Catholicity of the Early Church

[Zeldarocks]

I’m becoming more and more convinced of the Catholicity of the Early Church; the chief reasons for such a conviction would stems from the nature of the declarations by the early council fathers regarding: the Trinity (Nicea I - 325), the Nature of Christ (Chalcedon I - 451), and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople I - 381).

Now, these declarations affirm basic Christian doctrines, which are shared by the whole of Christendom, including Protestants; therefore, the assumption that the church became “paganized” after the Edict of Milan is in itself erroneous and ignorant of Church History.

Furthermore, if the Church did not become subject to pagan influences during that period of ~150 years, then it is reasonable to assume that: A) the Church Fathers writing within that time span were in the Truth, B) that the Council Canons pertaining to said councils were in truth as well, and C) that the Canon of Scripture affirmed by the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Hippo in 393 stand as authoritative.

If all of the above stands as reasonable extrapolation, then it is also reasonable to assume that the Early Church is Catholic based on the Patristic writings of the time as well as the Councils (which espoused various Catholic ideas such as the need for the Eucharist and redemptive Baptism).

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’m becoming more and more convinced of the Catholicity of the Early Church; the chief reasons for such a conviction would stems from the nature of the declarations by the early council fathers regarding: the Trinity (Nicea I - 325), the Nature of Christ (Chalcedon I - 451), and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople I - 381).

Now, these declarations affirm basic Christian doctrines, which are shared by the whole of Christendom, including Protestants; therefore, the assumption that the church became “paganized” after the Edict of Milan is in itself erroneous and ignorant of Church History.

Furthermore, if the Church did not become subject to pagan influences during that period of ~150 years, then it is reasonable to assume that: A) the Church Fathers writing within that time span were in the Truth, B) that the Council Canons pertaining to said councils were in truth as well, and C) that the Canon of Scripture affirmed by the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Hippo in 393 stand as authoritative.

If all of the above stands as reasonable extrapolation, then it is also reasonable to assume that the Early Church is Catholic based on the Patristic writings of the time as well as the Councils (which espoused various Catholic ideas such as the need for the Eucharist and redemptive Baptism).

I am in a Protestant Site and that seems to be a big deal with them.
But:

1. 
   *]The Early church is Jesus Christ.
   *]So, I do not know how that Church could not be authentic
   
   Big confusions there.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I am in a Protestant Site and that seems to be a big deal with them.
But:

1. 
   *]The Early church is Jesus Christ.
   *]So, I do not know how that Church could not be authentic
   
   Big confusions there.

1. 
   Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,
   
   Are the numerical points your point of view or rather the views of the Christain site? I could not make sense of your post and wanted to ask clarification before I commented on it.
   
   God Bless.
   Anathama Sit

 

[Zeldarocks]

Eek!!! Wrong forum section… I meant to post it in Spirituality

 

[JustaServant]

I’m becoming more and more convinced of the Catholicity of the Early Church; the chief reasons for such a conviction would stems from the nature of the declarations by the early council fathers regarding: the Trinity (Nicea I - 325), the Nature of Christ (Chalcedon I - 451), and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople I - 381).

Now, these declarations affirm basic Christian doctrines, which are shared by the whole of Christendom, including Protestants; therefore, the assumption that the church became “paganized” after the Edict of Milan is in itself erroneous and ignorant of Church History.

Furthermore, if the Church did not become subject to pagan influences during that period of ~150 years, then it is reasonable to assume that: A) the Church Fathers writing within that time span were in the Truth, B) that the Council Canons pertaining to said councils were in truth as well, and C) that the Canon of Scripture affirmed by the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Hippo in 393 stand as authoritative.

If all of the above stands as reasonable extrapolation, then it is also reasonable to assume that the Early Church is Catholic based on the Patristic writings of the time as well as the Councils (which espoused various Catholic ideas such as the need for the Eucharist and redemptive Baptism).

You’re on the right track Zelda.
I have yet to have one Protestant (albeit evangelical/fundamentalist types) show me compelling forensic evidence that:

1. The early church was not Catholic.
2. The early church fell into paganism.

It’s simply not there, but sometimes people convince themselves of something they WANT to be true because the alternative is simply too horrifying to face.

