Beliefs of the Early Church

[ahimsaman72]

Fr Ambrose:

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of married Catholic priests. All the Eastern Catholic Churches (Ukrainians, Melkites, etc.) accept it as the norm that their priests have wives and families. I doubt if they or their wives would be happy if they were told they had to stop enjoying the marriage bed!

It is interesting that the Western Church has declared such a doctrine. What is it like in the Russian Orthodox Church? My understanding is that priests are allowed to be married, but I could be wrong

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

You will claim from the Didache that this reflects the early Church.
I will claim that the writings of the Scriptures reflect the early Church. We both have to use documents to support our beliefs. You take your historical document, run it through your knowledge and reasoning and I do the same with the Scriptures.

Once again, you act as though we have only used “historical” documents and not Scripture to support our interpretations but that is incorrect. We have used Scripture primarily and the historical documents show that our interpretation of Scripture is the same as was held by those taught by the Apostles themselves.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

It is interesting that the Western Church has declared such a doctrine. What is it like in the Russian Orthodox Church? My understanding is that priests are allowed to be married, but I could be wrong

Priestly celebacy is not a doctrine of the Latin Church; never has been and never will be. It is a discipline.

I believe that the Russion Orthodox (like the other Orthodox and the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) will ordain married men to the priesthood but that once they are ordained they cannot marry. I also understand that, while it is not doctrine, that the Orthodox Eastern Rite Catholic Churches also do not ordain married men to the Episcopal order.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

This is quite ridiculous. So, if I want to REALLY know what Catholic teaching is, then I have to become a Catholic and experience the Catholic faith? Isn’t the Catechism the guidebook of the Catholic faith? I’ve read that. Doesn’t that count? Or do I have to become Catholic and wait thirty years for understanding the Catholic faith?

This is not reasonable.

No it is not quite ridiculous. What is quite ridiculous is that you feel that because you have read the Catechism, you therefore understand the Catholic faith. No. You misunderstand the Catholic faith by reading the Catechism through your protestant eyes. You are not open to the Catholic faith because it doesn’t fit with your opinion of truth which has been guided by protestantism.

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

Peace Mark,

Mark, as to your first question - what conflicting doctrines are you concerned with here? By far, the majority of protestant Christians agree on essential doctrines of the faith as summed up in the Apostles Creed (which by the way is the earliest on record). So much is said about a division in protestantism but little is acknowledged in the unifying doctrines that we all hold.

Ahimsaman,

I’ve havent had time to be thinking about posts lately-so I’ll have to think about this and try to address the conflicting doctrines later-but I don’t think one can dismiss away this question by saying well we “agree on essential doctrine”. The troubling fact is that if the Holy Spirit is guiding all these people to differing truths–even if you don’t believe they are “essential”–this seems to me to be clearly contrary to the promise of Christ in Scripture that we would be guided to ALL truth. He didn’t say essential truth–He said all truth.

I havent read all the posts in after this yet–and I apologize if I am asking for something you have already provided–but could you provide the Apostles Creed as you know it? Because for starters–and I could be wrong–I wasn’t aware that the majority of other Christians beleived in the Communion of Saints.

The Peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

Those people who do not claim the divinity of Christ and say they are getting that belief from the Bible are misled and misinformed. Their minds are deluded. They cannot see the truth.

One huge concept foreign to the catholic mind is the the concept that people can be blinded to truth.

Blindness to the truth. Those who cannot see it even if it is right in front of them are blinded to the truth.

Ahimsaman,

But those denying the divinity of Christ claim the Holy Spirit guided them to that position–and thats the point. You claim the Holy Spirit has guided you to one truth and they believe the Holy Spirit has guided them to another truth that conflicts with your truth–and you’re both using the same source book–you can’t both be right and you really have no objective way to prove each other wrong. It is hard to believe you can’t see the problem inherent in that. That’s why Christ founded His Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it to all truth. To protect his truth from this subjectivity–from us being mislead.

Your second assertion re: blindness is just flat out wrong. I think many of those you are engaging in discussion here believe (and please don’t take this the wrong way) that you are blinded to the some of the truth. We believe we are clearly showing you something and that even though it is right in front of you you can’t see it. We clearly understand the concept.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

ahimsaman72:

As you state yourself above, the book of Acts shows the beginnings of the organizational structure.

