Early Church not Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barbkw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mick321 said:
My point is that I have yet seen evidence that Peter advanced the sort of overbearing papal “mission creep” that was part and parcel of the “reign” of subsequent “Popes”.
Click to expand...
I don’t even know that this means. So I will let it pass.
Their exploits are a matter of history. To deny that pride, ego and worldly political ambition followed immediately on the heels of the perceived supremacy/infallibility thing, is is to ignore that history.
Click to expand...
I would never deny that pride ego and worldly political ambition were not a part of the Church’s history. However I would also not try to look at that in a sort of “box” that ignores the external pressures that were placed on the papacy at various times.
It is my opinion that one of the worse things to happen to the papacy was having to act as both Spiritual and Civil authority after the fall of the Empire in the West. Something that the Eastern Patriarchs did not have to face…
This fact caused many problems…
That said, it amazes me that the Teachings of the Church have survived so well and only serves to give me even greater confidence in Holy Mother Church.
The unilateral introduction of doctrinal innovation - never taught by Christ or the Apostles - is what fueled the E/W Schism and everything that followed, including the Protestant Reformation.
Click to expand...
I cannot comment on this as I am not informed on this matter. I will leave these discussions to those knowledgeable and charged by both Churches to work toward resolution.
And yes, I too pray that Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches would find a way to resolve their differences, sooner rather than later. The dispute itself is insulting to memory of Christ and the Apostles who gave their earthly lives to get it right.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.

Peace
James
 
TimothyH said:
I would very much like to hear more. Please explain. This stuff is interesting to me.

Are you saying that they meant “House of God?”

Please explain.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the ‘house of God’ is a different Greek word. The word Paul uses in 1Cor 16:19 is a dwelling place. So, I gather Aquila and Priscilla had enough money and standing in their community to own a house (unheard of for the average person) and it was big enough for Paul to lodge there. And there were probably more than a few others who lodged there as well.
So I gather it was big enough for a gathering of people for the Mass AND to serve as a kind of ‘boarding house’ A lot people don’t realize the Temple in Jerusalem had the same setup. It served as a kind of ‘hotel’ during major Holy Days.
My point is simply the ‘house church’ proponents are looking at these verses with 21st century eyes. They are thinking of a Bible Study in a 1st century living room with togas instead of polo shirts and jeans. When I was a fundamentalist I remember many imagined that is exactly what the early church was like!
How they would have done this without a Bible I don’t know.
 
JRKH said:
I don’t even know that this means. So I will let it pass.

He’s referring to those popes of the middle ages that didn’t even remotely resemble what Peter and the Apostles were.
Click to expand...
 
JRKH said:
I don’t even know that this means. So I will let it pass.

My guess is that he’s referring to the popes of the middle ages that didn’t even remotely resemble who Peter and the Apostles were.
Click to expand...
 
Barbkw said:
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.
Click to expand...
The word “catholic” came into the language in about 1300. You might start there.
 
40.png
JustaServant:
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the Catholic Church was the “only game in town” for 1500 years?😦

How is it beneficial to deny this?

How does it change their faith traditions?

:confused:😦
 
Little_Mary said:
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the Catholic Church was the “only game in town” for 1500 years?😦

How is it beneficial to deny this?

How does it change their faith traditions?

:confused:😦
Click to expand...
It’s psychologically very hard for some to accept that which is so diametrically opposite to themselves, as being the ‘only game in town’. They MUST come up with an alternative history for comfort. Otherwise they have to admit a very uncomfortable fact:
That they are wrong.
Notice I have recieved no responses to my challege of ‘proof’ of these ‘alternative christianities’.
 
Little_Mary said:
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the Catholic Church was the “only game in town” for 1500 years?😦

How is it beneficial to deny this?

How does it change their faith traditions?

:confused:😦
Click to expand...
This is not entirely correct. One could say that the “Catholic Church” was the only game in town for the first 1000 years. After the East West Split, there were two games in town…Catholic and Orthodox…😉

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
This is not entirely correct. One could say that the “Catholic Church” was the only game in town for the first 1000 years. After the East West Split, there were two games in town…Catholic and Orthodox…😉

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, James.
 
Little_Mary said:
I stand corrected, James.
Click to expand...
No problem. We normally think in terms of “Catholic Protestant” and it is important to recognize our Orthodox brothers.

That said, there IS a lot of truth in your original comment for neither the Catholic or the Orthodox Church hold to much of what the Protestant communities espouse.
For instance…Sola Scriptura was unheard of prior to the Reformation…Likewise Sola Fide. Likewise the denial of the real presence…likewise “invisible church”…Likewise "private interpretation…etc…

So - in point of fact, doctrinally and theologically there WAS only one game in town for 1500 years because East and West both held to and espoused the beliefs of the ancient Church and only differed in a few areas - mostly structural.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
This is not entirely correct. One could say that the “Catholic Church” was the only game in town for the first 1000 years. After the East West Split, there were two games in town…Catholic and Orthodox…😉

Peace
James
Click to expand...
This is not entirely correct, either. The Assyrian Church of the East broke away at the the time of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, and the Oriental Orthodox broke away following the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451.
 
The Early Church was not Catholic? Did this fellow substantiate his claim - at all?
 
RyanBlack said:
This is not entirely correct, either. The Assyrian Church of the East broke away at the the time of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, and the Oriental Orthodox broke away following the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451.
Click to expand...
And now I stand corrected…

Peace
James
 
40.png
JustaServant:
Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

I’m sorry, Just, I forgot that Paul wrote in English! What a silly boy. Hmmmm… do you suppose you might have gotten that from a translation made after 1300?

There is the wonderful story of the woman who’s husband’s job took her to a foreign land. She refused to learn the local language. When asked why, she said “God writ the Bible in English, so that’s good enough for me!”
 
Whadyamean said:
Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, Just, I forgot that Paul wrote in English! What a silly boy. Hmmmm… do you suppose you might have gotten that from a translation made after 1300?

There is the wonderful story of the woman who’s husband’s job took her to a foreign land. She refused to learn the local language. When asked why, she said “God writ the Bible in English, so that’s good enough for me!”

Sources please…thanks:)
 
Little_Mary said:
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the Catholic Church was the “only game in town” for 1500 years?😦

How is it beneficial to deny this?

How does it change their faith traditions?

:confused:😦
Click to expand...
Well, Catholic/Orthodox yes, but that doesn’t mean that either one has a monopoly on the truth today.👍
 
Little_Mary said:
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the Catholic Church was the “only game in town” for 1500 years?😦

How is it beneficial to deny this?

How does it change their faith traditions?

:confused:😦
Click to expand...
Well see, if non-Catholics didn’t do as such, then there would be no reason for Protestants. You have to discredit 2000 years of Church history so that you can give reasons for your Protestant church to exist. If you didn’t revise history, then there would be no other option than to turn Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top