Early Church not Catholic

[sallybutler]

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

thank you for this book link. And it was free to download

 

[Little_Mary]

thank you for this book link. And it was free to download

Awesome! Didn’t know that!!

Let me know how it goes…

 

[Jaroslaw]

toneyrey gave you the best advice - ask him where he got his information.

Ask questions to make the other person think. There are many things people accept from history that have far less (secular) evidence than the Church. Find one of these things and make it into a question. (I read about several of these in Karl Keating’s book about Fundamentalism and the Roman Church, I just can’t recall precisely right now).

Another thing, there are a lot of posts here about “The Church.” To a Protestant, this simply means the body of believers in Christ and won’t prove anything about Catholicism to them.

Different things work with different people, of course, but one effective argument is if the person happens to be Baptist or Methodist, I ask them how old the oldest Methodist Church is. Then I ask if they know how old the oldest Catholic Church is in the world (or what Church existed before the Methodist Church was formed, and what was before that and so on, until they get the idea that the Catholic Church was first).

Good luck and let us know how it goes…

 

[peace2u2]

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

The following are very good books that I hope will help you in your journey home to Heaven:

1. Rome, Sweet Home by Scott Hahn
2. Catholic Christianityby Peter J. Kreeft
3. Rediscover Catholicismby Matthew Kelly
4. Search and Rescueby Peter Madrid

When a police detective has to gather information to solve a mystery, he goes straight to the crime scence to gather information. A good place to start is reading material of people who are converts to Catholicism and why they convert. Reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church is good to read and of course you could go to EWTN.com and search the writings of the Church Fathers and the great Saints.

God Bless and happy reading.

 

[Publisher]

You are forgetting one very important fact.
These writings and letters may have been written on these dates, but there were many, many others also written during this same time by disciples and followers of Jesus that are not included on your list here, that Christians at the time followed as sacred text for the first 3-4 hundred years, that were then banned and destroyed (tho some have been found recently, natch).

These texts had vastly different and varied beliefs than the group of writings that were finally “decided upon” over 300 years after Jesus died and they were not so much in agreement with what is taught now (which is why they were not included).

But the point is…these early Christians believed and followed them–a lot of them did–and there were many different groups with different beliefs.

So if we are saying that “Catholic” means the teachings and beliefs stemming from the bible put together centuries later…then I’d agree with the friend who says the early church was not specifically Catholic…not until the bible was put together and the beliefs (the trinity, for example) were “decided upon”, which took hundreds of years of debate first.

If we’re going to say “church” as specifically meaning a room with an altar and men with titles and robes and such…that’s a whole other dateline.
I think the early Christians often congregated in their homes…or wherever they could find?
(And sometimes with women at the helm, or so I read).
Ah, those were the days!

A good overview and “alternate” version of Church history is found in Bart Erhman’s books.

He is an historian…“Lost Christianities” traces the formation of the Christian church in many of it’s various “versions” that existed in the first several centuries…and outlines how the group that came to designate itself “orthodox” or “catholic” was able to do so only after intense struggle and political maneuverning to become the "dominant’ version of Christianity.

“Lost Scripture” examines those books used by various Christians in their various meetings and congregations eventually declared “heretical”.

Great alternative history to compare the “faith affirming” history the church puts forth for itself.

Interesting read.

 

[Holly3278]

Actually if you read the writings of the early Church Fathers and such you will see that they were definitely Catholic. The early Church was most definitely Catholic. That I can assure you of. The Catholic Church extends clear back to the time of Jesus Christ.

 

[FrancisB]

This seems silly to me. It’s an argument that you cannot win, intended just to bait you. As far as the history goes, you will see much of this has already been written here, but just a few key points:

1. The teachings of the Fathers of the early church and the Apostolic Succession of the early church were passed along to the Catholic Church. So too, they were passed to the Orthodox Churches. It is likely that your Protestant friend has little understanding of Orthodox Christianity, but it is an important point for showing how wrong the Protestant position is, since they are not Catholic, but clearly not Protestant, and derive their teachings from the ancient church.
2. The Bible is part of the tradition of the early church. Its contents were pieced together by the early church, and passed along through Apostolic Succession, which means that the Bible comes from the Catholic/Orthodox Church, and not the churches from the Bible. To put that in the wrong order is to confuse the place of the Holy Scripture, something the Protestants are fond of doing.
3. There were heretics from the earliest days. They did not believe the same heresies that the Protestants believed, but there was always a dissenting view that was linked to the times. If the Protestants would like to believe that they are part of an unbroken tradition of heresy, let them. Wrong is wrong, and it’s only the radical Protestants that persist in this. No self-respecting Anglican or Lutheran would present this view, and there is no chance in reconciling with the fundamentalists at any point anyway. If they want to be the inheritors of all of the heresies that ever were, let them.

