Catholic Church, the Early Church?

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry, I’m not being very clear here. My apologies.

Yes, you are quite right in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral being Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. The UMC is totally behind that. They DO believe in Prima Scriptura, which only means that instead of ‘Scripture only’ or ‘Sola Scripture’, UMCs believe that of all the four parts of the Quadrilateral, Scripture is first. Prima. It’s a pretty common term and even though they don’t use Latin much, most educated Methodists would know what it means.

They would know what it means, but I don’t think they teach it that way in their Sunday Schools. I never heard the term “Prima Scriptura” until I started on this Board. My mother is Methodist, and I’ve never heard her use that term, or any other Latin term, to describe her beliefs.

 

[Tomyris]

Hello all, so recently I have been discussing Christianity and it’s history with a non-Catholic colleague. I was mentioning certain things about doctrine and how it related with the Early Church. One thing led to another and I said that the Early Church IS the Catholic church. I thought this was common knowledge, but my colleague was adamant that it was not. I tried showing her the Apologetics section on CA, but she won’t accept it as a credible source because it is “obviously biased towards Catholics.” Are there any sources from non-Catholics that agree that the Catholic Church is the Early Church?

John Calvin, for one. The Reformed have never considered there to have been a separate Church that was not the Catholic Church yet was valid. The critique on the Catholic Church is more on the lines of corruption, particularly in the leadership. At the risk of throwing the thread off-tangent (all the Catholics are now muttering the “gates of hell” passage) I will stop there. But I think most Protestants regard there to have been one church from the beginning. Must people do not consider Calvin anything of a Catholic sympathizer, so he should suffice as a non-Catholic source.

The only alternate theory is the “Trail of Blood” theory: the true church was persecuted from the beginning, first by the Romans, then by the state church instituted by Constantine, then by the papacy, now by Muslims, Communists and secular humanists. The theory does not hold up to examination, although there are some elements of truth in it. I think some Baptists hold to it.

What is her alternative? I would pursue that.

 

[guanophore]

If you want to learn about the early church you can read some of the early writings. This website has many of the writings of the leaders in the early church for the first few centuries:
earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

You can also look for secular Roman history books that mention the Christian church. This may be less biased than a Catholic or Protestant church historian.

Here is a link to J.N.D. Kelly’s book Early Christian Doctrines. archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n0/mode/2up
He was an Anglican and was a Professor of Theology at Oxford and his book is quoted a lot. I think he was quoted earlier in this thread.

Please be careful Susan! Reading books of this kind, studying the writings of the Early Fathers, and the historical development of doctrine (as it seems like you are doing) is what made me Catholic.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Please be careful Susan! Reading books of this kind, studying the writings of the Early Fathers, and the historical development of doctrine (as it seems like you are doing) is what made me Catholic.

Studying the Early Fathers, most especially the Ante-Nicene Fathers, is one of the crucial factors that led me to discern not to convert to Catholicism.

In His Grace

 

[Tomyris]

Studying the Early Fathers, most especially the Ante-Nicene Fathers, is one of the crucial factors that led me to discern not to convert to Catholicism.

In His Grace

Yes. Studying them may convince anyone that many Catholic apologetic arguments that float around here are at best at times misleading, and at worst outright fraudulent. Info gets ripped out of context and added to other quotes to form patterns that can vary widely from the sources. I no longer waste time reading multi-page quotes someone pastes together to try to prove something. I read the sources in context instead.

The cry of the Reformation was “ad fontes”: to the sources, and part of the rejection of church teaching was the realization that the church was not teaching what the Early Church taught. I mean ‘realization’ here in the sense that it became real to them that that what was happening. Whether that realization was valid is another issue.

The picture is complicated by the fact that there really is enough information out there that no one human being could possibly read it all and synthesize it systematically. A further complication is their issues were not our issues, and reading backwards to derive meaning about a later issue from an earlier source is an anachronism. For example, Augustine argued against Pelagianism: to use his works to determine whether he bought into the idea of quantum mechanics would be ridiculous. In his case he was florid enough with his prolix logorrhea that it can be difficult to determine exactly what he is saying. His rhetoric gets in the way of his message.

 

[jmcrae]

Studying the Early Fathers, most especially the Ante-Nicene Fathers, is one of the crucial factors that led me to discern not to convert to Catholicism.

In His Grace

My first impression of them was negative, too, and I was thinking, Thank God we know better today.

Until I thought that through logically, and realized, Oh, wait. Whoops. Yeah. Okay, Christianity isn’t what I thought it was.

 

[guanophore]

Studying the Early Fathers, most especially the Ante-Nicene Fathers, is one of the crucial factors that led me to discern not to convert to Catholicism.

In His Grace

Interesting. How did that happen?

 

[guanophore]

Yes. Studying them may convince anyone that many Catholic apologetic arguments that float around here are at best at times misleading, and at worst outright fraudulent. Info gets ripped out of context and added to other quotes to form patterns that can vary widely from the sources.

One has to wonder how it is you have been able to tolerate being here for such a long time! This post makes it sound like you have encountered nothing life giving at CAF.

Have you become beset with an anti-Catholic virus recently?

 

[PRmerger]

Methodists don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

This guy seems to disagree with you:

revbrentwhite.com/2014/09/17/united-methodists-affirm-sola-scriptura/

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This guy seems to disagree with you:

revbrentwhite.com/2014/09/17/united-methodists-affirm-sola-scriptura/

??? I can’t seem to sort out what he is saying or who he is talking about. The most I get is a few paragraphs on the historical Anglican 39 Articles. And since Wesley was an Anglican of the 18th C, the UMC believes in Sola Scriptura? Am I getting this correct?

