T
TrueLight
Guest
I’d like to see some proof too.
- Status
A
adf417
Guest
ooooh - me too!!!
C
CMatt25
Guest
I agree it might be a good idea to put quotation marks around “proof” when it comes to faith. But apparently there are faiths with other beliefs and interpretations about the early Church than those prescribed by the Catholic faith. I haven’t read any of the materials Publisher introduced for instance. But the name of this subforum is Non Catholic Religions.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Yes,
You can listen to this author at the following
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3250048
The writings come from 3 groups as follows…
Ebionites
Marcionites:bigyikes:
Gnostics:newidea:
Firm Faith building material as you say…I may probably not read the book based on this interview…
P.S. This guy was Evangelical and since he had no Church History foundation in his background he went the way of many like him. I have met too many Fundamentalists and Just Christians that discover what he discovered based on what they are taught and now guess what he is AGNOSTIC. If everyone else is wrong and we are correct they soon discover that they are incorrect so what else is left… He even debated James White. Wow???
F
FrancisB
Guest
Right, early heretics. The proof that the Protestants need is that these groups in any way represented the same brand of heresy that they now profess. That is to say, sure they were in opposition to the Catholic/Orthodox church (since this is before the split, it would be uncharitable to forget them), but what makes them proto-Protestant, other than that they believed something other than what the Church taught. The only way that this connection can be made clear is if the Protestant were to accept the fact that they are heretics defined by being “not Roman”, at which point they might be able to suggest some connection between themselves and early heretical groups, but to what end?Yes,
You can listen to this author at the following
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3250048
The writings come from 3 groups as follows…
Ebionites
Marcionites:bigyikes:
Gnostics:newidea:
Firm Faith building material as you say…I may probably not read the book based on this interview…
P.S. This guy was Evangelical and since he had no Church History foundation in his background he went the way of many like him. I have met too many Fundamentalists and Just Christians that discover what he discovered based on what they are taught and now guess what he is AGNOSTIC. If everyone else is wrong and we are correct they soon discover that they are incorrect so what else is left… He even debated James White. Wow???
C
CatholicZ09
Guest
I know that it’s a popular belief among many Fundamentalists that like to tarnish the Church’s record by saying the early Christian church was in existence in the time of the apostles, but then it quickly flew under the radar and died out until the Reformation era. I don’t understand this logic. Where did all the Christians from the death of the last apostle to the 1500s all go? Hell? Now is that logical?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
F
FrancisB
Guest
Just when I’d thought I’d seen everything…
Well if they want to claim that they are the descendants of earlier heresies and are as old as the Catholic Church, I suppose I’d be tempted to accept that logic. Of course that still makes them the enemies of the early Christian Church and *not *the early Christian Church, but I can live with that too…
C
CMatt25
Guest
I’m not a fundamentalist but I personally wasn’t around between the time of the Apostles and the Reformation to personally have known and talked with any Christian from that time. Let alone every single one of them. But I know the Catholic Church has Her interpretation of Herself and of history and many believe and place their faith in it.
M
mick321
Guest
We Believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
By David Bennett
Millions of people worldwide say “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” every week, yet rarely reflect on the meaning. This article gives a brief history of the Catholic Church, and explains what the Catholic Church is.
The word “catholic” comes from the Greek word katholikos, which is a combination of the words kata (according to) and holos (the whole). Besides meaning, “according to the whole,” katholikos has the common meaning of “universal” or “general.” To be a Catholic Christian is to be a Christian according to the whole, to possess the fullness and completeness of Apostolic Faith and Praxis. In the early Church, “Catholic” designated a Christian who confessed the ancient faith, a Christian in communion with the united and worldwide Church. This was in contrast to the regional and novel sects. Apostolic just simply means “from the apostles,” the source of Catholic belief and practice. In the early Church, even in St. Paul’s day, competing versions of Christianity began to arise, primarily early versions of Ebionism, Gnosticism, and Docetism. These sects so mangled the gospel received from the apostles that early Christian bishops spoke out against these heretics’ particular views, opposed to the universal (Catholic) views of the Church, derived from the apostles themselves. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 110) was bold to write, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church,” implying of course that Jesus was only truly preached and proclaimed within the borders of the universal Church. He also implies that the Catholic Church, under the authority of bishops, was sanctified with Jesus’ presence, being holy and set apart (Ignatius to the Smyrneans).