Again, early churches in Scripture are not comparable to the Catholic Church today.
And here we differ in what we see.
There was no Bishop of bishops. There was no “vicar of Christ”.
Why did Paul bother to go and meet w/Peter re: the issue of circumcission(made a mess of that word didn’t I). Why was the issue settled when Peter spoke?
There were no indulgences, prayers to saints or Mary. Because scripture doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Scripture does’t forbid these practices. And I am guessing Mary was still alive while a good many of those letters were written so one might have asked her directly to pray for them as I might ask you today to pray for me.

There were no celibate deacons, bishops or presbyters.
Really? So Paul was not celibate? Paul nowhere in scripture encourages celibacy? And by the way celibacy is not a Church teaching–it is a Church discipline–and there’s a big difference between the two. You need to distinguish between teaching/doctrine and practice/discipline.

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

One huge concept foreign to the catholic mind is the the concept that people can be blinded to truth.

Blindness to the truth. Those who cannot see it even if it is right in front of them are blinded to the truth.

Now, take the word “catholic” out of that quote and insert the word “protestant” and you will have our point of view. My issue with you is not that you disagree with Catholicism. My issue with you is that you feel that Catholicism is wrong because it is at odds with your opinion. To disagree is fine. To debate is fine. To call my opinon “ridiculous” or “not reasonable” because it doesn’t jive with yours is not.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

If I didn’t believe my interpretation was correct, I would be an idiot. Who gives a belief or opinion without believing it to begin with? Of course I believe my interpretation is correct, but I have said in other posts (just recently at one of Catholic4aReason’s posts) that I am a fallible human being and I can be wrong. But, based on my knowledge, experience and knowledge and experience of others who have gone before me I believe I am correct.

Sounds a lot like what Catholics call Tradition to me; using the experience of others to back up your own understanding. Catholics do the exact same thing, and you tell us we are wrong.

 

[mercygate]

mtr01:

Further, it is tradition (and I’m sure one could find some writings to confirm this) that once a married man was ordained to the clergy, he was expected to live like “brother and sister” with his wife. Thus, the clergy were still expected to be celibate even though married.

mtr01,

The Scriptural warrant for this (not counting the warrants for celibacy in general: Mt 19:12, I Cor 1:7, I cor 7:8-9, I cor 7:27-34, I cor 7:38, Mt 19:10, Mt 19:17, 2 Tim 2:4, Jer 16:1-2, I Tim 5:9-16, Mt 22:30), derives from the general instruction (not aimed exclusively at clergy) in I Cor 7:29: “. . . from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.” As you note, mtr01, the tradition of living in continence following ordination is very early.

Christian Cochini’s book, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy deals with this in regard to every known document of the early Church and with every known Bishop of the early Church – some married and some not. It is definitely an essential book for any discussion of celibacy.

The practice of clerical celibacy need not be justified based on a history of its universal practice in the very early Church, but only on the basis that clerical celibacy *definitely *existed – as a response to Our Lord’s personal counsel – and that it was early on adopted as a general discipline in the West because it was experienced (as St. Paul attests) as spiritually enhancing the apostolic ministry.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

But, based on my knowledge, experience and knowledge and experience of others who have gone before me I believe I am correct.

I’d be interested in your definition of who those “others” are; since they clearly do not include those who were taught by the Apostles themselves.

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

IOnly portions of Scripture are debateable. The majority is plain to understand. When I need clarification of a doctrine or belief I look to others.

But, when you are in error but believe yourself to be correct, you do not look to others

I look at those who have gone before me. I also look to my peers. I understand that two heads are better than one, so I take the above approach. That does not mean however, that I need a magisterium or Pope to define my beliefs for me and bind me to them.

God Bless you my friend. You are blinded to the Truth. Those who cannot see it even if it is right in front of them are blinded to the truth. You ignore the guidance of the Church which Christ built. The Church which is “the pillar and foundation” of all Truth so you remain in darkness. Be humble, recognize that there is a possibility that you may be in error, cast out your man made doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. Pray to the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the Truth and you will find it. I will also pray for you.

Peace be with you.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

No it is not quite ridiculous. What is quite ridiculous is that you feel that because you have read the Catechism, you therefore understand the Catholic faith. No. You misunderstand the Catholic faith by reading the Catechism through your protestant eyes. You are not open to the Catholic faith because it doesn’t fit with your opinion of truth which has been guided by protestantism.

It still is quite ridiculous. It would to be true to say that you are not open to the protestant faith.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Now, take the word “catholic” out of that quote and insert the word “protestant” and you will have our point of view. My issue with you is not that you disagree with Catholicism. My issue with you is that you feel that Catholicism is wrong because it is at odds with your opinion. To disagree is fine. To debate is fine. To call my opinon “ridiculous” or “not reasonable” because it doesn’t jive with yours is not.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. You disagree with protestantism because it is at odds with your opinion. Don’t you believe (have an opinion) that the Catholic Church is the one true church? Of course - it’s your opinion/belief based on the evidence you find compelling. I see evidence the other way.

