Catholic Church of than not the Catholic Church of today?

[CrimsonCatholic]

So I get this from time to time, when claiming the Catholic Church of today is the same Church Christ Established in 33AD.

I’ll use St.Ignatius quote from 107A.D. but I have seen some rebuttals of people saying… Well he was talking about the universal church of than, but the Catholic Church of today is not the same Church he was talking about.

I don’t see any evidence supporting this. Just thought I could get some (name removed by moderator)ut from you guys.

Thank you.

 

[FCEGM]

So I get this from time to time, when claiming the Catholic Church of today is the same Church Christ Established in 33AD.

I’ll use St.Ignatius quote from 107A.D. but I have seen some rebuttals of people saying… Well he was talking about the universal church of than, but the Catholic Church of today is not the same Church he was talking about.

I don’t see any evidence supporting this. Just thought I could get some (name removed by moderator)ut from you guys.

Thank you.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, in Asia, which has obtained mercy, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoices unceasingly in the passion of our Lord, and is filled with all mercy through his resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. . . from his Letter to the Philadelphians.

You might ask them just which bishop they are in union with to confirm their unity with Christ.

 

[kepha1]

There is an extensive discussion on this same topic here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=497663

The Catholic Church THEN is not the same as today insofar as THEN they didn’t have cell phones and fax machines. We have truckloads of all sorts of evidence that her teachings remain unchanged, but the problem is not with Catholic teachings, it’s with those who have no doctrinal development. Those who make this charge are actually reductionists. The Church THEN did not have to contend with in vitro fertilization or human cloning. Since reductionist Protestants don’t believe in any kind of central authority, they are reduced to declaring heresy or immoralities based on personal opinion.

*"By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church’s previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm."
*
The History of Eucharistic Adoration
Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/manual/section1/sec1_12a.pdf

Reductionist Protestants do not have this mechanism, and if they don’t have it, then neither should anyone else. Hence the charge: “the Catholic Church is not the same as it was…”

They tried to reduce “faith” without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person’s status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I’m not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.

When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it. If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God, they reject it.

If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it. If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.

My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknowledge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn’t it?

 

[edjco]

Those who claim the Catholic Church today is not the Church it was then, either don’t know their Scripture or think that Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

Maybe you should ask them that…

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

Thank you to everyone who replied to this thread!! The answers are really good, and have helped out so much!

Thank you!!

 

[Ignatius]

So I get this from time to time, when claiming the Catholic Church of today is the same Church Christ Established in 33AD.

I’ll use St.Ignatius quote from 107A.D. but I have seen some rebuttals of people saying… Well he was talking about the universal church of than, but the Catholic Church of today is not the same Church he was talking about.

I don’t see any evidence supporting this. Just thought I could get some (name removed by moderator)ut from you guys.
.

Then you haven’t read Ignatius of Antioch. If you read more of Ignatius, you will see that the details he speaks of perfectly describe the Church of then and now.
Also if you read other very early Church documents. The Didache, a first century description of the Liturgy and administration of the Sacraments shows that htey are identical to those of today.

 

[mark_a]

So I get this from time to time, when claiming the Catholic Church of today is the same Church Christ Established in 33AD.

I’ll use St.Ignatius quote from 107A.D. but I have seen some rebuttals of people saying… Well he was talking about the universal church of than, but the Catholic Church of today is not the same Church he was talking about.

I don’t see any evidence supporting this. Just thought I could get some (name removed by moderator)ut from you guys.

Thank you.

The simplest thing to do is to get these good folks to ask Jews and Muslims. They know who the first Christians were.

 

[expectthebest]

Isn’t this basically what the reformation was about in that the assertion was the Church had morphed in to something it was not originally? Didn’t the reformers believe they were getting back to the Church of the Apostles?

 

[Della]

Isn’t this basically what the reformation was about in that the assertion was the Church had morphed in to something it was not originally? Didn’t the reformers believe they were getting back to the Church of the Apostles?

Not really. They were determined to throw off all authority except their own, rejecting whatever didn’t free them of the Church’s authority, such as penance, the priesthood, liturgy, etc. All these had been a part of the Church from early on. There was no “getting back to the primitive Church” involved. It was more nationalism mixed with bad theology based on morbid scrupulosity and rebellion. Yes, there were things that needed reforming, but those things were easy fixes, entailing a bit of discipline and self-examination by Church leadership. There was no need to throw out doctrine and ancient Church practices. St. Francis was the true reformer, not Luther. If only Luther et al had had the humility of Francis the Reformation would never have happened. There would have been a true revitalization without the splitting up of Christendom.