Protestants, just what did the early Church look like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mark a:
Hello T. More,

I agree with the other Catholics about the Magisterium, etc, but your arguments are a very interesting way to turn the tables on us. We are usually the ones arguing from the “teaching authority” side of the fence.

Once again, I agree with the other Catholics about the magisterium, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he is using it in an illogical manner.

Peace
 
We need to get back on track, so I am posting the original post.

Dear Protestants,

I have been on this site for awhile and have tried to engage many of you on the issues regarding the early Church and history.

It has been my attempt to try and gain an understanding of the early Church from informed Protestants on this forum.

So, just what does the early Church look like to you?

What are your opinions about what was believed by the early Christians?

Peace
 
Mickey said:
**Please nobody read the book T. More has mentioned here. T. More seems very eager to accept anything that bashes Catholicism. **
Click to expand...

Why would recommend not reading the book? I read the book. Granted one weak in the faith could very easily be scandalized by it. But the truth is we need to know how this liberal mindset has infiltrated the church. I do believe it is an attack by Satan. We must know the truth so we can combat it, not turn a blind eye. The book isn’t a Catholic bashing book. It’s an eye opening account of we got into this liberal mess in the first place.

Yes there are liberal priests that go against church teaching. The Catechism is the official document on church teaching. It did not write itself.* If I want to know official Catholic teaching, who better to go to than the living church, the authorized teachers of the doctrine, all of whom are in good standing with the church? *The book was wriitten by authorized teachers of the church and has been reviewed to be certain it is free from error. Anything that contradicts the Catechism is not official church teaching.

About offering the cup? I have been to many many Catholic churches -in my area and while on vacation in other parts of the country I have never seen the cup not offered to the laity at any Mass I’ve been to.
 
T. More said:
“There are catechisms and there have been councils that declare what the Church teaches. The councils supercede a bishop in authority. No one, not even a preist can deny that the Church teaches the True Presence when the read the Council of Trent.”

Well, that depends on your private interpretation of canon law. You are not a canon lawyer, right?

Further, the priests’ interpretations of the councils are presumably sounder than yours, right? After all the Church has examined them and determined that they are fit for teaching and so awarded them the sacrament of orders. You don;'t have this authority or approval. Perhaps it is your private interpretation that is off.

I thought we were supposed to be getting back on track!
Click to expand...

No offense, but you must be the biggest moron there is if you can’t understand what the council of Trent says.
 
40.png
jimmy:
No offense, but you must be the biggest moron there is if you can’t understand what the council of Trent says.
Click to expand...
Let’s not resort to name calling and get back on track.

Peace
 
I read the entire thread. I can only answer you from a Pentecostal background. Using the scriptures as a guide, the early church consisted and acted as the apostles did in the book of acts. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers… with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:42,46-47). To the heirarchal construction of the church, it is not addressed except for the council at Jerusalem (ch.15). I find it interesting that there are no clear cut instructions on heirarchy, except for the installation of Peter. But at Jerusalem, the instructions for the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation was not decreed by Peter, but by James.Have a good day all.
40.png
dennisknapp:
We need to get back on track, so I am posting the original post.

Dear Protestants,

I have been on this site for awhile and have tried to engage many of you on the issues regarding the early Church and history.

It has been my attempt to try and gain an understanding of the early Church from informed Protestants on this forum.

So, just what does the early Church look like to you?

What are your opinions about what was believed by the early Christians?

Peace
Click to expand...
 
40.png
mj330:
I read the entire thread. I can only answer you from a Pentecostal background. Using the scriptures as a guide, the early church consisted and acted as the apostles did in the book of acts. “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers… with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:42,46-47). To the heirarchal construction of the church, it is not addressed except for the council at Jerusalem (ch.15). I find it interesting that there are no clear cut instructions on heirarchy, except for the installation of Peter. But at Jerusalem, the instructions for the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation was not decreed by Peter, but by James.Have a good day all.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is kind of fuzzy in regards to actual Church structure.