The rest of the article can be found here:
ancient-future.net/catholicchurch.html
Thoughts?
By David Bennett
Millions of people worldwide say “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” every week, yet rarely reflect on the meaning. This article gives a brief history of the Catholic Church, and explains what the Catholic Church is.
The word “catholic” comes from the Greek word katholikos, which is a combination of the words kata (according to) and holos (the whole). Besides meaning, “according to the whole,” katholikos has the common meaning of “universal” or “general.” To be a Catholic Christian is to be a Christian according to the whole, to possess the fullness and completeness of Apostolic Faith and Praxis. In the early Church, “Catholic” designated a Christian who confessed the ancient faith, a Christian in communion with the united and worldwide Church. This was in contrast to the regional and novel sects. Apostolic just simply means “from the apostles,” the source of Catholic belief and practice. In the early Church, even in St. Paul’s day, competing versions of Christianity began to arise, primarily early versions of Ebionism, Gnosticism, and Docetism. These sects so mangled the gospel received from the apostles that early Christian bishops spoke out against these heretics’ particular views, opposed to the universal (Catholic) views of the Church, derived from the apostles themselves. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 110) was bold to write, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church,” implying of course that Jesus was only truly preached and proclaimed within the borders of the universal Church. He also implies that the Catholic Church, under the authority of bishops, was sanctified with Jesus’ presence, being holy and set apart (Ignatius to the Smyrneans).
The rest of the article can be found here:
ancient-future.net/catholicchurch.html
Thoughts?
C
CMatt25
Guest
My thought is simply that some who say this mean they are in the universal Body of Christ. I know for instance 1Cor 12 says something about many members in the Body.
C
couponfit
Guest
Catholicism for dummies explains this, diotism, Gnosticism, Arianism, and much more and how each break occurred. The very early oriental orthodox church was not by title catholic persay but they were in communion with the same church we call catholic. the first 400 or so years was a very different church and it’s organization really didn’t come to fruition because there was no new testament canonized during these times, only old testament. By the time it was necessary to solidify consistency in doctrine and teachings there were many churches and over time with most ecumenical councils churches or leaders schismed from the church in apostasy or excommunication.
These churches before the 5th century were catholic and continue to share in nearly complete communion doctrine with the church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
My thought is…
Depends how you define the Mystical Body of Christ. For their was only one from the begining as we see with the 7-churchs and the breaking of the bread to the seven churchs. The Apostolic Succession was always their and could be witnessed in Rome as at St Pauls let alone the Vatican, from St Peter to Pope Benedict. Through the Apostolic Churchs, though oral tradition of the ECFs then to written tradition. The authority to bind and lose has always been their, from the begining, “then” they placed it in Scripture thus the Written Tradition to preserve it, which came “after” the Oral Tradition, not to make the “The Bible” the one and Holy Tradition for anyone to interpret in pretext. for that belongs to the Mystical Body of Christ and its interpetation. The Bible was never the Authority to begin with, Jesus Christs Apostles were given that responsibility. And look what happened once the printing press was invented and we gave man the Bible. Men quickly knew more than the Mystical Body of Christ and its Apostles. Couple years of monastic life and education plus a bit of ego? And off an running with a new vain theory of what Jesus Christ “really” meant to say. All that while abandoning the Mystical Body of Christ, wow theres what you want to follow…vainity.