 

[JustaServant]

Eek!!! Wrong forum section… I meant to post it in Spirituality

We don’t bite. And Eric is a pretty good Sheriff.

 

[Indiana_Jones]

I’m becoming more and more convinced of the Catholicity of the Early Church; the chief reasons for such a conviction would stems from the nature of the declarations by the early council fathers regarding: the Trinity (Nicea I - 325), the Nature of Christ (Chalcedon I - 451), and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople I - 381).

Now, these declarations affirm basic Christian doctrines, which are shared by the whole of Christendom, including Protestants; therefore, the assumption that the church became “paganized” after the Edict of Milan is in itself erroneous and ignorant of Church History.

Furthermore, if the Church did not become subject to pagan influences during that period of ~150 years, then it is reasonable to assume that: A) the Church Fathers writing within that time span were in the Truth, B) that the Council Canons pertaining to said councils were in truth as well, and C) that the Canon of Scripture affirmed by the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Hippo in 393 stand as authoritative.

If all of the above stands as reasonable extrapolation, then it is also reasonable to assume that the Early Church is Catholic based on the Patristic writings of the time as well as the Councils (which espoused various Catholic ideas such as the need for the Eucharist and redemptive Baptism).

Great post!!!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m becoming more and more convinced of the Catholicity of the Early Church; the chief reasons for such a conviction would stems from the nature of the declarations by the early council fathers regarding: the Trinity (Nicea I - 325), the Nature of Christ (Chalcedon I - 451), and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople I - 381).

I guess it would depend by what you mean by “Catholic.” If you mean by that "not pagan(ized) then yes, I would probably agree. If you mean one worldwide church in full agreement in dogma and doctrine under the authority of the Pope, then I would disagree. Note that after Nicaea, the councils became dramatically less ecumenical and thus much less useful for arguing for a unity of worldwide dogma and doctrine in the Early Church.

Now, these declarations affirm basic Christian doctrines, which are shared by the whole of Christendom, including Protestants; therefore, the assumption that the church became “paganized” after the Edict of Milan is in itself erroneous and ignorant of Church History.

Paganized no–I think that’s ridiculous; subject to government inspired power plays, intrigue and corruption, yes.

Furthermore, if the Church did not become subject to pagan influences during that period of ~150 years, then it is reasonable to assume that: A) the Church Fathers writing within that time span were in the Truth,

Certainly not everything the Church Fathers wrote was considered “in the Truth” either then or now. Tertullian and Origen spring to mind. And much of what is often set out as the totality of Early Church Fathers as somehow representative of world Christianity is actually more representative of Western Christianity and thought at the time, and can’t necessarily be extrapolated to the remainder of Christianity.

B) that the Council Canons pertaining to said councils were in truth as well, and C) that the Canon of Scripture affirmed by the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Hippo in 393 stand as authoritative.

Carthage and Hippo weren’t councils, at least in the sense that Nicaea or Constantinople were, nor were the results accepted anywhere outside the West (if anyone outside of the Western Church even knew they occurred). So if you mean that the early church was “Catholic” in the sort of the sense that the things believed were the same everywhere, then Carthage and Hippo actually arguments against that proposition.

 

[Zeldarocks]

When I speak of Catholicity, I refer to what is termed as the Latin or Western Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome. I am aware of the divisions between East (Orthodox) and West (Latin).

Overall, I’m just trying to get to a place where I can prove the fallacy that is the supposed Constantine Shift (the mixing of Pagan and Christian ideas after the legalization of Christianity). If I can prove to myself that the Early Western Church was Christian, then I can come to the Catholic Church with a clean conscience.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

When I speak of Catholicity, I refer to what is termed as the Latin or Western Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome. I am aware of the divisions between East (Orthodox) and West (Latin).

Overall, I’m just trying to get to a place where I can prove the fallacy that is the supposed Constantine Shift (the mixing of Pagan and Christian ideas after the legalization of Christianity). If I can prove to myself that the Early Western Church was Christian, then I can come to the Catholic Church with a clean conscience.