This why we need to move out of the NT and into early Christian writings.

I believe the heirs of the Apostles can show us how early Christians lived, worshiped, and believed.

Peace
 
Peace to you.

I am not sure if the issue is church heirarchy (I’ve just contradicted my last post), but rather beliefs and practices. Maybe an examination of the beliefs of the early church shows that the Catholic belief is more consistent with the current church. It is ironic that the Protestant church [of which I am one (although searching for truth)] will claim that the Catholics avoid Scripture, or that they (Pr.) are the ones to bring the church back to the truth when they will selectively pick Scripture to back their own beliefs.
One the one hand they will manipulate Scripture to fit their beliefs, and on the other they will criticize the RC church for their institution of tradition in the beliefs (I know I went off of point).
 
“No offense, but you must be the biggest moron there is if you can’t understand what the council of Trent says.”

Now, that is just plain rude. It is definitely NOT in the spirit of Vaitcan II. It does not surprise me, though. I will not respond with similar insults.

In any event, Protestants could say the same thing about your interpretation of scripture. Scripture is at least as clear as Trent. There may be a multicplicity of views on scripture. However, there are a multiplicity of views of Trent. Indeed, your views are likely a minority in the American Catholic Church.

The larger problem is your individualism in clinging to your private interpretations. Some authorized by the Church teach views that differ quite a bit from your private interpretations. You are appealing to a textual authority (a conciliar document) over against people authorized, approved of, and charged by the Church with teaching dogma. You are setting your private interpretations of Trent over and above the interpretations of those authorized by the Church to tell you what Trent means and how it applies to your life. It is very individualistic and is an essentially Protestant view of authority.
 
In terms of government, I think we can agree on at least this point, namely that the office of bishop, as distinct from presbyter, arose fairly early. We may or may not agree on whether that was of divine appointment or whether it was for expendiency. Jerome, for example, warns bishops against thinking too highly of themselves because their office is not of divine appointment.
Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained.
Click to expand...
Jerome notes two things. First, presbyters and bishops are the same in teh scriptures (he does this in several places, such as in his commentaries on the pastoral epistles. Second, the office of bishop, as over and above presbyters, is a mere custom that does not have divine appointment. That does not necessarily mean it should not be done (he does not argue that), only that we should recognize it is a convenience.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Yes, but he is using it in an illogical manner.

Peace
Click to expand...
i don’t understand how you cannot see that tmore’s attitude and posts have been very, very cordial. he seems to respect the church very much. i think he brings up a great point and one that the church must deal with. his question is still one that i deal with even while going through RCIA (and the reason i continue with RCIA is that i trust the church’s teaching authority over an individual priest’s). why do the bishops do nothing about (i realize that “nothing” is a very broad term, but please bear with me) rogue priests and parishes? those whose teachings are in direct conflict with the teaching of the church. why doesn’t the bishop step in and remove the priest. or the vatican step in and remove the bishop? i understand that the bishops can’t know everything that is happening, but then why aren’t the people crying out to the bishops? the book in question is a great book and deals with this issue. the author’s point is not to create a division, but a launchpad where all orthodox/devout catholics can start from to help rid the church of this insurgence. i believe the author loves the church deeply and is deeply troubled by the way some things are (or worse, aren’t) handled. tmore brings up some great points. now back to the issue at hand…

i would agree that many protestant services contain the elements of early church worship (being a former ordained minister in the evangelical free church) but they do lack the understanding of those elements. yes, some believe in the “true presence” but only spiritually while catholics get the physical presence of Christ under the accidents of bread and wine (did i say that properly?). the liturgy is not only for building up the local congregation (as is the protestant view) but to attach that congregation with the rest of the body around the world (a very heavenly view). ok, i’ve said enough for now…
 
“i don’t understand how you cannot see that tmore’s attitude and posts have been very, very cordial.”

