from the beginning of the Church, then why did the Church need a lengthy Council called Nicea to define it? Why was the heresy of Arianism so prevalent in the early church? Perhaps it is because it wasn’t always “plain as day.” Like I said, we have centuries of hindsight and yes, Tradition, to understand it.

Because as Scripture testifies, some will fall away and follow after doctrines of men and will seek after men who will teach them what they want to hear

And about the Book of Revelation, it is prophetic, but it also tells of the liturgy of the Church and its practices, which includes the Eucharistic liturgy and intercessory prayer. Protestants get caught up in the prophecies…the beast has gone from Hitler to the Russians to the Muslims. Catholics see the Book of Revelation as a book of hope whereby no matter the tribulation, Jesus will be with us. In “praying to the saints” it is not one bit different than what Baptists do when they ask Sister Barbara to pray for their sick child, only we ask those who have gone before us and are in the beatific vision to pray for us. There is nothing anti-scriptural about that. Furthermore, in celebrating the lives of the saints, we are not detracting from the glory of Christ. And you still haven’t told me how a prophetic book prevents us from understanding the communion of the saints.

As the parable of Christ concerning the rich man and lazarus explains (Luke 16), there is a great gulf fixed between hell and the earth and the same goes for heaven. You can’t cross over of your own will, can you? The rich man asked that since Lazarus could not help him quench his thirst, that God would send Lazarus to the rich man’s family house to warn them of the agony that awaits those who deny God.

I have told you already about the prophetic book and you have not listened. Follow my progression: 1) Revelation is full of prophecies 2) Revelation is full of symbolism (you don’t really think ten horns come out of “beast” do you?) Of course not. Rev. 5:8 is full of symbolism and not meant for any liturgical or doctrinal purposes. You can’t get there from here.

Priestly celibacy is a discipline which can be changed. It is not an essential. I personally know a priest in the diocese of Lake Charles, Louisiana who is married . He is Catholic. Not Eastern Catholic, but of the Latin Church, so you are wrong in saying that celibacy is obligatory. In most cases, celibacy is the norm, but it is not obligatory because there are married Catholic priests. And even if a practice is introduced after the death of the apostles, it doesn’t mean that it is wrong or anti-scriptural. And the discipline of celibacy is not required of all Christians. Only those Christians who are called to be a priest in the Western Church. The Western Church has the right to define its disciplines just like the Baptists have the right to define that infants are not to be baptized. A celibate clergy in no way detracts from Christ’s glory.

Is it not only allowed for ministers who convert and become priests to remain married? Yes. There are married Catholic priests for this reason alone. It is expected that they be celibate. It is considered the “norm” as you say. My initial challenge still stands. The doctrines of celibacy of priests, prayers to Mary, etc.etc is foreign to the New Testament church. It adds a requirement that Christ never intended.

And I still haven’t had anyone answer my statistical analysis of the supposed 30,000 denoms and the unity that exists rather than disunity. And I haven’t yet seen an answer about the Lord’s Supper that I posted and practice of protestants with regard to it.

 

[ahimsaman72]

JRJ26:

there are a few married priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Usually, they are either Anglican or Orthodox priests that convert and were married before. Also, it is clear that Eastern Catholic(not talking about Orthodox) priests are allowed to be married before being ordained.

Thank you. It is clear most of those are converted priests who are not asked to renounce their marriage. My point exactly.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Ahimsaman has already dealt with the hypostatic union. He quoted the first chapter of John’s gospel as his source. However, I again say that if it was plain as day, why did we have to have the Council of Chalcedon? And thank you for helping me to clarify that the celibate priesthood is a free choice, not a forced obligation.

Brian

This is my point exactly. Yes, you have a free choice. You can be married and be a lay person OR you can be a priest, but must remain celibate. It’s only a free choice in that regard. You do not have the option of being a priest and being married and having children. It simply is not true as can be clearly shown by the Catechism or any other documents of the Roman Church.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

In the case of the priest I know, he was Methodist. But he is still a priest.

But he was a convert to the faith! Yes, he is a priest who is married, but ONLY because he was married and converted. This is not that difficult.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Ahimsaman has already dealt with the hypostatic union. He quoted the first chapter of John’s gospel as his source. However, I again say that if it was plain as day, why did we have to have the Council of Chalcedon? And thank you for helping me to clarify that the celibate priesthood is a free choice, not a forced obligation.

