Early Church not Catholic

[Barbkw]

I was speaking with a non-Catholic Christian over Christmas about Sacred Scripture and he - knowing that I was Catholic said, “…of course, the Early Church was not Catholic, they like to say that they were, but there is no indication of that.”

What book provides a definiative guide to the historical creation of Churches that were one, holy, catholic and apostolic?

From a Catholic perspective, I see Sacred Scripture as outlining the fundamentals: the establishment of bishops & deacons and the universally accepted theology of Christ being contained in the “breaking of the bread” and that He died and Resurrection and Ascended and was going to return.

Being blinded from John 6 however, I have to wonder if non-Catholic Christians would be at all accepting of a book that attempts to consolidate the Early Church with the Catholic Church.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I was speaking with a non-Catholic Christian over Christmas about Sacred Scripture and he - knowing that I was Catholic said, “…of course, the Early Church was not Catholic, they like to say that they were, but there is no indication of that.”

What book provides a definiative guide to the historical creation of Churches that were one, holy, catholic and apostolic?

From a Catholic perspective, I see Sacred Scripture as outlining the fundamentals: the establishment of bishops & deacons and the universally accepted theology of Christ being contained in the “breaking of the bread” and that He died and Resurrection and Ascended and was going to return.

Being blinded from John 6 however, I have to wonder if non-Catholic Christians would be at all accepting of a book that attempts to consolidate the Early Church with the Catholic Church.

I don’t know of any book, however, you could try explaining how St. Peter and St. Paul were the beginning of the Catholic Church and how their mission throughout the gospel was in the establishment of that Church; so I guess the best book you will find on the subject is the Bible itself.

However, most Protestants will disagree with this claim denying that the path leads to Rome. You could try explaining how Peter was the first Pope, as evidence of the early Church; and how Paul was a father in the Church’s mission.

The seed of Catholicism was with the early church; therefore, the early church is like the root of Catholicism.

 

[ahs]

There is a book called “A Popular History of the Catholic Church” by Philip Hughes. It is a condensed version of his 3-volume work on the history of Christianity. It is no longer in print, but you can find old copies on Amazon sometimes. I have one that is rather battered and falling apart…but the pages are still legible.

The best way to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is THE Church is to look at the history of the Church that Christ established and the early fathers of that Church. What did they believe? What did they profess? Where were the differences and what heresies were fought and, even in the face of schism, what universal Truths were accepted by all who wre called “Christian”?

The book by Philip Hughes was a difficult read for me because of the wording and the fact that I don’t really like history very much. But it is very informative, none the less. I recommend it…especially if you are a history buff. You may even find the original 3-volume work interesting.

 

[catholictiger]

I was speaking with a non-Catholic Christian over Christmas about Sacred Scripture and he - knowing that I was Catholic said, “…of course, the Early Church was not Catholic, they like to say that they were, but there is no indication of that.”

What book provides a definiative guide to the historical creation of Churches that were one, holy, catholic and apostolic?

From a Catholic perspective, I see Sacred Scripture as outlining the fundamentals: the establishment of bishops & deacons and the universally accepted theology of Christ being contained in the “breaking of the bread” and that He died and Resurrection and Ascended and was going to return.

Being blinded from John 6 however, I have to wonder if non-Catholic Christians would be at all accepting of a book that attempts to consolidate the Early Church with the Catholic Church.

what do they mean from the early church, do they mean st. paul and acts, or do they mean justin maryter, ignitions of Antioch and so on and so forth.

I could see someone saying early church not Catholic when referring to the bible, but the actual early church fathers, not so much.

 

[JDaniel]

I was speaking with a non-Catholic Christian over Christmas about Sacred Scripture and he - knowing that I was Catholic said, “…of course, the Early Church was not Catholic, they like to say that they were, but there is no indication of that.”

What book provides a definiative guide to the historical creation of Churches that were one, holy, catholic and apostolic?

From a Catholic perspective, I see Sacred Scripture as outlining the fundamentals: the establishment of bishops & deacons and the universally accepted theology of Christ being contained in the “breaking of the bread” and that He died and Resurrection and Ascended and was going to return.