Thank you! 😃 I am really no anti-Catholic. My handle “T. More” stands for a great Catholic saint, Thomas More, who resisted Henry’s division of the church on pretextual grounds. Henry’s reasons were wrong, even if reformation of some form was warranted. I hope for unity in the Church and appreciate the goals of Vatican II. Our divisions are a scandal.
 
T. More said:
“No offense, but you must be the biggest moron there is if you can’t understand what the council of Trent says.”

Now, that is just plain rude. It is definitely NOT in the spirit of Vaitcan II. It does not surprise me, though. I will not respond with similar insults.

In any event, Protestants could say the same thing about your interpretation of scripture. Scripture is at least as clear as Trent. There may be a multicplicity of views on scripture. However, there are a multiplicity of views of Trent. Indeed, your views are likely a minority in the American Catholic Church.

The larger problem is your individualism in clinging to your private interpretations. Some authorized by the Church teach views that differ quite a bit from your private interpretations. You are appealing to a textual authority (a conciliar document) over against people authorized, approved of, and charged by the Church with teaching dogma. You are setting your private interpretations of Trent over and above the interpretations of those authorized by the Church to tell you what Trent means and how it applies to your life. It is very individualistic and is an essentially Protestant view of authority.
Click to expand...

Is it private interpretation to point to what the CCC teaches. The CCC is the official interpretation of Tradition and Scripture that the Church hands to the Faithful. It is the official interpretation.

Peace
 
T. More said:
“No offense, but you must be the biggest moron there is if you can’t understand what the council of Trent says.”

Now, that is just plain rude. It is definitely NOT in the spirit of Vaitcan II. It does not surprise me, though. I will not respond with similar insults.

In any event, Protestants could say the same thing about your interpretation of scripture. Scripture is at least as clear as Trent. There may be a multicplicity of views on scripture. However, there are a multiplicity of views of Trent. Indeed, your views are likely a minority in the American Catholic Church.

The larger problem is your individualism in clinging to your private interpretations. Some authorized by the Church teach views that differ quite a bit from your private interpretations. You are appealing to a textual authority (a conciliar document) over against people authorized, approved of, and charged by the Church with teaching dogma. You are setting your private interpretations of Trent over and above the interpretations of those authorized by the Church to tell you what Trent means and how it applies to your life. It is very individualistic and is an essentially Protestant view of authority.
Click to expand...

No, there are not a multiplicity of views on Trent. There are those who accept Trent and those who do not accept Trent. I gave all the athemas regarding the Eucharist. It is mentally and logically impossible to interpret that the Eucharist is just a peace of bread or even only spiritual true presence.
 
Just a thing to say about the Divine Liturgy of St James. The first thing that strikes me about it is not even a mere emphasis but a very natural expression of the sacrificial priesthood. Has anyone else had this thought? When you see the Deacon go on and on with leading the prayers and practically leading the celebration turn to the priest and say, “Sir, pronounce the blessing?” The priest does have his own lengthy parts do say, but the very purpose of his being there is sacrifice. The reading of the Scripture and praying could well go on without him. Even the distrubution of the Holy Eucharist could be done by the deacons without the priest even being there. But he is the one who offers the sacrifice and blesses the people (also a link to the judaistic tradition - up to this day members of the priestly nobility have blessing hands carved or painted or otherwise depicted on their graves).

Is there any way to mistake it for a Protestant celebration?
 
Responding to the original post, one belief that is consistent as far back as it is addressed, is the unifying understanding that the Church was built on Peter.

Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, et al, all understood Matthew 16 this way. It seems to me that all the debate about which current practices are closest to those of the early church has to acknowledge the essentiality of that unifying understanding.

How do Protestants view the early Church? Some very informed ones on the Lutheran Forum, while acknowledging the early Fathers’ view, protest that the “Apostolic Fathers” (1st/2nd Centuries) never understood the Bishop of Rome as having the authority over the whole Church, that the Pope today is supposed to have.

Less informed Protestants, of course, will say that the whole idea that Petros = Petra is an invention of recent centuries.