Regardless, the UMC does not believe in Sola Scriptura, as I have said, but rather Prima Scriptura, supplemented by 2) Tradition, 3) Experience, and 4) Reason.

“While we acknowledge the primacy of Scripture in theological reflection, our attempts to grasp its meaning always involve tradition, experience, and reason. Like Scripture, these may become creative vehicles of the Holy Spirit as they function within the Church. They quicken our faith, open our eyes to the wonder of God’s love, and clarify our understanding.”

 

[guanophore]

Methodists don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Prima Scriptura, yes, as do many other denominations, such as the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.

This is interesting. I was part of a Methodist community for about 5 years and they were SS.

Catholics, Latin and otherwise (there are 23 Rites) are not Prima Scriptura. We have received the Teaching of the Apostles that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are equal and complimentary strands of divine revelation.

 

[PRmerger]

??? I can’t seem to sort out what he is saying or who he is talking about. The most I get is a few paragraphs on the historical Anglican 39 Articles. And since Wesley was an Anglican of the 18th C, the UMC believes in Sola Scriptura? Am I getting this correct?

Regardless, the UMC does not believe in Sola Scriptura, as I have said, but rather Prima Scriptura, supplemented by 2) Tradition, 3) Experience, and 4) Reason.

“While we acknowledge the primacy of Scripture in theological reflection, our attempts to grasp its meaning always involve tradition, experience, and reason. Like Scripture, these may become creative vehicles of the Holy Spirit as they function within the Church. They quicken our faith, open our eyes to the wonder of God’s love, and clarify our understanding.”

Firstly, who speaks for the UMC? Do they have a Magisterium?

And secondly, who defines what Sola Scriptura is? Prima Scriptura (a term which is, AFAIK a novelty) sounds to me just like Sola Scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

Methodists don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Prima Scriptura, yes, as do many other denominations, such as the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.

Can you offer any examples of the Reformers using the term Prima Scriptura?

 

[Darryl_B]

I personally like to read the Early Church Fathers from the chronistic perspective that there are no gamut of protestants, just the Catholic Church, back to a time when the solas were Lord body faith baptism spirit. It is refreshing, for then I can look anachronistically at history through their eyes to the 20thC and wonder what on earth happened there, where on earth did all that come from?

 

[In_His_Grace]

One has to wonder how it is you have been able to tolerate being here for such a long time! This post makes it sound like you have encountered nothing life giving at CAF.

Have you become beset with an anti-Catholic virus recently?

Hi guanophore,

I can’t speak for Tomyris but personally I have benefited a great deal from being at CAF. I also don’t have an anti-Catholic bone in my body. My wife of nine years is a cradle Catholic.

In His Grace

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi guanophore,

I can’t speak for Tomyris but personally I have benefited a great deal from being at CAF. I also don’t have an anti-Catholic bone in my body. My wife of nine years is a cradle Catholic.

In His Grace

CAF is so different than the protestant sites I have been to that all hate on Catholicism and have such nasty things to say.

It’s also different than many of my real life encounters with non-Catholic Christians.

I think most of the crowd here is Lutheran or Anglican, even some Orthodox. And we aren’t that far apart from all those churches, imo.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Can you offer any examples of the Reformers using the term Prima Scriptura?

When I was Anglican they still read from the 7 disputed books for teaching purposes.

They incorporate the Didache into Church teaching in regards to distributing the sacraments, etc.

Not uncommon to hear a ECF quoted from as well.

And of course Methodists sprung from Anglicanism.

So while “Prima scriptura” is not a term they say (or are even familiar with, likely) they practice it. They recognize there is truth outside the bible and they don’t try and reinvent the liturgy, either. Very rational approach even though I disagree with their theology.

 

[In_His_Grace]

CAF is so different than the protestant sites I have been to that all hate on Catholicism and have such nasty things to say.

It’s also different than many of my real life encounters with non-Catholic Christians.

I think most of the crowd here is Lutheran or Anglican, even some Orthodox. And we aren’t that far apart from all those churches, imo.

I have spent time on very anti-Catholic websites (e.g. CARM). I pray for Christian unity if this is even possible this side of eternity and what such unity would look like I’m sure only God could possibly know.

Lord Jesus Christ, at your Last Supper you prayed to the Father that all should be one. Send your Holy Spirit upon all who bear your name and seek to serve you. Strengthen our faith in you, and lead us to love one another in humility. May we who have been reborn in one baptism be united in one faith under one Shepherd. Amen. (Ut Unum Sint)

In His Grace

 

[In_His_Grace]

By the way, I’m not ignoring anyone. I’ve never been much of a talker but I do listen and learn.

In His Grace

 

[Mintaka]

Going back to the OP’s questions, of course there is both prophetic succession of non-related persons (Elijah putting his mantle on Elisha), a succession of priests that goes by bloodline, a succession of high priests that goes by election, a succession of tribal princes, etc., etc. Isaiah even talks about the succession of prime ministers like Shebna. Israel’s history is all about having people to fill positions.

And of course we see the choice of an apostle to take Judas’ place, following the OT verse, “Let another take his office”.

But traditionally, Methodists have argued strongly for Methodist priests and bishops being part of the apostolic succession, a la Anglicanism, despite some irregularities in the line. Arguing that the apostolic succession is un-Biblical goes against Methodism.