Early Church not Catholic

[pablope]

Well, you’ll have to look for the things that were taught and practiced in the Early Church. Reading the Book of Acts will help out alot here.

Yeah…like breaking bread every day…using the Septuagint…now the Catholic OT, not a shortened version…and having no Bible as you know it today.

 

[adf417]

Well, you’ll have to look for the things that were taught and practiced in the Early Church. Reading the Book of Acts will help out alot here.

Is this a trick? This is a trick isn’t it?:hey_bud: I still looking for this “Early Christian Church” I know there has to be one out there. After all the gates of hell surely have not prevailed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Godfollower,

I am just getting started on this thread - and when I got to your post, I just breathed a sigh of relief. Well written, concise and factual - what more can anyone ask for?

Excellent

God bless

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.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yeah…like breaking bread every day…using the Septuagint…now the Catholic OT, not a shortened version…and having no Bible as you know it today.

The Catholic OT doesn’t actually contain the Septuagint in its entirety either. The Catholic OT is actually a ‘shortened’ version of the Septuagint too, if you want to get right down to it.

 

[JohnVIII]

if not catholic, was the early church anglican, luther, church of christ, fundamentalist, or what?

I think the key to answering this question comes from the fact that most all the early references (including the Apostolic Injunctions) to who the apostolic authority was that established Linus as the first bishop of Rome was St Paul. This means MUCH more than you might think! Contrary to what some Catholic fathers would have us all believe, Peter and Paul did not recognize each other as valid apostles and the Churches established by them did not recognize each other. St Peter established a Church in Rome NOT with Linus but with Clement. That is the reason that Tertullian and Jerome said that the early Latins considered Clement as the first bishop right after St Peter, not Linus (reference to this: The Catholic Encyclopedia). It wasn’t because no one knew of Linus, rather it was because St Clement did not recognize Linus, who preceded him, to be a true bishop! It wasn’t until near the end of the 2nd century that the Churches that came from St Paul began to be reconciled with the Churches that came from St Peter, and likewise it wasn’t until then that it began to claimed that St Peter actually ordained Linus.

I can prove this claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Churches of St Paul were not the same as the Churches of St Peter at the first, but it will take some time and is quite involved, but for now, let me just say that the Churches from St Paul were before St Peter and the Churches from St Paul came to be known in time as the Marcionite Churches, whereas the Churches from St Peter came to be known as Catholic Churches.

I am not sure whether or not the Marcionite Churches are the first of the Christian Churches. But, I am confident that they were before the Catholic Churches. Additionally, I believe that the adjustments that the Catholic Church had to make in order to accomplish a reconciliation with the Marcionite Churches included, but was not limited to, the acceptance of Jesus as true God, which was the true beginning of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity within the Catholic Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think the key to answering this question comes from the fact that most all the early references (including the Apostolic Injunctions) to who the apostolic authority was that established Linus as the first bishop of Rome was St Paul. This means MUCH more than you might think! Contrary to what some Catholic fathers would have us all believe, Peter and Paul did not recognize each other as valid apostles and the Churches established by them did not recognize each other. St Peter established a Church in Rome NOT with Linus but with Clement. That is the reason that Tertullian and Jerome said that the early Latins considered Clement as the first bishop right after St Peter, not Linus (reference to this: The Catholic Encyclopedia). It wasn’t because no one knew of Linus, rather it was because St Clement did not recognize Linus, who preceded him, to be a true bishop! It wasn’t until near the end of the 2nd century that the Churches that came from St Paul began to be reconciled with the Churches that came from St Peter, and likewise it wasn’t until then that it began to claimed that St Peter actually ordained Linus.

I can prove this claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Churches of St Paul were not the same as the Churches of St Peter at the first, but it will take some time and is quite involved, but for now, let me just say that the Churches from St Paul were before St Peter and the Churches from St Paul came to be known in time as the Marcionite Churches, whereas the Churches from St Peter came to be known as Catholic Churches.