Being blinded from John 6 however, I have to wonder if non-Catholic Christians would be at all accepting of a book that attempts to consolidate the Early Church with the Catholic Church.

Barb:

It’s interesting that they would say that. I wonder how questionable they would find it once they found out that in those earliest Churches - all over the Holy Land - one will invariably find “altars.” That can physically shown to be true for those Churches for hundreds of years. Now, it seems, that only the “universal,” i.e., catholic Churches do, besides those early Churches. Why? (Perhaps one might think they were: Catholic?) What proscription of faith told others not to have altars in their Churches? Usually, when a Protestant sees that all of those Churches have altars, it is nearly instantaneous conversion.

Further, if one looks at the liturgy of the older Protestant Churches, one finds, in Lutheranism, for example, a liturgy not too different from ours.

Today the term, “catholic,” means today’s Catholic Church - to Protestants, et al. But it originally meant, “universal,” to everyone.

These are notions that I have gathered along the way, but I am by no means an expert. EWTN bookstore might have a book, but I do not know of one.

God bless,
jd

 

[Not_Sure_1]

“To know history is to cease to be Protestant” – Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman (convert from Henry VIII’s church)

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I could see someone saying early church not Catholic when referring to the bible, but the actual early church fathers, not so much.

The whole bible is Catholic. If you don’t realize that or know this through faith I would suggest pulling out your Catechism and giving it a read to see what it says about Catholicism “when referring to the bible”. It’s found in the first part of the Catechism.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

“To know history is to cease to be Protestant” – Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman (convert from Henry VIII’s church)

To know the Bible is to cease to Protestant.

 

[Hecares]

Jesus was Jewish. Originally His followers attended temple as did all good Jews. Additionally, they met to celebrate the Eucharist. Originally, they were considered a branch of Judaism. They were also called Christians because they were followers of Christ or followers of The Way…

For me, the Church founded by Christ, the true Church, the Catholic Church, can best be discovered by tracing it from Christ to the present. Christ appointed Peter to be the head of His Church. This role has been passed down from generation to generation. Only the Catholic Church can show this succession. Also our bishops can all be traced back to the twelve apostles who were appointed by Jesus.

 

[anrmenchaca74]

I was speaking with a non-Catholic Christian over Christmas about Sacred Scripture and he - knowing that I was Catholic said, “…of course, the Early Church was not Catholic, they like to say that they were, but there is no indication of that.”

What book provides a definiative guide to the historical creation of Churches that were one, holy, catholic and apostolic?

From a Catholic perspective, I see Sacred Scripture as outlining the fundamentals: the establishment of bishops & deacons and the universally accepted theology of Christ being contained in the “breaking of the bread” and that He died and Resurrection and Ascended and was going to return.

Being blinded from John 6 however, I have to wonder if non-Catholic Christians would be at all accepting of a book that attempts to consolidate the Early Church with the Catholic Church.

First of all, I would tell them that Christ’s goal was for his Apostles to " Go therefore, make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Meaning that the purpose was to spread the Gospels all over the world universally. His Gospels were not meant to stay confined in the Holy Land.

Also, mention to the that there was no bible when Jesus and his Apostles taught. It was all done orally. Even St. Paul says “Therefore stand fast in the tradition which you have been taught, either by oral or by letter of ours.”

Yes the word catholic, does not appear, but Ignatius of Antioch used it in his letter to the Smyrneans in 107 A.D. That’s because he was a disciple of St. John, the same one who was at the foot of the cross.

The Catholic Church, it the living Church which was prophesied by Isaiah in IS 59:21.

"The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his stand-in." -Karl Keating from Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

Hope this helps.

 

[tonyrey]

The historic list of bishops of Rome lays the onus on the non-Catholic to explain why the apostic succession is not valid…

 

[Godfollower]

I was speaking with a non-Catholic Christian over Christmas about Sacred Scripture and he - knowing that I was Catholic said, “…of course, the Early Church was not Catholic, they like to say that they were, but there is no indication of that.”

