Early Church/Tradition

[BCven86]

I was having a discussion with a protestant friend about tradition and the early church and he brought up a question that I was unsure how to answer:

Was everyone of the early church of like mind and belief? i.e. we derive much of our tradition off of the dogma of the early church, but how can we say that collectively all of the early church believed the same thing? What if Catholicism was just one sect of what the early church actually was?

His reasoning was that, for example, the churches at Ephesis and Corinth were run in very different ways, what makes one way better than the other? and from which did Catholicism get derived?

My response was that we are followers of Peter and gave him the whole Matthew 16 argument.

You guys have any ideas?

 

[samurai333]

I dont know about Ephesus and Corinth, specifically what he is referring to. But the wording “run differently” would seem to me to indicate something similar to an Eastern Rite/Roman Rite kind of thing. The Church has always been fine with different cultures having different spiritualities that fit their culture as long as they conformed to the doctrine of the Church. Did he mention any specific theological differences?

As far as the sect thing, I think its a pretty historically established fact that even though there were other forms of it around they didnt pop up for awhile and eventually died off. Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) are what stuck around throughout the ages obviously. As the reading today said - if it is human it will destroy itself, if it is from God it will last.

 

[BCven86]

No, he was referring more to the structure of the churches, he didn’t actually cite anything concrete.

Either way, I would like to be prepared for this question. With what certainty can we say that what was believed by the vast majority of early church has been directly preserved through tradition in the Catholic Church? and that the Church is not only representative of only a part of what the ECF believed?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The early Church was “run” by a bishop who was assisted by deacons and, later, priests. Paul uses the term “bishop” and “priest” interchangeably for his early writings. The actual hierarchical structure of the Church took a while to develop (probably 150 years), but it is clear that, from the beginning, there was an “overseer” who took care of the local Church. This is clearly seen in Paul’s letter to Timothy (who was, himself, one of these “overseers.”

Deacon Ed

 

[samurai333]

he didn’t actually cite anything concrete.

QUOTE]

Ah ha! I mean he might actually have something, but just vague statements arent really great for debates. You should probably ask him to be specific and if he mentions specific examples then you can go from there.

 

[BCven86]

Well it was sort of a quick conversation, we didn’t have much time to talk about it but I am sure he is prepared in some way or another… he is very on top of this kind of stuff.

So I should rely on Timothy huh? Are there any more places I can look for more information, maybe in the dogma?

 

[palmas85]

I was having a discussion with a protestant friend about tradition and the early church and he brought up a question that I was unsure how to answer:

Was everyone of the early church of like mind and belief? i.e. we derive much of our tradition off of the dogma of the early church, but how can we say that collectively all of the early church believed the same thing? What if Catholicism was just one sect of what the early church actually was?

His reasoning was that, for example, the churches at Ephesis and Corinth were run in very different ways, what makes one way better than the other? and from which did Catholicism get derived?

My response was that we are followers of Peter and gave him the whole Matthew 16 argument.

You guys have any ideas?

Well the obvious answer is that for the first several hundred years until the establishment of the Canon of Scripture, you had lots of different interpretations lots of different books lots of beliefs and very little in the way of continuity or commonality. Some groups of early Christians believed in one God, others two, others three others 30 and still others 365. Some believed that Christ was a man. others a divine being and still others both or neither. Some believed that Christ rose from the dead and others that Christ did not. Some said that Christ died for mans sins and salvation, others said his death had nothing to do with salvation and others that he didn’t die at all as he was never on the cross Some believed you had to be Jewish first and others that you couldn’t have anything to do with Jews.

There were different Gospels floating around, different Acts, different Epistles and Letters. Hundreds of them. Some Christians thought Paul was the savior, others followed his teachings about Christ and still others thought Paul was a heretic

Intense stuff and not at all what we were taught. What happened basically is this:

In all of the confusion and antagonism, the Church at Rome had a special place. Consecrated by the blood of both Paul AND Peter as well as numerous other martyrs and because Rome was the seat of the empire, the Roman Church had a lot of influence, prestige and was looked to for answers to a lot of questions. Because of its unique position as stated above, the other Churches gave Rome a place of honor far higher than the other churches. When a decision needed to be made in the areas of faith or morals, all the Churches looked to the Bishop of Rome or as we more popularly know him, the Pope.

Gradually almost all the Churches fell in line with Rome and most of the heretical ones died out. When the Canon of the Bible was finally decided upon the Roman Church was the Church that was instrumental in which books were chosen. Not coincidentally, they were the books used by the Roman Church.

Afterwards, there remained some antagonism between the Patriarch of Constantinople and The Bishop of Rome, mainly political in nature, which eventually led to the split between the Orthodox Churches and Rome. Very simplistic answer but it gives you the basics.

 

[Gara3987]

I was having a discussion with a protestant friend about tradition and the early church and he brought up a question that I was unsure how to answer:

Was everyone of the early church of like mind and belief? i.e. we derive much of our tradition off of the dogma of the early church, but how can we say that collectively all of the early church believed the same thing? What if Catholicism was just one sect of what the early church actually was?

His reasoning was that, for example, the churches at Ephesis and Corinth were run in very different ways, what makes one way better than the other? and from which did Catholicism get derived?

My response was that we are followers of Peter and gave him the whole Matthew 16 argument.

You guys have any ideas?

A perfect book for you to check out is Tradition and the Church, By: Msgr. George Agius, D.D., J.C.D.
**Synopsis
**Tradition and the Church. What exactly is Tradition? This is the only book we know on the subject. Published in 1928 by a priest with three doctors’ degrees, this book exposes all aspects of Tradition, so that once a person has read this book, he will never question the nature of Tradition again. Every priest, bishop and cardinal, every seminarian and everyone who considers himself to be an informed Catholic should also read this providential book—which is reappearing at a crucial time in the history of the Church, to help clarify our understanding about the nature of the Deposit of Faith and how we should all revere and cherish the Tradition of the Church!

You could bring up: **Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. **[2Thess. 2, 14]

that is:

“Traditions”… See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.

Traditions and Scriptures go hand in hand (are equal).

There are two Tradition (Parents) Roots; Divine and Ecclesiastical. Divine is further broken down into to more branches Dominical (From Christ Directly) and Divine Apostolic (from the Holy Ghost). The Scriptures are a Divine Apostolic Tradition (from God through man). The Bible is a Greek term meaning “the books”, and was created by the Catholic Church compiling the Holy Scriptures.

You could bring that to your friends attention.

If Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are correct than that would make St. Paul and the bible incorrect, wouldn’t it.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I was having a discussion with a protestant friend about tradition and the early church and he brought up a question that I was unsure how to answer:

Was everyone of the early church of like mind and belief? …

St. Irenaeus, A.D. 189: *"As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points (of doctrine) just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

"For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth.

"Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition.

“For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it”* (Against the Heresies).

 

[Genesis315]

There have always been heresies and errors floating around, even in the time of the Apostles (they are warned of in various Scriptural Epistles). As Pax et Caritas pointed out citing St. Ireneaus, the rule of faith was always one, but not everyone assented to it completely–which is why St. Ireneaus had to write that book in the first place.