Early Church was more Catholic than Protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Early Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Church has a visible head, the Pope starting with Peter as the first Pope and the invisible head is Jesus Christ. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. They were called Nazarean but were called Christian in Antioch. By the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD, the Christian Church was called “Catholic Church.”

The Catholic Church in the early dates consist of five Metropolitan Sees. Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. These are called Patriarchiates. These are the major churches. There are other Churches too like those in Ephesus, Philadelphia, etc.
Actually the present Catholic Church has “evolved”
over the last 2 centuries. One which started as Jews who believed kept the Sabboth and all Jewish feasts met in Synagogues had community meals and met in houses. To a church that had Jewish and Gentile converts who fused together into one community of believers. The churches were independant of each other yet united. Over the course of a couple of centuries the Jewish roots of Christianity were removed from the Catholic Church and vertually all converts were gentiles. the Catholic Church accomadated these converts and “Christianized” their beliefs, holidays etc while accomadating much of the gentile culture. It became forbidden for Christians to celebrate Jewish holidays and feasts. Over centuries there was evolution for the worse and for the better. But in no way was the 1st century church resembled todays Catholic Church.
 
I thought that St. Irenaeus tells us that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and Cletus the second. :hmmm:
Linus succeeded St. Peter as his successor. Peter would not first bishop since he had no previous successors. Cletus or Anacletus is the second, and Clement of Rome is the third successor of St. Peter.
 
Actually the present Catholic Church has “evolved” over the last 2 centuries.
It’s more like development doctrines. The Catholic Church has its foundation on Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone and the Apostles.
One which started as Jews who believed kept the Sabboth and all Jewish feasts met in Synagogues had community meals and met in houses. To a church that had Jewish and Gentile converts who fused together into one community of believers. The churches were independant of each other yet united. Over the course of a couple of centuries the Jewish roots of Christianity were removed from the Catholic Church and vertually all converts were gentiles.
Eventually the Jewish sect called Nazoreans now Christians formerly split from Judaism on theologian grounds. However, the Church maintain much of its Jewish customs. The Christian Liturgy is based on the Jewish Liturgical type of worship, such as the procession of the Holy Gospel before the Mass starts. That is similiar to the Jewish worship of procession of the Torah.
the Catholic Church accomadated these converts and “Christianized” their beliefs, holidays etc while accomadating much of the gentile culture. It became forbidden for Christians to celebrate Jewish holidays and feasts. Over centuries there was evolution for the worse and for the better. But in no way was the 1st century church resembled todays Catholic Church.
I disagree completely. The First Century Church worship in liturgy and they believe in the sacrifice of the Mass or Divine Liturgy just like the Catholic Church. They also believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. They also have bishops just like the Church. In the first Century, the Church had Peter as their leader and when he was killed Linus succeeded him, followed by Anacletus or Cletus, then St. Clement of Rome, and down to our current Pope Benedict XVI.

The essential beliefs of the Early Church remain unchanged. Disciplines such as feast, vestments did change but core Christian belief did not change. In the first Century, no Christian had the concept of the Trinity. It was not until 325 AD that CC defined the belief of the Trinity in the Council of Nicea.
 
Linus succeeded St. Peter as his successor. Peter would not first bishop since he had no previous successors. Cletus or Anacletus is the second, and Clement of Rome is the third successor of St. Peter.
I thought St Paul was the first bishop of Rome. Can you prove it was St Peter?
 
The doctrine of my church differs in no way from that of the ECF’s though it does place emphasis in areas not often found in their opinions.
 
I thought St Paul was the first bishop of Rome. Can you prove it was St Peter?
If episcopal polity is what has been always and everywhere practiced by the early church and,

If there was a church already in place in Rome when Peter and Paul got there,

Neither of them can have been the first bishop in that church.
 
If episcopal polity is what has been always and everywhere practiced by the early church and,

If there was a church already in place in Rome when Peter and Paul got there,

Neither of them can have been the first bishop in that church.
My error and apology.

St. Irenaeus says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and Cletus the second.
 