Pax.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Church drew on the gathering of those appointed and approved by the Apostles and their successors…faithful to the witness of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit…the same Person at Pentecost…

The Church…many people over many years…prayed and discerned which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit for public revelation…meaning any person in public could walk into a church gathering, hear the Word of God…and that it could be used by the person hearing it the first time as a building block upon which to build his faith…

He come in another time, hear another reading…and from there…with the same connection and fruit of Jesus Christ…build another building block of faith…

There was the Book of the Gospel of St. Thomas…that was discerned as being inspired by God but for private revelation…and that means not every person could relate and identify with Thomas’ teachings.

Every word of Scripture for public use must be accepted by any person being drawn by the Holy Spirit into the gathering of the faithful.

The other books were not determined by the Holy Spirit…still at work and always at work in the Church…that these books would not edify the faith of One God, One Bread, One Baptism.

The great heresy of the day was not which book…but not believing that the Eucharist was indeed divine. The Eucharist is the Word Made Flesh…the summit of the Incarnation…God becoming Man for us so that we through the Word and Eucharist would become adopted sons and daughters of God Himself…a living faith, one not defined by books.

Subsequently, the Church is as itself like a sacrament…a breathing, living entity whose life comes not from itself, but from the eternal life given us by Christ Himself.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Nazarene Christians…the Jews who followed Christ, first met in synagogues with the Orthodox. But over time arguments brought a malediction by the Orthodox who placed their barring of the Nazarenes from returning.

The Nazarenes formed their own synagogues…Peter and James the Lesser and Mary, Mother of Jesus were part of these gatherings…and there came about a protest from the Nazarenes to now worship the Lord on Sunday and end the 40 day fast. However, over time, with Peter being sent to Rome, there the Church took on its universal and missionary character and the Nazarene Christians grew into obscurity over time. It can be said that there is some things carried on to this day among the Palestinian Christians that came down from the original Nazarenes…the breaking of bread in their homes…

The Gentile Christians, former pagans, met in homes at the beginning. Remember the Church was just a seed then. As their numbers grew, they began to meet in the homes of the rich. The homes of the rich were quite large and had court yards, but these reflected a class system where the poor Christians were essentially placed at the back of the bus.

So you can’t uphold home based churches as being the best models for church. St. Paul rebuked them and said we are all equal before the Lord and worked to remov any sign of economic class among the believers.

 

[Barbkw]

I want to thank everyone who has answered by post and also to those who will continue to add additional materials.

You’ve all been a great help to me.

 

[JustaServant]

You are forgetting one very important fact.
These writings and letters may have been written on these dates, but there were many, many others also written during this same time by disciples and followers of Jesus that are not included on your list here, that Christians at the time followed as sacred text for the first 3-4 hundred years, that were then banned and destroyed (tho some have been found recently, natch).

These texts had vastly different and varied beliefs than the group of writings that were finally “decided upon” over 300 years after Jesus died and they were not so much in agreement with what is taught now (which is why they were not included).

But the point is…these early Christians believed and followed them–a lot of them did–and there were many different groups with different beliefs.

So if we are saying that “Catholic” means the teachings and beliefs stemming from the bible put together centuries later…then I’d agree with the friend who says the early church was not specifically Catholic…not until the bible was put together and the beliefs (the trinity, for example) were “decided upon”, which took hundreds of years of debate first.

If we’re going to say “church” as specifically meaning a room with an altar and men with titles and robes and such…that’s a whole other dateline.
I think the early Christians often congregated in their homes…or wherever they could find?
(And sometimes with women at the helm, or so I read).
Ah, those were the days!

Talk is cheap. Produce them.

 

[Barbkw]

So if we are saying that “Catholic” means the teachings and beliefs stemming from the bible put together centuries later…then I’d agree with the friend who says the early church was not specifically Catholic…not until the bible was put together and the beliefs (the trinity, for example) were “decided upon”, which took hundreds of years of debate first.

Have you read Justin Martyr’s Apology from 150 AD concerning the Mass which the Early Church was celebrating?

So similiar to our Mass today - it’s amazing.

 

[CopticChristian]

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 believe that the best response would be as I approach people like this is the following…

What do you mean by that?

This will get you information as to the source of that thought. Was it told to them, read by them or is it a tract.

What do you mean by Catholic?

This give you insight as to what their perception of what Catholic means.

When is that the Church became Catholic as you understand it?

This will guide you into whatever teaching they have. If it was not the early Church, there is a Catholic Church…when do they think it became Catholic?

The purpose of all these questions is to do what is called “chunking down”. Based on general Semantics everyone has a map of the world and in this case it includes the Church. Based on how the mind works and filters information asking what and how gets you where you want to go. By asking questions you get insight into the map that this person has in their head. As you chunk down you ultimately get down to where they got this notion, how much emotion is tied up in it and how best to deal with it.

