Stephen168
New member
The earliest known use of the word Catholic to refer to the Church started by Christ was about 105AD by the Bishop of Antioch.
- Status
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Not really.
They believed the same things.
Clearly, the Church was able to be more open and actually build buildings after Christianity was legal, but the beliefs were the same:
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).
Stephen168
New member
I think you are refering to Justin Martyr’s First Apology written about 155AD. He also wrote about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.No, actually not true, what so ever.
There is a document, I forget the author, that was written in 90 ad. When your “Christians” were there. The document explained all that went on in ancient masses, it exactly corresponds with the mass today, including the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Explain how that got there, almost 2000 years ago, cause I know I don’t have a time machine (dang that would be useful)
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The Protestants have some highly redacted versions of the EFCs’ writings. My younger brother attended a Baptist seminary where he took a full semester course on the ECFs. Afterwards he announced that the ECFs never said anything about the Eucharist. For you Protestants who attended Baptist seminaries, the ECFs wrote about the Eucharist enthusiastically and often.
Y
youngsaint
Guest
No, it was defiantly written in 90ad, I’ll figure out by who on sunday, hopefully.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Im sure you are talking about this which as you can you read for yourself says no such thing.No, actually not true, what so ever.
There is a document, I forget the author, that was written in 90 ad. When your “Christians” were there. The document explained all that went on in ancient masses, it exactly corresponds with the mass today, including the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Explain how that got there, almost 2000 years ago, cause I know I don’t have a time machine (dang that would be useful
earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I think he’s referring to the mass of St. James, as cited in *“The mass of the early Christians” *by Mike Aquilina. My son currently has my copy. I’ll try to get it back this weekend and post on it.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I like this quote referring the Early Church councils to Orthodoxy not east or west. I have to ask though? Did not the Eastern Orthodox canonize or reject different books for their bible not included from these Orthodox Councils? Maybe you can shed some light on this topic of bible books? or is it just rumor?Yes, at least if they were honest about it they would admit that these were Orthodox church Councils and Fathers.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Maybe the “Didache”? or the Mass recorded by Ceasar’s General Pliny the Younger who recorded and eyewitnessed the Mass of the Christians, and Killed many of them for attending Mass and consuming the Eucharist?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
No kidding; they had no automobiles, no computers, no telephones, no sneakers, but they all had the same “Jesus” in one faith, one baptism, One Lord in the One body of Jesus Christ his Church. Viewing from this biblical perspective the Catholic church is still the same, just different faces on the outsiide, but same old Apostolic faith.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Deuterocanonical books is a Catholic definition describing the 7 books Protestants removed from the original canonized bible from the 4th century.
Protestants do not label these same 7 removed books from their bibles as Deutero, but they call them “Apocrypha” which means not inspired of God. There are Catholic books that have been labeled as “Apocrypha”, but these are never canonized in the bible.
Y
youngsaint
Guest
noooo, it had what happened at mass, not what they believed. CURSES!
I really want too know now.
B
byers
Guest
You might benefit from the book Where we got the Bible
by Henry Graham
it’s also available online
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
by Henry Graham
it’s also available online
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
C
ccolley2
Guest
Dear confusedTim:
There is a lovely little book called Where we got the Bible by Henry Graham. It tells the history of where the bible came from, how it was put together, and even has a section on his conversion story which is fascinating.
CC
H
Hisalone
Guest
Dont be flip.
Christians started as house churches , meeting in homes of believers.
The Eucharist was incorporated within the love feast.
These are just two differences. There are many.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Gabe you have all the sound bytes down but very little truth. Catholics added 7 books. The cannon was not closed until after the Reformation
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I think you are referencing the “Council of Trent”? If so, the 7 Deutero. books were already canonized from antiquity here. What the Council of Trent did was close the arguments of these 7 Deutero. books "Trent never canonized a single book of the bible, but only closed any more disputes about them, any one who rejects these Deutero. books as canonized by the Catholic Church since the fourth century excommunicate themselves from the Church.
If you are one who believes the Catholic Church added 7 books after the reformation?, let the Truth be told you, Protestants removed 7 books of the already canonized bible, Trent closed the argument to these books for all time. You have been greatly misinformed.
Peace be with you.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Why did the first 2 editions of the King James Version include the deuterocanonical books? Was the KJV compiled and published by Catholics?
The truth is that the Hebrew scriptures contained the deuteros in Jesus’ day (Jesus and the apostles quoted from- and paraphrased the deuteros) and continued to contain them until the (Jewish) Council of Jamnia during which the Jewish authorities decided to jettison the deuteros due to their successful use by Christians in proselytizing Jews to Christianity and because they weren’t written exclusively in Hebrew (some were in Aramaic and some were in Greek).
All Christian bibles (including the KJV) contained the deuteros until the Protestants began dropping them in the mid-16th century.
Martin Luther and the Protestants followed the example of the Jews in dropping the deuteros from their canon. The Protestants dropped them because they teach Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and praying for the dead. Martin Luther also wanted to drop the Epistle of James because it emphasizes the necessity of good works, which Luther rejected. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed on that one.
Learn some history, you’ll save yourself some embarrassment.
On a personal note, I feel sorry for Protestants. They are really missing out by not having the deuteros in their canon. I especially love the books of Wisdom and Sirach. They are absolutely beautiful and inspring. In the early Christian church, the Book of Sirach was used as a training manual for young converts in how to live a righteous Christian life.
G
greggy53
Guest
I have a King James Bible that was published in 1876. It lists 15 different books in the Apocrypha. All of the Deuterocanonical are included. My Douay Rheims Bible has only the seven books of the Deuterocanonical . I too was confused for a long time and thought the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical were the same thing.
- Status