Today this seems to have turned into a loosey goosey interpretation to fit ones personal belief, agenda and comfortability. Then those personal beliefs back then, like today would be called heresy. Catholicism for Dummies explains all this as stated above. Their are 4-seperate editions out today, which address specific topics. Highly suggested reading, then again I suppose it would do little for those who already know everything, they I would assume would find it boring.
Course I haven’t heard of anyone walking on water since St Peter. Perhaps when that day arrives we shall have to listen to what this individual states. The Archangel Gabriel hasn’t been back to relate any other message from God as of lately either. Though I would pay close attention to Gods message at Fatima. I believe you’ll fair better their, than with Pastor John Doe at the local evengelical church…for sure!
Peace
Depends how you define the Mystical Body of Christ. For their was only one from the begining as we see with the 7-churchs and the breaking of the bread to the seven churchs. The Apostolic Succession was always their and could be witnessed in Rome as at St Pauls let alone the Vatican, from St Peter to Pope Benedict. Through the Apostolic Churchs, though oral tradition of the ECFs then to written tradition. The authority to bind and lose has always been their, from the begining, “then” they placed it in Scripture thus the Written Tradition to preserve it, which came “after” the Oral Tradition, not to make the “The Bible” the one and Holy Tradition for anyone to interpret in pretext. for that belongs to the Mystical Body of Christ and its interpetation. The Bible was never the Authority to begin with, Jesus Christs Apostles were given that responsibility. And look what happened once the printing press was invented and we gave man the Bible. Men quickly knew more than the Mystical Body of Christ and its Apostles. Couple years of monastic life and education plus a bit of ego? And off an running with a new vain theory of what Jesus Christ “really” meant to say. All that while abandoning the Mystical Body of Christ, wow theres what you want to follow…vainity.
Today this seems to have turned into a loosey goosey interpretation to fit ones personal belief, agenda and comfortability. Then those personal beliefs back then, like today would be called heresy. Catholicism for Dummies explains all this as stated above. Their are 4-seperate editions out today, which address specific topics. Highly suggested reading, then again I suppose it would do little for those who already know everything, they I would assume would find it boring.
Course I haven’t heard of anyone walking on water since St Peter. Perhaps when that day arrives we shall have to listen to what this individual states. The Archangel Gabriel hasn’t been back to relate any other message from God as of lately either. Though I would pay close attention to Gods message at Fatima. I believe you’ll fair better their, than with Pastor John Doe at the local evengelical church…for sure!
Peace
J
JustaServant
Guest
If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles? I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material. The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.
We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use.
Lets use the American Civil War. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies. But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’. We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.
I limit this to one generation (roughly 80 to one hundred years). That way we can see the events through the eyes of the people who actually experienced them, or were the children and grandchildren of those early christians. What were they like? How did they think? What did they experience.
To walk in their shoes for a short time and see what it was like from the horse’s mouth. How did they view two most important issues that divide Catholics and evangelicals: the Eucharist and Baptism?
Staying within that first generation reveals much.
As to “alternative Christianities”…sigh.
I am not into a pie in the sky, possibility thinking, revisionist, fanciful, illusionary thesis.
I leave that to the “History” channel.
I like to stay on Planet Earth, using the tools serious historians have used for centuries.
Some ‘interpretations’ are easy dispatched because they are revisionist and have no proof to base thier thesis on.
As to heretical sects around the time of the early Church, it is an interesting study. By the time of Constintine, I counted about 15. Reading there writings are equally fascinating. Not just comparisons to modern Pentecostal and fundamentalists, but also their*** imitation of Catholic practices***.
That alone speaks volumes.
We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use.
Lets use the American Civil War. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies. But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’. We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.
- Looking at the first generation of Christians, have you read the NT books chronilogically? It gives a far different perspective. (especially since the first NT book written was James).
- Have you read the other non-canonical books within this same generation? Lets go a step further, have you read non-christian works of this period related to christianity (like Josephus)? Both canonical and non-canonical (christian) sources agree with each other.