I am not sure whether or not the Marcionite Churches are the first of the Christian Churches. But, I am confident that they were before the Catholic Churches. Additionally, I believe that the adjustments that the Catholic Church had to make in order to accomplish a reconciliation with the Marcionite Churches included, but was not limited to, the acceptance of Jesus as true God, which was the true beginning of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity within the Catholic Church.

I am interested to see this Marcionite proof.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, DaddyGirl,

I am trying to catch up … sorry if this as late as it looks… Did you respond to JustaServerant’s post … if so… I missed it.

Nothing wrong with being impressed with the Faith of the early Catholics - without a doubt, they were an impressive group.

One of the most interesting things to make would be a list of all the thing that are not directly found in Scripture contrasted with all the things we have today. Two glaring ‘omissions’ would be that Christ did not leave a set of blueprints for how He wanted His Church configured. Additionally, Christ did not leave a Policy and Procedure Manual for how He wanted His Church run. And, finally, Christ did not give the Holy Spirit a Book to deliver on that First Pentecost Sunday - the birthday of the Catholic Church. When one steps back and sees all of these glaring ‘omissions’ - one would be forced to wonder just how a ‘strictly human organization’ could have lasted for 2,000 years without these items all leading directly from the Hand of Christ into our waiting arms.

There really are developmental aspects that are made manifest in a historical sense in the Catholic Church. What isn’t manifest is Sacred Tradition which provides the real reference and predates the development of the Canon of Scripture by almost 400 years. The idea what that Catholics all believed the same thing. But, early on we find this was not really true - for example:

1.) One had to be circumcised and follow Jewish law before entrance into the Catholic Church
Not so - and the Judiazers were corrected in the Acts of the Apostles

2.) Matter is evil - as the Gnostics taught (and you seem to admire the ‘Gospel of St. Thomas’ is a Gnostic work of fiction. christian-history.org/gospel-of-thomas.html )
Not so - Jesus Christ is true God and true man. As man He had Flesh and Blood and Gnostics see this as evil

3.) In the 3rd Century Sabellianism taught that God the Father and Jesus Christ were not distinct Persons
**Not so - The Catholic Church defined that there are Three Persons Who are distinct in God **

4.) In the 4th Century we have Arius teaching that Christ was a creature made by God
**Not so - The Council of Nicaea in 325AD defined the Divinity of Christ and condemned Arius **

5.) In the 5th Century Pelagianism taught that we did not inherit original sin from our First Parents’ sin and that man, through his own efforts can achieve Heaven
**Not so - The Catholic Church condemned these teaching at the Council of Carthage **

6.) Also in the 5th Century Nestorius denied that Mary was the Mother of God
Not so - and this heresy was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431

These are just six examples in the history of the Early Catholic Church of how the teaching that was assumed to be universal, was challenged by some and this caused the belief in question to be clearly defined and defended. Once clearly stated, those who refused to abide by the teaching were considered heretics.

Concerning the ‘…writing of early Christians…’ that you appear to be promoting - the Gnostics were a clever group, and from a marketing stand-point, wanted to get as many followers of Christ over to their Gnostic belief. In a sense, they were ‘early hackers’ in that they wrote fraudulent documents claiming to have come from Christ’s followers. There false works are experiencing a ‘revival’ of sorts - at least at Amazon.com and other booksellers. But as in the rest of life, please note: Buyer Beware.

These Gnostic writings - along with other genuinely Catholic works - were not included in the Canon of Scripture for the reason that they were determined not to be inspired by God. This determination was made after careful examination and prayer to the Holy Spirit for His Divine Guidance. When people say that the Bible contains the inerrant Word of God - they are referencing the actions of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Catholic Church in developing the Canon.

God bless

The problem with using the word “heretic” when it comes to talking about the early Christian groups in the first 400 years is that…for those first 4 centuries, these groups were not considered heretic!
They were considered groups that followed holy words.

Proof? Well, many writings from early christians have been uncovered that show various degrees of alignment or non-alignment to the church teachings today.
The Gospel of Thomas is one…found in 1945, as you all know. And those dozens upon dozens of Gnostic ones that were found and published recently. I’m just doing my research now on the Ebonites, etc…there are writings from them, too, and the other groups.