OK. If you’re only concerned with what went on in the West, then that makes the picture much clearer. I don’t think there is any doubt that the early Western Church was Christian. What types of evidence do people put forward that the early Western Church was pagan or paganized? (And I wonder what they mean by “pagan”?)

 

[Zeldarocks]

By pagan, they usually mean a mixing of the Mystery Religions and Christianity: Mitharism and the Eucharist, etc.

Again, if I can refute such claims of “corruption” I can become Catholic…

 

[IggyAntiochus]

By pagan, they usually mean a mixing of the Mystery Religions and Christianity: Mitharism and the Eucharist, etc.

Again, if I can refute such claims of “corruption” I can become Catholic…

It is only a very small minority of Protestants that make the claim that the early church was, at some point in time, corrupted by paganism and stopped being a valid church and was relegated to a small cadre of true believers. Most of these will be in Restorationist churches like the LDS, Church of Christ or Landmark Baptists. But again, these are a tiny group and mainly exist in the US. None of the Reformers made this claim.

It’s much more likely that secular sources will make the assertion that early Christianity was influenced by paganism. Any cursory study of church history will demonstrate that this isn’t the case. As for the church of the Early Fathers being Roman Catholic, as we know Roman Catholicism today, that’s an entirely different discussion.

 

[Zeldarocks]

It is only a very small minority of Protestants that make the claim that the early church was, at some point in time, corrupted by paganism and stopped being a valid church and was relegated to a small cadre of true believers. Most of these will be in Restorationist churches like the LDS, Church of Christ or Landmark Baptists. But again, these are a tiny group and mainly exist in the US. None of the Reformers made this claim.

It’s much more likely that secular sources will make the assertion that early Christianity was influenced by paganism. Any cursory study of church history will demonstrate that this isn’t the case. As for the church of the Early Fathers being Roman Catholic, as we know Roman Catholicism today, that’s an entirely different discussion.

Okay, what I’m trying to get at is: was the Early Church Catholic, and did it remain Catholic to this day?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

Are the numerical points your point of view or rather the views of the Christain site? I could not make sense of your post and wanted to ask clarification before I commented on it.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

I tell you: I do not understand the question very well.
I think that many Protestant say that the Catholic Church deviated from the Truth. So, where was the Truth? I think that many defend it was in the Early Church. And the Catholics fight back. So, some Protestant say that as the Church deviated, there was a need for a Re-Formation. I think that is the “busilis” of the question
Other question is that some Protestant say that the continuity of the Pope’s succession was not linear but forced by Constantin. That in the Early Church there was not…maybe clear succession.

As I said, big confusion, for I do not understand well the viewpoints and I am still learning. So, do not take my post as certain for tomorrow I may have another opinion.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

Thanks for clarifying.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[1AugustSon7]

I’m becoming more and more convinced of the Catholicity of the Early Church; the chief reasons for such a conviction would stems from the nature of the declarations by the early council fathers regarding: the Trinity (Nicea I - 325), the Nature of Christ (Chalcedon I - 451), and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople I - 381).

Now, these declarations affirm basic Christian doctrines, which are shared by the whole of Christendom, including Protestants; therefore, the assumption that the church became “paganized” after the Edict of Milan is in itself erroneous and ignorant of Church History.

Furthermore, if the Church did not become subject to pagan influences during that period of ~150 years, then it is reasonable to assume that: A) the Church Fathers writing within that time span were in the Truth, B) that the Council Canons pertaining to said councils were in truth as well, and C) that the Canon of Scripture affirmed by the local councils of Carthage in 397 and Hippo in 393 stand as authoritative.

If all of the above stands as reasonable extrapolation, then it is also reasonable to assume that the Early Church is Catholic based on the Patristic writings of the time as well as the Councils (which espoused various Catholic ideas such as the need for the Eucharist and redemptive Baptism).