I limit this to one generation (roughly 80 to one hundred years). That way we can see the events through the eyes of the people who actually experienced them, or were the children and grandchildren of those early christians. What were they like? How did they think? What did they experience.
To walk in their shoes for a short time and see what it was like from the horse’s mouth. How did they view two most important issues that divide Catholics and evangelicals: the Eucharist and Baptism?
Staying within that first generation reveals much.
As to “alternative Christianities”…sigh.
I am not into a pie in the sky, possibility thinking, revisionist, fanciful, illusionary thesis.
I leave that to the “History” channel.
I like to stay on Planet Earth, using the tools serious historians have used for centuries.
Some ‘interpretations’ are easy dispatched because they are revisionist and have no proof to base thier thesis on.
As to heretical sects around the time of the early Church, it is an interesting study. By the time of Constintine, I counted about 15. Reading there writings are equally fascinating. Not just comparisons to modern Pentecostal and fundamentalists, but also their*** imitation of Catholic practices***.
That alone speaks volumes.
J
JustaServant
Guest
It might also help to understand what “house” meant to a 1st century person was probably completely different to what “house” means to a 21st cetury person. Little facts like that are important because it provides a sharper image of what they meant.
IOW, I don’t think they meant 2134 Maple Ave, the last house in in the cul-de-sac with a garage and a pool.
J
JRKH
Guest
Very nice Post.If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles? I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material. The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.
We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use.
Lets use the American Civil War. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies. But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’. We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.
The typical fundamentalist/evangelical response is ‘well, Constantine changed the Church and all these pagan elements came in after 300 years’. A claim that has no forensic evidence to back it up.
- Looking at the first generation of Christians, have you read the NT books chronilogically? It gives a far different perspective. (especially since the first NT book written was James).
- Have you read the other non-canonical books within this same generation? Lets go a step further, have you read non-christian works of this period related to christianity (like Josephus)? Both canonical and non-canonical (christian) sources agree with each other.
I limit this to one generation (roughly 80 to one hundred years). That way we can see the events through the eyes of the people who actually experienced them, or were the children and grandchildren of those early christians. What were they like? How did they think? What did they experience.
To walk in their shoes for a short time and see what it was like from the horse’s mouth. How did they view two most important issues that divide Catholics and evangelicals: the Eucharist and Baptism?
Staying within that first generation reveals much.
As to “alternative Christianities”…sigh.
I am not into a pie in the sky, possibility thinking, revisionist, fanciful, illusionary thesis.
I leave that to the “History” channel.
I like to stay on Planet Earth, using the tools serious historians have used for centuries.
Some ‘interpretations’ are easy dispatched because they are revisionist and have no proof to base thier thesis on.
As to heretical sects around the time of the early Church, it is an interesting study. By the time of Constintine, I counted about 15. Reading there writings are equally fascinating. Not just comparisons to modern Pentecostal and fundamentalists, but also their*** imitation of Catholic practices***.
That alone speaks volumes.
Just a quick comment on the old “Constantine” and “Pagan” influences supposedly beginning in the 300’s. I always find it interesting that some want to make this accusation while clinging tightly to a book that was assembled during the latter part of this period of “paganization” by Constantine. If one thinks about it, the timeline just doesn’t fit very well.
The person who clings to the position of SS and the Catholic Church being Constantine’s “invention” or “corruption” has a very difficult case to make…especially since they wish to accept totally the Bible, while rejecting totally the Catholic Church.
If the timeline and influences make Church practices and teachings suspect then the same timeline and influences make the canon of Scripture equally suspect.
I’m no scholar on these matters but I have found that just a few questions on these matters usually reveals a rather fundamental defect in thinking on this matter of Constantine as well as on Early Church Unity.
What I have found to be useful is to ask the Protestant to study with you on what sort of Structure the NT Bible points to…Is it Doctrinally “One”, and “Authoritative” or is it doctrinally loose and locally independent?