Brian

I quoted a source from the Old and New Testaments. First, Genesis, “Let us make man in our image” and one from the New, John 1, “The Word was with God and the Word was God,” and further in the chapter (vs.14) “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” There are many others, but I just quoted two, one from Old and one from New to prove my point.

The Apostles Creed beliefs would be held 99.9% of protestants.
The disunity of protestants is a myth used to perpetuate the perception that only the Catholic Church is unified and free from error, which is not the case. There are many Catholics today who believe different about core issues that they are required to believe. Example: abortion, contraception, assumption of Mary, etc. The supposed unity of the Catholic Church and its members is a myth just as much as the protestant myth spread by Catholics.

 

[mtr01]

ahimsaman72:

This is my point exactly. Yes, you have a free choice. You can be married and be a lay person OR you can be a priest, but must remain celibate. It’s only a free choice in that regard. You do not have the option of being a priest and being married and having children. It simply is not true as can be clearly shown by the Catechism or any other documents of the Roman Church.

Actually, you don’t have to be a lay person to be married. A married man can be ordained to the permanent diaconate, in which he also receives the sacrament of Holy Orders (therefore he is not a member of the laity).

I still don’t see the problem here with celibacy. It is a rule (discipline) the Church imposed precisely because it has the power to do so. It is perfectly compatible with the teachings of Christ, and St. Paul’s exhortations (i.e., it is biblical).

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

I quoted a source from the Old and New Testaments. First, Genesis, “Let us make man in our image” and one from the New, John 1, “The Word was with God and the Word was God,” and further in the chapter (vs.14) “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” There are many others, but I just quoted two, one from Old and one from New to prove my point.

The Apostles Creed beliefs would be held 99.9% of protestants.
The disunity of protestants is a myth used to perpetuate the perception that only the Catholic Church is unified and free from error, which is not the case. There are many Catholics today who believe different about core issues that they are required to believe. Example: abortion, contraception, assumption of Mary, etc. The supposed unity of the Catholic Church and its members is a myth just as much as the protestant myth spread by Catholics.

Funny, the Apostles Creed is held by 100% of Catholics. You say that many Catholics are not in unity because they don’t believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches. That may be the case, it is our choice to accept or reject Jesus and his Church. But, the official teaching of the church is that to be fully in communion with the Catholic Church, you must believe what it teaches as divine revelation. So people who disagree with the church on crucial issues like abortion, contraception, the Assumption, are not in communion with the Catholic Church. Actually, you could call them protestant for all I care. That is the big difference in our churches. Catholics are called to accept the teachings as binding (that doesn’t mean they always will but the official teaching is that they must), protestants are free to pick and choose like they are at Piccadilly or Luby’s or some other cafeteria because the teachings of their churches are not binding.

 

[ahimsaman72]

kepha1:

Which of the following oral traditions that the Apostles taught are not found in the Old Testament?

A) Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

B) Matthew 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

C) 1Cor.10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

D) All of the above.

Multiple choice questions again? For your amusement, I will say (B), but let me explain why. Those traditions and teachings were to bind the Jew, they were Jewish religious law. “For the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
The levitical priesthood had not changed as of yet.

Christ became the Great High Priest and there is no need to have any other to bind the believer’s conscience. Law and Grace. Which side are you on? That’s the question, but it’s not multiple choice.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Funny, the Apostles Creed is held by 100% of Catholics. You say that many Catholics are not in unity because they don’t believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches. That may be the case, it is our choice to accept or reject Jesus and his Church. But, the official teaching of the church is that to be fully in communion with the Catholic Church, you must believe what it teaches as divine revelation. So people who disagree with the church on crucial issues like abortion, contraception, the Assumption, are not in communion with the Catholic Church. Actually, you could call them protestant for all I care. That is the big difference in our churches. Catholics are called to accept the teachings as binding (that doesn’t mean they always will but the official teaching is that they must), protestants are free to pick and choose like they are at Piccadilly or Luby’s or some other cafeteria because the teachings of their churches are not binding.