These other gospels–stories and words from and about Jesus–were not included in the official bible put together in 4th century.
But they are words that may have come directly from Jesus.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, you’ll have to look for the things that were taught and practiced in the Early Church. Reading the Book of Acts will help out alot here.

No, this will not do. The book of Acts was written after Luke. I recall attending a Creation Science convention and they did a wonderous job teaching people including children how to answer questions on Evolution. You know this was a phenomenal job they did. Such brilliance I had never seen. When it came time to teaching the audience on how to oppose the Evolutionists…we spent about a half hour answering questions posed by the moderator acting as if he were an evolutionist…are you ready…here is what I learned…

“Were you there”…yup…that is all you need to answer any question about Darwin and evolution…

So I believe that since this Protestant teaching is so good…when it comes to your understanding of the Church and the book of Acts…the description is incomplete and I don’t think you have any information on what the Church looked like for the 60 years prior to the writing of the Book of Acts…

Omar…were you there?

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Yeah…like breaking bread every day…using the Septuagint…now the Catholic OT, not a shortened version…and having no Bible as you know it today.

?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Omar Gatskill,

I would appreciate you clarifying a statement you made …

You’re putting ALL Protestants in the same pot. You can’t do that accurately. I’m a Protestant but yet I do not believe that authority lies 100% in Scripture and 0% elsewhere. On the other hand, Tradition in which you refer to has to square with Scripture IF they are both seen to be true. I don’t believe that parallel exists in the Catholic church as you claim.

In reality, all Protestants can not be lumped together - this is, I think, not intended as insult to anyone, but just a form of short-hand (as in: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religions). The practical matter, however, is that with 30,000+ different groups all claiming to be Protestant, it makes it difficult to write a simply statement.

Now, if you don’t, “… believe that authority lies 100% in Scripture and 0% elsewhere…” what is it that you do believe?

And, in your enthusiasm for clarifying that matter, please address this one, too:
" On the other hand, Tradition in which you refer to has to square with Scripture IF they are both seen to be true."

I ask this because Sacred Tradition is about 400 years older then the Canon of Scripture. You statement seems to imply that there exists a conflict - and if so, what is this documented conflict between Sacred Tradition and Scripture?

God bless

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

No, this will not do. The book of Acts was written after Luke. I recall attending a Creation Science convention and they did a wonderous job teaching people including children how to answer questions on Evolution. You know this was a phenomenal job they did. Such brilliance I had never seen. When it came time to teaching the audience on how to oppose the Evolutionists…we spent about a half hour answering questions posed by the moderator acting as if he were an evolutionist…are you ready…here is what I learned…

“Were you there”…yup…that is all you need to answer any question about Darwin and evolution…

So I believe that since this Protestant teaching is so good…when it comes to your understanding of the Church and the book of Acts…the description is incomplete and I don’t think you have any information on what the Church looked like for the 60 years prior to the writing of the Book of Acts…

Omar…were you there?

I never said that it was a Complete manual on the Early Church. You are putting those words in my mouth. I said that it would be a good look at what the Early Church looked like. I didn’t say that it was a complete instruction manual.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Hi, Omar Gatskill,

I would appreciate you clarifying a statement you made …
Omar Gatskill;8782679:

In reality, all Protestants can not

be lumped together - this is, I think, not intended as insult to anyone, but just a form of short-hand (as in: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religions). The practical matter, however, is that with 30,000+ different groups all claiming to be Protestant, it makes it difficult to write a simply statement.

Now, if you don’t, “… believe that authority lies 100% in Scripture and 0% elsewhere…” what is it that you do believe?

And, in your enthusiasm for clarifying that matter, please address this one, too:
" On the other hand, Tradition in which you refer to has to square with Scripture IF they are both seen to be true."

I ask this because Sacred Tradition is about 400 years older then the Canon of Scripture. You statement seems to imply that there exists a conflict - and if so, are you saying it is the Immaculate Conception?

God bless

First of all, you cannot lump all Protestants together. I don’t care what the Catholic definition is, but I do not share the beliefs of Evangelicals, five point Calvinists and other Protestants. You can’t lump them together. You may want to simply because you are unfamiliar with the some of the major theologies though, I understand that.