If one takes this approach, the first thing you must do is to be willing to stick to what the Bible says. So - for their benefit leave the Pope out of it.
The question is not about Papacy, it is about how one defines “Church”. Is it Doctrinal Unity - Visible and Authoritative (the Catholic/Orthodox model) or “Invisible”, non-authoritative, and local?
The Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura - especially the more fundamental and “non-denominational” types - are going to be in trouble. For the Bible clearly points toward Doctrinal unity and Church Authority.
My experience in such discussions is that we don’t get to the “Papal” model. Rather it is more of a “councilior” model…which can then be discussed in more “Structural” terms of development of the Church in the East and the West etc…
BUT there is no way for the Protestant to show biblical support for their “invisible church” model…
Anyway this is kind of a long way around to saying that, in showing that the early church was much more “Catholic” than “Protestant”, the Bible itself is a very useful tool.
Peace
James
C
CopticChristian
Guest
The problem is that when you examine the beliefs of each and every one of these groups they believe in much that Modern Protestants deny…making it difficult to accept this claim…It is evidence that one person realizes that Protestant thought has it’s history in heretical beliefs as there is no other history. This is the achilles heel of Protestant thought.
F
FrancisB
Guest
But they are all united in the one core belief of all heresy: that personal interpretation of the Tradition and Scripture is acceptable and the interpretation of the magisterium can be rejected. It doesn’t actually matter so much how they interpreted it, or that they didn’t interpret it the same. The Protestants don’t all interpret it the same way. It is the hubris of thinking they know better than the church that unites them.
J
JustaServant
Guest
The early Church’s relationship with the ‘pagan’ world around them is also misunderstood. These were not separated fundamentalists happy in thier walled castles. They rejected the religions of the world they were a part of, but that did not mean they rejected every aspect of the culture of thier world. What looks ‘pagan’ to a modern fundamentalist was part of everyday living in thier generation.Very nice Post.
Just a quick comment on the old “Constantine” and “Pagan” influences supposedly beginning in the 300’s. I always find it interesting that some want to make this accusation while clinging tightly to a book that was assembled during the latter part of this period of “paganization” by Constantine. If one thinks about it, the timeline just doesn’t fit very well.
The person who clings to the position of SS and the Catholic Church being Constantine’s “invention” or “corruption” has a very difficult case to make…especially since they wish to accept totally the Bible, while rejecting totally the Catholic Church.
If the timeline and influences make Church practices and teachings suspect then the same timeline and influences make the canon of Scripture equally suspect.
I’m no scholar on these matters but I have found that just a few questions on these matters usually reveals a rather fundamental defect in thinking on this matter of Constantine as well as on Early Church Unity.
Peace
James
Pomp and circumstance, “smells and bells” robes and ceremony were part of ALL religions of the world. Not a fundamentalist Baptist among them. Even the heretics of the day would be put off by modern evangelicalism.
It might also surprise people to know that more than a few Church fathers prayed for the continuation and protection of the Roman Empire. The same empire that persecuted them. It sounds strange to our western American ears. They would even pray for the Emperor.
The point is you can’t force western, 21st century behavior and culture into such a world. There were no 1st century Billy Grahams or Joel Osteens.
J
JRKH
Guest
Agreed. I believe that St Paul even says to look things over, keep what is good and discard what is bad. he went into a Greek temple and used an altar to “The Unknown God” as a springboard for his presentation. In Germany the Evergreen was used to symbolize rebirth in winter. Tradition holds that St Patrick used the shamrock to teach the trinity.
More importantly, the idea of placing the feast of the nativity near the Winter Solstice took some of the “good elements” found in faiths and applied them to Christianity…Rebirth and renewal…the Coming of Spring etc. Yet some today want to attack this very “Pauline” principle and accuse Christmas of being of “pagan” origin blah blah blah…
AND as you say - certain “liturgical” and “ritual” items were also important aspects of the time and cultures across the board.
Peace
James
- Status