Okay, so like I said a while back, if only .0001% of protestants don’t believe in the Trinity or other essential doctrine, that still means to you that they are all in error.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

Because as Scripture testifies, some will fall away and follow after doctrines of men and will seek after men who will teach them what they want to hear

As the parable of Christ concerning the rich man and lazarus explains (Luke 16), there is a great gulf fixed between hell and the earth and the same goes for heaven. You can’t cross over of your own will, can you? The rich man asked that since Lazarus could not help him quench his thirst, that God would send Lazarus to the rich man’s family house to warn them of the agony that awaits those who deny God.

I have told you already about the prophetic book and you have not listened. Follow my progression: 1) Revelation is full of prophecies 2) Revelation is full of symbolism (you don’t really think ten horns come out of “beast” do you?) Of course not. Rev. 5:8 is full of symbolism and not meant for any liturgical or doctrinal purposes. You can’t get there from here.

Is it not only allowed for ministers who convert and become priests to remain married? Yes. There are married Catholic priests for this reason alone. It is expected that they be celibate. It is considered the “norm” as you say. My initial challenge still stands. The doctrines of celibacy of priests, prayers to Mary, etc.etc is foreign to the New Testament church. It adds a requirement that Christ never intended.

And I still haven’t had anyone answer my statistical analysis of the supposed 30,000 denoms and the unity that exists rather than disunity. And I haven’t yet seen an answer about the Lord’s Supper that I posted and practice of protestants with regard to it.

You have NO understanding whatsoever of Catholic teaching. You are defining for the Catholic Church what we teach and believe, and your definitions are not correct. You criticize the Catholic Church for not following the teachings of the bible as you understand them without ever once investigating what the Catholic Church teaches. And it is not enough to sit and read the catechism without someone there to explain it to you. If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about the Book of Revelation, then I suggest you read *The Lamb’s Supper *by Scott Hahn. Then you would understand what I mean about the book of Revelation being about liturgies. Until then, I am finished discussing things with you. I have not once said that you were wrong for what you believe or that the protestants were wrong for what they believe. I have disagreed that they understand fully what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. You on the other hand have defined for the Catholic Church what she believes and teaches and then proceeded to tell her where she is wrong without even realizing that your definitions of her doctrines and practices are not correct. Before you can criticize effectively, you have to know the correct teaching.

 

[mtr01]

ahimsaman72:

Because as Scripture testifies, some will fall away and follow after doctrines of men and will seek after men who will teach them what they want to hear

[snip]

Is it not only allowed for ministers who convert and become priests to remain married? Yes. There are married Catholic priests for this reason alone. It is expected that they be celibate. It is considered the “norm” as you say. My initial challenge still stands. The doctrines of celibacy of priests, prayers to Mary, etc.etc is foreign to the New Testament church. It adds a requirement that Christ never intended.

As has been pointed out, celibacy is a not a doctrine, it is a discipline that is firmly rooted in the New Testament. According to St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 7, NIV):

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs–how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world–how he can please his wife-- 34and his interests are divided.

The Catholic Church is simply following the advice of St. Paul. A priest, more so than a layperson, is to be concerned with the Lord’s affairs. This situation is better than having the priest’s interests divided between the Lord’s affairs and the affairs of the world and pleasing his wife.

I have noticed that the argument about St. Peter has been brought up…that he was married. Let’s not forget, however, that he and the other apostles left everything behind when they followed Christ. Luke 18:28-30 (NIV):

28Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
29"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”

Finally, even though the early Church ordained married men to be priests, you must understand that there were no “cradle Christians” around at the time. All Christians were adult converts (with their children) at first. Most persons eligible for the priesthood would have certainly been married. As a result, it would have been impossible to impose celibacy on them. However, it has been constant tradition that a widower who remarried was ineligible for ordination (St. Paul writes of this…“the husband of one wife”), and those married men who were ordained were expected to live a continent life with their wives as “brother and sister” after ordination. There is nothing inconsistent with the current discipline of celibacy and the practices of the early Church. One of many articles on the topic: Origins of Celibacy.

As for the issue of praying to Saints, I’ll refer you to the tract from Catholic Answers (the parent site) which has quotes from the ECF’s concerning intercession: Intercession of the Saints.

And I still haven’t had anyone answer my statistical analysis of the supposed 30,000 denoms and the unity that exists rather than disunity. And I haven’t yet seen an answer about the Lord’s Supper that I posted and practice of protestants with regard to it.
30,000 or 5,000 it makes no difference. If they hold different doctrines, then they are not unified. As for your other question, I missed it, so I can’t answer it.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

Rev. 5:8 can hardly be used to justify days set aside for saints and praying to them. This is a prophetical book and passage and is set in the future.