Question for you. The Early Church is older than the compilation of Scripture, but it is surely not older than the writings (especially the Gospels themselves), so how is your point a valid one? It cannot take the authority of Scripture out of the equation nor take away from the fact that all things necessary for Salvation are contained in Scripture.

And what you are calling Tradition really doesn’t have the authoritative quality that you claim it does. If Tradition doesn’t square up with Scripture, then it has no place in our worship.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pablope,

I think you are providing some very insightful comments. Men of good will can have different opinions about a particular matter. But, this may be on a theoretical plane - on the practical level we see Jerome to be knowledgeable about the Pope’s infallibility - and when the decision was made, Jerome was counted in the number who agreed.

Contrast this with some of the much earlier heretics like Arius and Nestorius - they were too busy going their own way as they developed novel doctrine to look and see what was actually believed in the Catholic Church. The persons of the Trinity are distinct and not confused, Christ is true God and true man and Mary is the Mother of God. Search the Scriptures and there is no specific statement from Christ e.g., like there is for the necessity of Baptism.

Faith is a spiritual matter - and, it is also a very practical matter. Jerome believed that Christ gave the authority to bind and lose to Peter - along with the Keys (and there were not 11 other sets of keys passed out later) Does one go off with the heretical view that Sola Scriptura is the answer to anything - except making one their own authority?

God bless

Omar Gatskill;8815933:

Here is what you do not see…Jerome expressed his opinion. But when Pope Damasus proclaimed what is to be in the Canon, Jerome followed and he was even commissioned to translate the writings in Latin.

Here is my challenge to you…show me a writing of Jerome where he opposes the Pope’s proclamation on the Bible canon?

Here is another thing you do not see…jereome does not separate himself from the Church…and does not establish his own religion…after the pope’s decision…and now, compare this with Henry VIII.

Rome need to concur with what? Why does the pope need to concur? When Peter made the decision, after the revelation to him, about doing away with circumcision for the Gentiles…did he concur with anybody? Or is it he made the proclamation and everybody followed?

In the end, did Bernard follow and obey the Pope after the decision? Or did Bernard rebel and founded his own religion, like Henry VIII? or Luther?

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Hi, Pablope,

I think you are providing some very insightful comments. Men of good will can have different opinions about a particular matter. But, this may be on a theoretical plane - on the practical level we see Jerome to be knowledgeable about the Pope’s infallibility - and when the decision was made, Jerome was counted in the number who agreed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Omar Gatskill,

An interesting observation.

It is really quite characteristic of the universal Protestant approach to Scripture - hang on to a verse and forget (or, just ignore) the context. Christ gave the binding and losing authority to Peter in Matthew 16 and to the other Apostles in Matthew 18. You seem to have just passed over my statement about there NOT BEING 11 other sets of Keys given out. The Keys were (and still today) the symbol of authority. You do recall Christ telling Peter - and no one else - to feed His sheep (John 21)? It really all does tie together.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility had not been issued when Jerome was on earth - but, here we have the issue of Sacred Tradition, but look how Peter resolved the matter of the Judiazers at the First Council of Jerusalem. Universally, Protestants read this in such a way as to minimize Peter’s role contrasted with the, “Me, too” approach of St. James. But, this approach simply does not hold water when you look at how the ECF viewed the Bishop of Rome contrasted with the other Bishops.

So if Jerome, who obviously had his own (but not infallible) opinion on this matter - went along with what the Pope said, why did he do it?

Now take a look at John 16. 12-16

*"12“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.h He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. 15Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." **

Christ has more to tell the Apostles - but, He chooses not to tell them now. He does promise that His Church will be guided in all truth. This simply means that there can not be error if one has all truth. This is infallibility - error free teaching. It is not impeccability - a sinless life. Sinful and error prone men - like Peter - were entrusted with the Keys to lead Christ’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now if you still question this just look around you. Here are three items of interst:

1.) Many Protestant groups are approving of homosexual unions - some even have openly and practicing homosexuals in their clergy - some elevated to bishop.