The other thing I would do is ask what questions as to their belief. My favorite way to do this is to say something like this…

It is my understanding then that you are a Christian?

If not denominational then I ask again this…

What brand or type would that be?

This usually gets a gasp and a HUH? What do you mean?

You then answer…well and it is important you order them as they came into being…there are as you know Catholic East/West, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant.

If you get back…well I am not a Protestant…then you say well let me ask you this…

Do you believe that the bible is the sole rule of Faith?
Do you believe that you are saved by Faith alone?

Usually you will get “yes” to both…you then can explaint their Protestant beliefs and aid them in understanding where their beliefs came from…

What you are doing is reordering their disordered map of the world and in particular Christian History.

In order to make any headway when confronted with someone with scoffs like this it is important not to respond as you did and go looking for an answer to rebut. You need to know where they got this misinformation.

That is my two bits.

 

[1voice]

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

Every true expression of Christianity has its roots in the early Church.

 

[CMatt25]

Talk is cheap. Produce them.

Acts 1:13 They entered the city and went up to the room where they were staying: Peter, John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Patriot, and Judas son of James.14 They gathered frequently to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers.

Acts 2:46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house

1Cor 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house, with whom I also lodge.

Publisher also gave some examples of books with an alternative history.

 

[JustaServant]

Acts 1:13 They entered the city and went up to the room where they were staying: Peter, John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Patriot, and Judas son of James.14 They gathered frequently to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers.

Acts 2:46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house

1Cor 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house, with whom I also lodge.

Publisher also gave some examples of books with an alternative history.

Please provide “proof” of this ‘alternative Christianity’ that existed paralel to the Early Church.

 

[JRKH]

I believe that the best response would be as I approach people like this is the following…

What do you mean by that?

This will get you information as to the source of that thought. Was it told to them, read by them or is it a tract.

What do you mean by Catholic?

This give you insight as to what their perception of what Catholic means.

When is that the Church became Catholic as you understand it?

This will guide you into whatever teaching they have. If it was not the early Church, there is a Catholic Church…when do they think it became Catholic?

The purpose of all these questions is to do what is called “chunking down”. Based on general Semantics everyone has a map of the world and in this case it includes the Church. Based on how the mind works and filters information asking what and how gets you where you want to go. By asking questions you get insight into the map that this person has in their head. As you chunk down you ultimately get down to where they got this notion, how much emotion is tied up in it and how best to deal with it.

The other thing I would do is ask what questions as to their belief. My favorite way to do this is to say something like this…

It is my understanding then that you are a Christian?

If not denominational then I ask again this…

What brand or type would that be?

This usually gets a gasp and a HUH? What do you mean?

You then answer…well and it is important you order them as they came into being…there are as you know Catholic East/West, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant.

If you get back…well I am not a Protestant…then you say well let me ask you this…

Do you believe that the bible is the sole rule of Faith?
Do you believe that you are saved by Faith alone?

Usually you will get “yes” to both…you then can explaint their Protestant beliefs and aid them in understanding where their beliefs came from…

What you are doing is reordering their disordered map of the world and in particular Christian History.

In order to make any headway when confronted with someone with scoffs like this it is important not to respond as you did and go looking for an answer to rebut. You need to know where they got this misinformation.

That is my two bits.

This advice is wroth a lot more than two bits…
Thoroughly excellent post.

Peace
James

 

[damian_clarke]

If the early Chruch was not Catholic it was certainly not a happy clappy Jump for Jesus slayed by the spirit type Church either.

 

[TimothyH]

But the point is…these early Christians believed and followed them–a lot of them did–and there were many different groups with different beliefs.

Those beliefs were found to be untruths, like the belief that John 6 was just a metaphor. Heresies.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Acts 1:13 They entered the city and went up to the room where they were staying: Peter, John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Patriot, and Judas son of James.14 They gathered frequently to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers.

Acts 2:46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house

1Cor 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house, with whom I also lodge.

Publisher also gave some examples of books with an alternative history.

The Church met in houses because they were persecuted. You didn’t just put up a Church on the corner, hang out a sign, and start preaching. Public worship was likely to get you dropped into a cauldron of boiling oil or skinned alive.

Acts 2:46 mentions the temple because the early Christans who were not pagan converts thought of themselves as Jewish. They went to the Jewish synagogue to hear the teachings of the rabbis about the law and the prophets, and then went to private homes to celebrate the Eucharist (break bread). It wasn’t until after 70 AD that Judaism started seperating itself from Christianity, and it wasn’t until 90 AD when the Jews started denying Christians access to the synagogues.

-Tim-

-Tim-