What book provides a definiative guide to the historical creation of Churches that were one, holy, catholic and apostolic?

From a Catholic perspective, I see Sacred Scripture as outlining the fundamentals: the establishment of bishops & deacons and the universally accepted theology of Christ being contained in the “breaking of the bread” and that He died and Resurrection and Ascended and was going to return.

Being blinded from John 6 however, I have to wonder if non-Catholic Christians would be at all accepting of a book that attempts to consolidate the Early Church with the Catholic Church.

I would begin by defining the Catholic Church (if you can’t agree on what “Catholic Church” means, then what’s the point of debating whether it existed back then?).

Your friend will probably say something like “Pagans who worship Mary and idols, pray to the Pope, sell salvation, and claim that you can earn your way to Heaven.” At that point, I would concede his point: no, the early Church was not like that. Then you can have the real discussion, which is pointing out that the Catholic Church isn’t like that, either.

If your friend actually understands the Catholic Church as it exists today but thinks that it wasn’t like that in the days of the Early Church Fathers, then you can address that point. The Bible tells us that Jesus left His Church in the care of Peter and Peter’s brother Apostles. The Bible tells us that they established an apostolic succession (read Acts about “another shall take his office”). The Bible tells us that God’s vineyard was taken away from the Jewish priests and given to successors. The Bible also tells us that the Apostles (including Paul) went around establishing local churches and appointing bishops, priests, and deacons – and specifically gave bishops the ability to appoint successors.

So, what happened to that Church? The Bible tells us that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against that Church. So it must still be around, yes? And guess what: history shows us that the Catholic Church is, in fact, that self-same Church. It looks a little different, true; but then, so does the rest of the world. If nothing else, one would expect that the Twelve convening together among friends looked different than any single Apostle preaching to the unconverted; and any group of bishops today would necessarily be bigger than the original Council of Jerusalem.

But the differences are minor. The key points are exactly the same.

 

[JustaServant]

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.

 

[empther]

There are many Early Fathers of the Church whose writing show that the Catholic Church was well established from the beginning; There were no Protestants for well over another thousand years.

For example:

Tertullian became a priest in 197 A.D. He was in Carthage, a city in North Africa. It would seem then that if a Church is well known and understood in this remote place, it must be firmly established throughout the Roman world.

Look at all the things Tetullian wrote:
http://tertullian.org/anf/index.htm

In Against Praxeas
He gives an early version of the Apostles Creed:
http://tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-43.htm#P10374_2906966

We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oi0konomi/a, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded14 from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her-being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete,15 the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.

 

[JustaServant]

There are many Early Fathers of the Church whose writing show that the Catholic Church was well established from the beginning; There were no Protestants for well over another thousand years.

For example:

Tertullian became a priest in 197 A.D. He was in Carthage, a city in North Africa. It would seem then that if a Church is well known and understood in this remote place, it must be firmly established throughout the Roman world.

Look at all the things Tetullian wrote:
http://tertullian.org/anf/index.htm

In Against Praxeas
He gives an early version of the Apostles Creed:
http://tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-43.htm#P10374_2906966

Excellent example of the early creed.
Tertullian’s good, but apologists tend not to use him because he fell into heresy later in life. I don’t necessarily agree with that. His writings give us a glimpse of the late 2nd century Catholic Church.

 

[JRKH]

I was speaking with a non-Catholic Christian over Christmas about Sacred Scripture and he - knowing that I was Catholic said, “…of course, the Early Church was not Catholic, they like to say that they were, but there is no indication of that.”

What book provides a definiative guide to the historical creation of Churches that were one, holy, catholic and apostolic?

From a Catholic perspective, I see Sacred Scripture as outlining the fundamentals: the establishment of bishops & deacons and the universally accepted theology of Christ being contained in the “breaking of the bread” and that He died and Resurrection and Ascended and was going to return.

Being blinded from John 6 however, I have to wonder if non-Catholic Christians would be at all accepting of a book that attempts to consolidate the Early Church with the Catholic Church.