2.) Many Protestant groups are appointing women to their clergy - some even have made them bishops

3.) Many protestant groups open remain silent (with some giving active approval) for abortions, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia

The Catholic Church has always condemned these practices (stem cell research was unknown until recently - but once it appeared, it was specifically condemned). This can be seen any way you wish - but, I view it as the guidance promised by Christ of being kept in the truth. Others not heirs to this promise flounder in error.

God bless

tqualey;8827762:

Hi, Pablope,

He was??

Scripture tells us that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all the Apostles, not just Peter. It also never tells us that Peter is supreme and infallible. One doesn’t have to subscribe to being Sola Scriptura to see this. Too many distortions and inconsistencies.

 

[adf417]

Good. Now that we have finally answered that question I will start looking for one in my area and go tomorrow for true worship. I assume this Early Christian Church still exists right?

Apparently I am the only dummy who has not heard the answer to this question before. I will remove the rhetorical tag and see if anybody would answer it. Even if a Catholic would be so bold to speculate on how a Protestant might answer this question.

What/where is this Early Christian Church Omar and Protestants speek of?

 

[JohnVIII]

Omar Gatskill;8824073:

Well, you’ll have to look for the things that were taught and practiced in the Early Church. Reading the Book of Acts will help out alot here.

No, this will not do. The book of Acts was written after Luke. . .

According to Epiphanius, there was an earlier version of the Acts of the Apostles that came from the Jewish Christian Ebionites. In it, according to Epiphanius, St. Paul was characterized as a false apostle. Paul was said to have been born in Tarsus from Gentile parents, and accepted circumcision in Jerusalem in order to marry the daughter of the High Priest. After the marriage unraveled, he polemicized against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the law.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John VIII,

So, among other things, you are saying that Saul of Tarsus was not a Pharisee?

God bless

According to Epiphanius, there was an earlier version of the Acts of the Apostles that came from the Jewish Christian Ebionites. In it, according to Epiphanius, St. Paul was characterized as a false apostle. Paul was said to have been born in Tarsus from Gentile parents, and accepted circumcision in Jerusalem in order to marry the daughter of the High Priest. After the marriage unraveled, he polemicized against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the law.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Omar Gatskill,

Is it too much to ask for some consistency?

The Book of Acts is fine - in fact, reading the entire New Testament is a great idea. But, the word Catholic does not appear as such in any of them. This is where we must look to the Early Church Fathers (ECFs). If the Apostle John died in about 100, then seven years later Ignatius of Antioch used the word Catholic to describe the followers of Christ.

From this point on, we find more and more ECFhs talking about the Bishop of Rome and his authority over the Catholic Church. There were no Anglicans at this time - or any other Protestants (maybe some hold over heretical Judiazers from 50AD and he Council of Jerusalem [Acts 15, if this is what you are talking about] but that is all I know about.

In thinking over your response, my guess is that Acts may not really be the most productive area to research. How about in the Gospels where John the Baptist is preaching. John basically accused the then king of public scandal and marital irregularities … and lost his head. This was not too dissimilar to St. Thomas More’s run in with the founder of the Church of England.

God bless

Well, you’ll have to look for the things that were taught and practiced in the Early Church. Reading the Book of Acts will help out alot here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Adf417,

Yes, it does! I am very proud to tell you that you have listed the Catholic religion is what you profess - and it is this same Catholic Church that is: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. None of the other churches can make a valid claim to these four characteristics and have it withstand even a cursory examination. All of the US Protestant groups can identify their founders from the 16th Century onward. With 30,000+ various and competing Protestant groups - all claiming that their version of the truth is better than their competitors - it is no wonder that there is some confusion.

Just attend Sunday Mass and you will experience the same miracle that the first Christians (and they would be the first Catholics) experienced. The priest saying the words of consecration and the common bread and wine hat was once there has essentially changed to the Bod, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ!

God bless

Apparently I am the only dummy who has not heard the answer to this question before. I will remove the rhetorical tag and see if anybody would answer it. Even if a Catholic would be so bold to speculate on how a Protestant might answer this question.

What/where is this Early Christian Church Omar and Protestants speek of?