Your position is that if something isn’t in Scripture as it now exists then it is error. So this whole thread is pointless, because the early Church did ask the intercession of saints and did pray for the dead. Evidence abounds in the catacombs (and in 2 Maccabees) but what the early Church believed doesn’t count, if I understand you.

Eunuchs do not equate to presbyters, deacons or bishops. Nice try.

Are you using the word “eunuch” to mean literally, “physically castrated” in opposition to Our Lord’s counsel? You were saying that there were no celibate clergy. That is simply not true. Presbyters, deacons and bishops are all in the NT. Is your problem here that the church has embraced for her clergy a discipline counseled by Our Lord himself for the sake of the Kingdom? I’m sure this is not how Scripture undergirds even the most anti-Catholic Protestant thought – though I remember my Protestant catechism very well: If Catholics do something, then it is, ipso facto wrong.

Natural outgrowth is correct. This was not an original doctrine of the early church in the New Testament as you just gladly admitted, it was an error brought about by those who wanted to have authority over others - a power trip.

The authority and the “power” were already entrusted to the Church. Roman primacy was already emerging in the second century and, founded in Scripture, can hardly be called “error.” It can be argued from history that the strength of the Church was a key to the survival of Christianity and to the growth of Christian culture.

Again, you have just shown that this was not an early church belief (NT early church). It was an outgrowth or amalgamation of a church bent on espousing its own unique doctrines.

Indulgences are an instrument of mercy. By what logic does a reasonable development (NOT the abuse, which no one denies!) become “error?” Wait. I know. It is error because because the development has occurred in the Catholic Church.

This thread is about the early Church. The second century Church accepted the primacy of the see of Rome. That’s a “belief of the early Church.” You will doubtless say that because it was a belief of the early Church doesn’t mean that it is right, and besides the Scriptures Catholics use in support of it don’t count. Like the ones in support of celibacy.

These items are clearly not in Scripture as you clearly have just admitted to. They were not original doctrine.

You equate development with error, which Newman so eloquently forecloses in his formidable Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. As others have noted earlier, the formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity represents a “development” of the purest kind – drawing logical conclusions from the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, particularly entrusted to the Apostles is Scriptural. The means of dispensing that mercy developed. Remember those primitive Church penitents. Indulgences were a mercy.

They were developed doctrine.

And aren’t we glad about that! For you, “development” is fatal, notwithstanding the doctrine of the Trinity. For us, it is part of how the Lord continues to enspirit his Church and to live with us and in us.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

I don’t consider interpretation to be conclusive or authoritative. I believe Scripture alone is God-breathed as it claims and is the only authority by which we can be sure is accurate in its original text…

However, you are the one who said that this thread should not be about sola Scriptura and, yet, you are making that the very basis of your position. However, it is the conflicting interpretations of these very texts which are the source of our disagreement on what the Early Church believed.

I have come to the conclusion that you are not really interested in discussing what the Early Church believed but, instead, are only interested in giving your own interpretation of Scripture as though the Early Church agreed with you. Well, their own writings refute your interpretation. I will leave with a question for you and any other non-Catholics reading this. Who is more likely to have understood the fullness of what the Apostles taught; those who were personally taught by them or by those who were only one person removed from being personally taught by them, or us - coming along nearly 2000 years later? Those who were personally taught by the Apostles left writings - outside of Scripture - describing what the Apostles taught to them. These people in turn taught these same things to others who also wrote about what they were taught. None of them reject Scripture but they also accept the authority of the Church which, as I have shown above, is also taught in Scripture.

Don’t take my word for it, go and read what they wrote for yourselves and you will see that much of what Protestantism reads into the Scriptures was completely unheard of until Wycliff. He and the Reformers didn’t rediscover the ancient practice of the Church, the Reformers abandoned that practice.

 

[beng]

ahimsaman72:

And I still haven’t had anyone answer my statistical analysis of the supposed 30,000 denoms and the unity that exists rather than disunity. And I haven’t yet seen an answer about the Lord’s Supper that I posted and practice of protestants with regard to it.

I don’t follow the thread, but that 30,000 denomination is from a Christian Encyclopedia authored by a Protestant, David A. Barret (or Barett)