How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?
The early Christians all believed in the the eucharist, so I’d ask the non RC about the eucharist.
Oh man, don’t get me started on that…over at another forum I frequent we have Eastern Orthodox and other non-Catholics and they call themselves “Orthodox Catholics” and things like that…irritating!I’ve seen this exact same caption on threads before. Many want to use the CATHOLIC title to give themselves credability. So the use of ‘Roman’ is considered just a part of the Catholic Church.
Well, I am Catholic and that’s all, as I don’t live in Rome.
I realize that today we often have to use terms unliked by us just to make it clear to some people.
Ask them if they believe in these 11 key points (there are others of course) but these can all be proven by quotes from the early church fathers. If they do not agree with one or more then they basically disagree with the early church.
Silly RJS…don’t you know we burned all of the documents and forged the rest to support the Catholic view?Ask them if they believe in these 11 key points (there are others of course) but these can all be proven by quotes from the early church fathers. If they do not agree with one or more then they basically disagree with the early church.
They will claim the “real christian church” did not believe in them.
- that baptism is regenerational (i.e., is the means of initiation into the ‘new life’ in Christ)
- that baptism of infants is proper
- that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
- that the Eucharistic celebration is a true, continuing sacrifice, 5) there exists a hierarchy of bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon
- the special authority of the bishop of Rome
- intercessory prayer of the saints
- post-death purification (purgatory)
- tradition as a rule of faith in addition to Scripture, and
- that Mary was immaculate
- that Mary was ever-virgin.
but ask them to provide any sources that call any of these 11 points heresy before the mid 300’s.
:bigyikes:Silly RJS…don’t you know we burned all of the documents and forged the rest to support the Catholic view?
The title of Pope may not have been in existance, but the function of the position was the same. They had the same authority.Well, it must be noted that until around 325 there really was not a title Pope, just the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church has more of a Patriarchal past…
Actually this is not true. Jesus was always God, and this was always taught and declared so so by the Church. It simply didn’t have to be formally proclaimed until some idots came along and challenged it. The date of a proclamation has more to do wirh challenges to the faith than the beginning of a doctrinal belief.Well, it must be noted that until around 325 there really was not a title Pope, just the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church has more of a Patriarchal past. Until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God. Then the Nicene Creed came about and Constantine gave jurisdiction to the Bishop of Alexandra and to The Bishop of Rome. When Constantine moved the Roman Empire to Constantinople that blurred things even more.
The Roman Catholic Church holds that apostolic succession is more or less based on land and location. Which is fine but maybe a bit tautological.
The wording… “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”Christopher’s is undoubtedly the best answer, but you might also point out that “Roman Catholic” isn’t the real name of the Church. It started out as a denigration that modern Catholics simply adopted as our own. I believe the official name is the Church of Christ.