It is reasonable, but we can’t be for sure. If you look at them from a historical perspective, as you would look at Christopher Columbus, for example, it is reasonable, but there is a fundamental difference between Scripture and historical documents of the “early church”. Scripture (as Catholics even claim) is inspired and God-breathed. Can the same be said of a letter from Clement?
I am sure this is redundant–but Catholics see the Catholic Church today clearly in the New Testament. It is larger and stronger (as we would hope it would be or we would not be doing what we were told to do by Christ) but it still functions the same today as it did 2000 years ago. We see the same essential structure, we see the same form of worship, we see the same essential way of proclaiming the Word of God.
O.K. I’ve seen this statement at least twice now–what the heck does it mean? Parishes I attend recieve under both species if that is what you are referring to.
ahimsaman72:
. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
I think Acts clearly shows the beginnings of the organizational structure–with the council and the founding of churches in various locations which were watched over and guided–by the installation of leaders like Timothy, visits from Paul when necessary and possible and letters from Paul or Peter or James or John etc. The early churches were watched over and sheparded–they were not left to their own devices. Which is what the Catholic Church continues to do today–doing what it has always done. Each individual church or parish has local leadership–but is watched over and guided by the Bishop. This is exactly what Acts shows happening.
Originally the early Church met in the Jewish synagogs until they were not allowed to. Then they went to houses–because they were a small group and could fit into a house and they had not yet grown to the point where they were large enough or had any funds to build a building to meet in. Certainly the idea of a church building and organizational structure was not foreign to them and is not condemned in the scripture. If they had been able to convert enough Jews I am sure they would have continued to meet in the synagog and to have worshiped there.
And I don’t see how their meeting in houses shows that they were independent churches in the sense that they were their own authority and could ignore Peter or Paul and remain a part of the Church–I know you are swamped so if you have time–I’d be curious how you see this as proving that. Thanks.
The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
As you state yourself above, the book of Acts shows the beginnings of the organizational structure.
Peter, Paul and Timothy and others founded those churches in Scripture as they went on missionary journeys preaching the gospel. Again, early churches in Scripture are not comparable to the Catholic Church today. There was no Bishop of bishops. There was no “vicar of Christ”. There were no indulgences, prayers to saints or Mary. There were no celibate deacons, bishops or presbyters. These were later additions to the faith.
Additions to the faith? or necessary developments required by the growth and spread of the Church as it encountered real life, real problems in the ancient world? The “additions to the faith” you describe are all well documented early developments, either supported by Scripture (prayers to the saints and indulgences) or mandated by Scripture (papacy, celibacy). It is simply untrue that there were no celibate clergy. Christian Cochini documents many early bishops both married and unmarried in his exhaustive treatment of the apostolic origins of priestly celibacy.
Matthew 26:
They were additions.
What was Christ celebrating with His disciples? The Passover Feast. What was this a picture of? His upcoming sacrifice as the Lamb of God. How often was the Passover Feast celebrated? Once a year.
Thank you R for your kind words, but you have to realize the “open the eyes of his heart so that he may receive the Truth” is on the surface condescending and conjectural.
The Truth is Jesus Christ as He clearly claims in John 14:6. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Him. I have received the truth and trusted in Christ as there is salvation found in no other but Him. As Scripture plainly states in Acts 4:12, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”. Not the Catholic name, presbyterian or baptist name. The name of Jesus Christ.
Show me the binding traditions of the Church which are essential to the Christian faith that are not contained in the Bible.
And may Christ always be with you, brother.
The scriptures to which Jesus is referring are those of the Old Testament and not the new. The early Christians viewed the Old Testament as being fully explained using Jesus as the key. It is through Jesus that we make sense of the mysteries locked up in the writings of the Old Testament. One binding Tradition that is not explicitly mentioned in the scriptures is the belief in the Holy Trinity. How about the belief that Jesus is fully God while at the same time fully man…is that mentioned explicitly in the scriptures? How about the immorality of abortion? Is that discussed explicitly in the scriptures? These explanations are in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition, which is why we believe that it is just as much a part of God’s word as the written word.
Prayers of saints in heaven: Rev. 5:8. That saints in heaven participate in our prayer in earth is testified to by the Creed: “I believe in the Communion of Saints.” Communion requires communication. There are several ante-Nicene and ante-Constantinopolitan references to the intercession of the saints but the 3rd & 4th centuries are past the cut-off date for this thread, even though some of the references antedate the Creed.
“The Scriptures (even if just from Moses thru the prophets) point to Jesus as the Messiah. And…” Of course, Christ was referring to the OT in every reference I gave you where He is the speaker as I just quoted myself as saying.
mercygate said:
Eunuchs do not equate to presbyters, deacons or bishops. Nice try.
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.
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.
I would say that just because something does not correspond to ***your ***understanding of scripture does not mean that it is not there. You will say that the Trinity is all over the bible, but the words, “The Trinity is the Tri-Unity of the Godhead whereby the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal” are not. The doctrine of the Trinity was deduced from studying all of those passages of scripture that you mention. To say that you cannot deduce the doctrine of the communion of the saints from a prophetic book would imply that you cannot deduce anything that is not explicitly written in scripture. After all, in the book of Revelation, the population of heaven is enormous, and in Rev 5:8 John says that the twenty-four elders were “holding a harp and had a golden bowl full of incense which are the prayers of the saints.” That would imply that the 24 elders would have knowledge of the prayers of the saints (who are members of the church…even the members of the church in the very future that you gleefully pointed out) and were presenting them to God. Now how in the world does Revelation being a prophetic book take away from the idea of the communion of saints? And if you have an issue with us celebrating feast days of the saints (which, by the way, is not an essential of the Catholic faith, but something we in Louisiana call lagniappe), then you should not celebrate birthdays or anniversaries. Come on now, there is nothing that detracts from the glory of Christ in celebrating people who have dedicated their lives to him, some to the point of martyrdom. And who says that eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven does not equal presbyters or bishops? Why couldn’t it? Recall that celibacy of priests is a discipline in the Western Church that is not maintained in the Eastern Church; in other words, it is not a dogma or doctrine, so it is not an essential. What mercygate does with all of those passages listed is show you how certain disciplines or doctrines may be deduced from scripture…just like what you did with all of the things that I mentioned. I never said that those things (the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the immorality of abortion) were not in the scripture, I just said that they were not explained in detail. We (you and I) have the benefit of hindsight in that these doctrines and disciplines were hashed out way before either of us were born, so what seems so obvious to us may very well not have been obvious to someone in the 2nd or 3rd century.
It’s not about my understanding of Scripture. The whole world of Christendom can understand the concept of the Trinity from the Bible. This is not a subjective belief. This is a universally held belief which is plain as day - which I showed by quoting the verses I did.
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.