I thought St Paul was the first bishop of Rome. Can you prove it was St Peter?
Dionysius of Corinth

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was **made by Peter and Paul at Rome **and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).

When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Peter of Alexandria

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Lactantius

When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
 
Dionysius of Corinth
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Eusebius
Peter of Alexandria
Lactantius
Cyril of Jerusalem
Damasus
Lots of good information here. There is even some info about Peter and Paul being in Rome. But I see nothing regarding St Peter being the first bishop of Rome.
 
Lots of good information here. There is even some info about Peter and Paul being in Rome. But I see nothing regarding St Peter being the first bishop of Rome.
Because there was already a Church established. Peter after establishing a Church in Antioch went to Rome for 25 yrs and was martyred there during the reign of Emperor Nero.
 
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . "
St Ireneaus

Notice that Linus is the first bishop of Rome.
 
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . "
St Ireneaus

Notice that Linus is the first bishop of Rome.
I don’t know why you keep repeating yourself. I already acknowlege this in a previous post. If you bother to look back.

I wrote that traditionally, Catholics believe Peter to be the first Pope. However, Linus is the first bishop, followed by Cletus or Aanacletus, the second bishop, and third bishop, Clement of Rome. That is why Clement of Rome is often referred to as the third successor of St. Peter.

Read post # 22.
 
I don’t know why you keep repeating yourself. I already acknowlege this in a previous post. If you bother to look back.
Now you sound a tad foolish. There was no such thing as Pope yet . At least you acknowledge that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.

Goodbye.
 
Now you sound a tad foolish. There was no such thing as Pope yet . At least you acknowledge that Linus was the first bishop of Rome.

Goodbye.
The word Pope means Papa. I going to report you to the moderators for calling me a tad foolish because I do find your remarks offensive and uncharitable.

Just because there was no term Pope doesn’t mean he wasn’t there in the beginning. It would like saying the term Trinity was not made yet until 325 AD.
 
The word Pope means Papa. I going to report you to the moderators for calling me a tad foolish because I do find your remarks offensive and uncharitable.
Again, my apologies. I did not mean to offend you. By sounding foolish, I simply meant that the term “Pope” for the bishop of Rome was not used for quite some time. I believe the Latin Catholic Church even teaches that.

By the way–I have been called far worse than “a tad foolish” on this forum. It helped me to thicken my skin. 😃

I thought I was going on your ignore list?
Just because there was no term Pope doesn’t mean he wasn’t there in the beginning. It would like saying the term Trinity was not made yet until 325 AD.
Trinity is obvious in the Bible. There are many Theophanies–including the hospitality of Abraham, the Baptism of Our Lord in the Jordan, and the Transfiguration. However, I do not see convincing evidence of supreme infallibility.
 
How can it be said the early church was more catholic than protestant when there are so many different doctrines and practices in the catholic church of today than in the early church?
You don’t see in the early church:
1-the rosary
2- Marian doctrines
3- celibate leadership

These are just some of the differences between the early church and the catholic church of today. These are not minor differences either.
 
Development is evolution–or innovation.🤷
Development is like the mustard tree from the mustard seed. Same plant, looks different. Everything that is in the tree was already in the seed and the seedling.
 
How can it be said the early church was more catholic than protestant when there are so many different doctrines and practices in the catholic church of today than in the early church?
You don’t see in the early church:
1-the rosary
2- Marian doctrines
3- celibate leadership

These are just some of the differences between the early church and the catholic church of today. These are not minor differences either.
You don’t either see in the early church:
  1. scripture alone
  2. faith alone
  3. symbolic presence of Christ in the Eurcharist
These are some of the differences between the early church and most Protestant churches of today.
 
Are Ex-Protestants who converted to Catholic or Orthodox change their faith due to study of Christian history?
This is certainly the case with Prof. Scott Hahn, and author Mark P. Shea, and many others. Both delved into church history before the Holy Spirit dragged them, kicking and screaming, into the Catholic Church. Both, not coincidentally, are delighted. A search, conducted by a heart which seeks only truth, and which loves Jesus enough to follow Him wherever he leads, will eventually come to the One True Church.

Christ’s peace to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top