And if you take another moment to think of it, this very realization of yours is a proof of the Truth contained within that well-known Catholic maxim, “Faith and reason.” Faith being our guide and reason her handmaid. If God sanctions reason, then philosophy, which pursues the virtue of Prudence and Wisdom, must also have legitimacy. Hence to make use of philosophy is legitimate within the confines of Revelation, as truth cannot contradict truth. This rebutts those sects that imagine it was pagan philosophy that somehow polluted the early Church and gave rise to Catholicism. It also dangerously permits a licentious sentimentalism because it tacitly denies the practicality of reason and intelligence, such that emotions and feelings become the authentic arbiter of truth.

 

[JustaServant]

When I speak of Catholicity, I refer to what is termed as the Latin or Western Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome. I am aware of the divisions between East (Orthodox) and West (Latin).

Overall, I’m just trying to get to a place where I can prove the fallacy that is the supposed Constantine Shift (the mixing of Pagan and Christian ideas after the legalization of Christianity). If I can prove to myself that the Early Western Church was Christian, then I can come to the Catholic Church with a clean conscience.

Reposted from an old thread…

One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology. Protestants act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry.
As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Baptist among them.
I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s -** Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century -** 1, 2, and 3 John**
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

A simple reading of the New Testament books, and the ECF writings above, show that **within a 100 year ** the Church looks alfully Catholic.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Okay, what I’m trying to get at is: was the Early Church Catholic, and did it remain Catholic to this day?

Amazingly difficult question, Zelda. It is not as simple as saying “the early church had bishops, the Roman Catholic Church has bishops, so the early church was Roman Catholic.” Generally speaking, confessional Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed), will hold the view that the church of the first millennium of Christianity was Catholic, comprised of Western and Eastern halves. They will assert that towards the end of this first millennium, some unbiblical/non-apostolic practices began to slowly be introduced into Christian faith and practice. It is not claimed that these had pagan origins, but that they were due to poor interpretations of Scripture and/or had no Scriptural basis but served other purposes.

In 1054, of course, you have the schism between East and West. At this point, the church is no longer Catholic as it was, due to now two competing claims to being the legitimate successor to the early church. Protestants would state that after this time, the prior non-apostolic beliefs continue to be inserted into church dogma and practice until the time of the Reformation, when Luther and others seek to reform the church away from these unbiblical practices. Lutherans would say that the reform movement, which will come to be called Lutheranism, is the true successor, in doctrine and practice, to the undivided Holy Catholic Church of the first millennium, and after the Council of Trent, the Western church under the Pope “becomes” the Roman Catholic Church, and continues developing until it exists as we have it today.

So, for a confessional Protestant, the modern Roman Catholic Church has a connection to the undivided Catholic Church, but that connection is tainted by unbiblical doctrines. I’m not giving you my view, necessarily, here… just how traditional Protestants would tend to view it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By pagan, they usually mean a mixing of the Mystery Religions and Christianity: Mitharism and the Eucharist, etc.

Again, if I can refute such claims of “corruption” I can become Catholic…

As someone else already noted, I think these claims seem very spurious. Perhaps you could provide some sources? I’d be willing to lay money they weren’t published by university presses

There are certainly many, many strong connections between the contemporary Catholic Church and the early Western church: understanding sacraments as means of grace, centrality of Baptism and the Eucharist, affirmation of the conclusions of Nicaea (as you’ve noted), just to name a few examples.

For me, the big disconnects between the early and contemporary CC come in areas such as Western-centrism and a tendency toward totalization, theology of ordination, understandings of the role of the Pope (particularly in the ordinary magisterium as it’s been laid out over about the past 20 years), and just sort of very basic Catholic misunderstandings about the history of the church and the Bible. For me to be “deep into history” is to cease wanting to be Catholic.

But my main point is, ALL THAT having been said, I would never assert that the Western Church was somehow “paganized” early on–that’s just not supportable as far as I know. If this is your only hurdle, then I don’t think you should have a problem with becoming Catholic.

 

[ChrisB103]

Would anyone mind commenting on what the early Church was if it wasn’t Catholic? I think that’s an important part of the question. It’s not good enough to claim (and provide possible evidence) that the early Church wasn’t Catholic. It’s also the Protestant’s burden to provide what the early Church was.