You should find a thicker skin if ridiculous or not reasonable offend you.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Sounds a lot like what Catholics call Tradition to me; using the experience of others to back up your own understanding. Catholics do the exact same thing, and you tell us we are wrong.

Not tradition. You call it tradition. I call it knowledge.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

But, when you are in error but believe yourself to be correct, you do not look to others

God Bless you my friend. You are blinded to the Truth. Those who cannot see it even if it is right in front of them are blinded to the truth. You ignore the guidance of the Church which Christ built. The Church which is “the pillar and foundation” of all Truth so you remain in darkness. Be humble, recognize that there is a possibility that you may be in error, cast out your man made doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. Pray to the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the Truth and you will find it. I will also pray for you.

Peace be with you.

spiritual blindness is everywhere. Be careful it does not consume you as well, dear friend.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

I’d be interested in your definition of who those “others” are; since they clearly do not include those who were taught by the Apostles themselves.

That would be church theologians throughout time. Origen, Augustine, in the old and Luther and Calvin in the new.

We are all taught by the apostles themselves through the God-breathed Scriptures.

 

[mayra_hart]

power from above,power from below. With the coming of the Reformation the revolters rejected the established authority (The Roman Catholic Church) and attempted to establish themselves as the new authority. Of course they could make no legitimate claim to being descendant of the apostles or legitimate authority from above. In order to legitimatize their positions in their revolt they Coined the position of “Power from the congregation” or “power from below”. Basically instead of the pastor or minister being appointed or ordained by a higher authority such as a bishop they are appointed by the congregation, in essence “power from the people”. Today most Protestant and non-denominational churches still hold to this principal. The minister is appointed by the congregation minister it is through congregation that he receives his position as preacher. It is through the on going benevolence of the people of his parish that he continues his work. If he does not fulfill the expectations of his parishioners they if they so desire may terminate his ministry and authority.

There is no biblical precedent for this concept. On the contrary Scripture quite the opposite, it clearly shows “power from above”. It is in Mark 3:13 that we fined the first clerical ordination of the New Testament. Christ ordained the 12 apostles and sent them forth to preach. The apostles understood that they would not be around forever and THEY needed to establish a leadership to pass along their authority from generation to generation. In St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (3:10-11) he explains he laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[mayra_hart]

So in theActs (6:2) the ordination of the seven Deacons of the church of Jerusalem. The implication here is very clear “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom WE (the apostles) may appoint over this business.” in Acts 14:23 we read how Barnabas and Paul ordained presbyter in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. In St. Paul’s letter to Titus (1:5) St. Paul explains it was For this cause he left Titus in Crete, so Titus could set the church in order, and appoint presbyters in every city, as St. Paul commanded; clearly again an example of authority from above not power the congregation.

In St. Paul’s first letter to St. Timothy (who was ordained by St. Paul as a bishop: 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6) St. Paul praises this properly ordained leadership is being worthy of double honor “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.”(1 Timothy 5:17)

These congregationonly ordained Protestant preacher have no true authority through scripture God take serious offense with those who claim to teach or preach in his name without true authority “But the prophet (Religious Preacher), which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak… even that prophet SHALL DIE.” (Deuteronomy 18:20) scripture goes even further to say that we should put the death those who teach or preach a doctin that does not coincide with the truth taught by the true church (the Roman Catholic Church) “And that prophet, (Religious Preacher)… SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God…” (Deuteronomy 13:5) The early Christians also atested to this fact, ONLY approved or ordained men had the apostolic right to preach or teach in the name of Christ. It must be noted that this same church which has the God given apostolic authority to determine who may preach or teach the name Christ also has the God given right to determine stricture . It was The Roman Catholic Church that defined the Canon of the Bible including the new Testament Canon which YOU use Christ also told his Church “He that is not with me IS AGAINST me”(Matt. XII:16).

 

[mayra_hart]

Irenaeus of Lyons “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the Tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus of Lyons “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such as volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul–that church which has the Tradition and the with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church , because if its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic This list of early church fathers could easily be added to but there is no need to. Clearly the early Christians who received their “instructed by (The) apostles” understood that only through the Roman Catholic Church could teachings of Christ the received. NO other organization or person has a biblical , historical or justifiable right to lay claim to this authority. The New Testament is very specific in its warning TRUE Christians against falls teachers/preachers Tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189], 3:3:2).