Peace.
John
 
“Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, et al, all understood Matthew 16 this way.”

Not is terms of a papacy. They actually affirmed the typical Protestant understanding that the reference to Peter concerned his confession. I am reluctant to get into cutting and pasting patristic quotes as that never seems to produce anything, but here goes . . .

Augustine:
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.
Click to expand...
Chrysostom:
For when Nathaniel said, ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ Christ replies, ‘Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these.’ Now what is the question arising from this passage? It is this. Peter, when after so many miracles and such high doctrine he confessed that, ‘Thou art the Son of God’ (Matt. Xvi.16), is called ‘blessed,’ as having received the revelation from the Father; while Nathanael, though he said the very same thing before seeing or hearing either miracles or doctrine, had no such word addressed to him, but as though he had not said so much as he ought to have said, is brought to things greater still. What can be the reason for this? It is, that Peter and Nathanael both spoke the same words, but not both with the same intention. Peter confessed Him to be ‘The Son of God’ but as being very God; Nathanael, as being mere man. And whence does this appear? From what he said after these words; for after, ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ he adds, ‘Thou art the King of Israel.’ But the Son of God is not ‘King of Israel’ only, but of all the world. And what I say is clear, not from this only, but also from what follows. For Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith were perfect, said, upon this confession He would build the Church; but in the other case He did nothing like this, but the contrary.
Click to expand...
 
“Is it private interpretation to point to what the CCC teaches. The CCC is the official interpretation of Tradition and Scripture that the Church hands to the Faithful. It is the official interpretation.”

I see a couple of difficulties in your suggested approach. The first involves the challenge of discerning the correct source of dogma. There are many sources for obtaining Catholic teaching. There are the scriptures, living duly-appointed teachers, the CCC, papal encyclicals, the writings of the church fathers, conciliar decisions, canon law and ohers. There are differing views on how these relate to one another and which, if any, is most authoritative. I am sure you have your view. Others have theirs. In any event, your decision to choose the CCC over the voice of living teachers duly authorized and approved by the Catholic Church is a value-laden private judgment. You have judged their relative value. Why would you think that you (or me, or any other private individual) are competent to make that judgment?

There is a second matter. Namely, when the living voice of the church (speaking through duly approved living teachers), which is charged with teaching church dogma, tells you the Church’s mind on a matter, are you entitled to appeal to some textual authority (whether the CCC, the scriptures, writings of Church Fathers, etc.) that you think trumps this voice? These teachers have the Church’s stamp of approval in terms of the right and ability to teach dogma. Private individuals do not…
 
T. More said:
“Is it private interpretation to point to what the CCC teaches. The CCC is the official interpretation of Tradition and Scripture that the Church hands to the Faithful. It is the official interpretation.”

I see a couple of difficulties in your suggested approach. The first involves the challenge of discerning the correct source of dogma. There are many sources for obtaining Catholic teaching. There are the scriptures, living duly-appointed teachers, the CCC, papal encyclicals, the writings of the church fathers, conciliar decisions, canon law and ohers. There are differing views on how these relate to one another and which, if any, is most authoritative. I am sure you have your view. Others have theirs. In any event, your decision to choose the CCC over the voice of living teachers duly authorized and approved by the Catholic Church is a value-laden private judgment. You have judged their relative value. Why would you think that you (or me, or any other private individual) are competent to make that judgment?

There is a second matter. Namely, when the living voice of the church (speaking through duly approved living teachers), which is charged with teaching church dogma, tells you the Church’s mind on a matter, are you entitled to appeal to some textual authority (whether the CCC, the scriptures, writings of Church Fathers, etc.) that you think trumps this voice? These teachers have the Church’s stamp of approval in terms of the right and ability to teach dogma. Private individuals do not…
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point? What if two duly appointed teacher teach two different things? Who are we to listen to?

You point make no sense whatsoever. The CCC is the Catholic Churches official teaching on all matters. How is this hard to understand.

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top