It all depends on how he is defining “Catholic”…So the first thing to do is to pin down what he means by saying the Early Church was not Catholic…

That said, the bible clearly indicates that the early Church was one. I offer three evidences.
First is Mt 18:15-18 where Jesus instructs those with disagreements to “Tell it to the Church”. The non-catholic will say “this refers to the local community”
BUT -
Tie this in with Acts 15, where the disagreement was so strong that not even St Paul could resolve the matter. Instead it was taken before the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem…so here we have two different church locations, appealing to the Church leadership to settle a doctrinal matter.

Next ask him this question. how many different Christian Churches existed in any given city? If Paul went to a town where Peter had already been, would he set up a separate community, or would he be welcomed by and talk to those that Peter had already talked to?
This would be the same for any traveling Christian evangelizer. There were not multiple and competing Christian communities. They were “One”.

Now - having established this, one can readily agree that structural set-up differed. This is simply a matter of growth and development. It does not indicate a different Church.

Of course if he starts harping on Constantine starting the Catholic Church and all of that…you are likely to not be able to make a dent…

Peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

By 100 AD, the Church already had a basic liturgy that is of the same spirit and tone as the Mass today, that was celebrated throughout the ancient Christian world in that time…quite a feat considering all the different races and cultures and translations…this was no human work but that of the Holy Spirit at work through the Apostles and their successors.

The Books of Scripture were not completely verified…it took longer to verify that the Gospel of St. John was indeed composed by him and another 100 years to discern that the Book of Hebrews was for public revelation.

However, along with the liturgy, the Church drew from both conciliar and episcopal models of governance, to utilize the Jewish model, the episcopacy. And by 100 AD, the Apostles Creed was developed to insure the beliefs in Christ were those given us by the Apostles. There is a reference by a Roman who stated that the Apostles Creed was composed by SS Peter and Paul. The remains of Peter and Paul, both placed under altars at the Vatican are being investigated to determine if they are indeed the relics of these two great saints.

Don’t go to anti-Catholic sources to find the truth of the Church. It was under persecution up to 310 AD…shortly before, the Church saw its greatest persecution by the two last Roman emperors who decimated both bishops and many churches. Constantine saw a vision or had a dream, fought various temporal powers and won. He allowed Christianity to practice publicly, help build churches. But Constantine did not become a Christian until within days of his death. The Greek word, ‘Katholic’ was the adopted one …before that Christians were identified by the Romans as Galileans.
Katholic meant universal…Christ being the atonement of sin for all mankind.

 

[Little_Mary]

To the OP, this subject is near and dear to my heart. I wonder if we know the same person ?

In my case, the person who told me this refused any and all information I placed before him. When I pressed in, he blurted out “All the early church fathers are IN ERROR!!!”

True story. I’ve given you the very short version, but you get the idea.

You’ve already been given a lot of good info and resources here. Here’s another good book written by Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman who set out to discover the earliest forms of Christian worship going back century by century. When he finished his research, he converted to Catholicism:

amazon.com/Essay-Development-Christian-Doctrine-ebook/dp/B004TRDK8Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325100182&sr=1-1

Please let me know how your friend receives any of this information that you choose to share with him. I would really like to know because my own experience with my very stubborn “friend” was so surreal.

Thanks

 

[tonyrey]

Of course you can always ask the person for information about the early Church and its subsequent history which definitely proves that it wasn’t the Catholic Church…

 

[lutherlic]

The Church was always Catholic and referred to as such since around 100.

The faith taught and liturgy practiced would be familiar to Catholics today.

There were various early heresies that died out. Aside from them, we were 1 Church until the great schism in 1052 which split us into Catholic and Orthodox lines. We remain divided but are theologically close and both share valid apostolic succession.

Then around 1500 Protestants split off from the Catholic Church, beginning with Martin Luther - a Catholic priest. Protestants kept splitting off from us and from each other as they continue to do today. Unlike the Orthodox, Protestants have a “worship service” in place of Mass, recognize few if any sacraments, usually do not believe in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist, often decide matters of faith by democratic ballot, etc. FWIW, I wrote about this in Protestantism trainwreck.

Also, I wrote a post on this topic in December called Catholic from the beginning.