Protestants - When did the Catholic Church Begin?

[Contarini]

Ignatius of Antioch, born in 50 AD, a second generation Apostle taught by St. John, and the first Martyr to be fed to the lions in the Collesium, said “Whereever Jesus Christ is, there is The Catholic Church”. That’s a long time before 600.

Exactly. That hardly supports your definition of “the Catholic Church,” does it? Especially since Jesus said that He would be present wherever two or three are gathered in His Name. So if you put these two formulations together, you have

The Catholic Church=wherever two or three people gather in the name of Jesus!

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

MEMAW:
this kind of argument is useless because a catholic does not know the definiton of “Church”

The Catholic does not what the definition of the word Church and please I think it would be best not to resort to personal attacks against another forum member. That is uncharitable and un-Christian of you to do so.

Don’t use the excuse, “but he started it.” Because it will make you a hypocrite.

 

[Contarini]

Im very well aware of the history of Calvin And Augie when they lived. My point is Calvin was an admire of Augie and

“It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation.” So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other theologian that provoked Warfield’s remark. Rather, it was that the Reformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over the legacy of the Pelagian view of man.

Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fathers of Reformation teaching on salvation and grace.

Of course Calvinists claim this. That doesn’t make it true. It’s truer of Calvinism than of Lutheranism, but not entirely true of either. The cardinal Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone is not found in Augustine–in fact it is arguably Augustine who is responsible for killing off whatever form of “sola fide” one can find in earlier Christian writers. Augustine replaced a faith/works dichotomy with a grace/free will dichotomy. The peculiarity of the Reformation was to combine these two.

It is a fact that Augustine taught predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace.

He did not teach limited atonement.

The Catholic church deny all of these doctrines.

Wrong. The Catholic Church does not deny predestination, although there are various opinions on the subject within Catholicism, and the most Augustinian school of Catholic theology has a much more nuanced view than Calvinism does. As for “irresistible grace”–it depends on how you define it. The Thomist doctrine of “efficient grace” does essentially the same work as the Calvinist “irresistible grace”–it’s just expressed in a subtler way and attempts to leave room for free will. Catholics do deny limited atonement, but this isn’t an Augustinian doctrine. It’s not even clear that Calvin himself taught it.

Warfield is a dubious guide to the interpretation of St. Augustine.

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

Exactly. That hardly supports your definition of “the Catholic Church,” does it? Especially since Jesus said that He would be present wherever two or three are gathered in His Name. So if you put these two formulations together, you have

The Catholic Church=wherever two or three people gather in the name of Jesus!

Edwin

So you claim to be Catholic then? I don’t see the point of Non-Catholic Christians boasting what the term Catholic is. Yet these NCC aren’t even Catholics. Yet we know those who are Catholic professes to believe that Jesus Christ established One Church upon St. Peter.

We Catholics do know what the word Catholic is. That is why we boastfully say we are Catholics. You apparently don’t call yourself Catholic.

The Early Church Fathers know exactly what the Catholic Church is.

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

Of course this Church also have a visible shepard the Pope, who is the sucessor of St. Peter.

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.” Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…"…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382).

“**ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God.” John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430).

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…” Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).**

 

[JustaServant]

Getting back to the OP, let me repost what I wrote on my blog about my journey back to the Catholic faith:

I began to read the writings of the Early Church. I was especially interested in the first three centuries of the Church. I was still hanging on to the idea that the Church began to be infected with paganism after 312 AD. I wanted to “prove” (for my own benefit at least) that the church of the first few centuries was not Catholic.
I bought a book, edited by an Episcopal priest, that gave thousands of quotes from the early Church on various issues and topics. I read early Church documents I bought at a bookstore or online (Eusibius, Augustine and others).
I ate up as much as I could about what the Church of the first three centuries believed.
I was in shock. They were VERY Catholic.
The two earliest writers after the New Testament to bear witness to the Apostolic succession of the ministry were St. Clement of Rome (95AD) and St. Ignatius(105AD). They regard it as God’s permanent provision for His Church and as the bond of Church unity.
We first find the term “the Catholic Church” used by St. Ignatius. Tertullian (late 2nd century) challenged the heretical sects of his time to prove their being in possession of the truth, by producing a succession of Bishops. The word “Apostolic” in the Nicene Creed refers to a continuous Apostolic governance.
The existence of a human priesthood within the Catholic Church is foretold in the prophecies of Isaiah (Is. 66:21) and Jeremiah ( Jer. 33: 15-22) . To deny that would leave these prophecies unexplained and unfulfilled.
I purchased two books at a bookstore: “The Imitation of Christ” by Thomas a’Kempis, and the writings of St. Bonaventure. I was blown away. How could this be? I read the life of St. Francis of Assisi and was confronted with the same truth.
These men wrote in the “Dark Ages” when Rome supposedly had the Christian world in it’s grip. The light would not penetrate the darkness until the Reformation. But THESE men….they loved the Lord. They were filled with the Holy Spirit.
AND THEY WERE “CATHOLIC”!!
end of repost.

To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

If someone were visiting a town, and inquired of a local person, “Can you give me directions to the nearest catholic church”, which Church do you think they’d point out?

What does this prove? The Catholic Church declares that they are the one true Church and that all other groups are mere ecclesiatical bodies, not churches. Yet, if you simply inquired of a local person, “Can you give me directiosn to the nearest church?” do you think they would only point you toward Catholic Churches?

To ALL those who are arguing over the exact number of protestant denominations…Who cares?.. it isn’t relevant to this conversation either way. If you want to ask when did the Catholic Church become just one of many denominations,OK. But that is a different question.

Btw, he answer to that later question would be when the catholic Church began to denominate itself. (It’s a word. We don’t just have churches divided into denominations, so is money. It means to divide into named subgroups within the larger group. It is a name indicating a class of like individuals, groups, currency, etc., a category within a larger body.)

In other words, the Catholic Church became just another denomination within the larger universal Church when those within that larger universal Church began to sub-divide themselves into groups that were declared to be Catholic and others that it declared were non-Catholic but they weren’t declared to be non-Christian. And perhaps that is as good of a time as any to say when the Catholic Church versus the catholic Church began.

So, if the Catholic Church thought that Bishop Arius was still a Christian even though not an adherent of the theology of the rest of the catholic Church, then that would when the Catholic Churcch began. (My understanding is that Arius was seen as espousing non-Christians theology.) Or if the excommuncation of the Patriach of Constantinople in 1054 means that he is no longer considered part of the universal catholic Church, but is a Christian, then that is when it quite being a universal catholic Church and the Catholic Church began. Perhaps it began in 867 when Greek answering to Patriarch Photius in Constantinople and Latin missionaries answering to Pope Nicholas III in Rome could not see clear to work together on behalf of a single universal Church.

Personally, I think that when the filioque clause was inserted into the Nicene Creed in 589 and we had some parts of the universal Church accept it and some parts of the universal Church not, that we then and there could denominate the universal Church into the Filioque denomination and the non-Filioque denomination. As the Catholic Church identifies itself with the historically filioque group, I think that is when the uniquely Catholic Churcch, versus the catholic Church, began because from that point on there has not been a universal doctrine accepted by all Christians, yet these two subgroups within the larger Church did recognize each other as belonging to the same body of Christ.

 

[Steadfast]

Yes abcd, I am familiar with the document and agree fundamentally with Dr. Barry’s opinion. It is a deeply flawed “agreement” as I understand it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What does this prove? The Catholic Church declares that they are the one true Church and that all other groups are mere ecclesiatical bodies, not churches. Yet, if you simply inquired of a local person, “Can you give me directiosn to the nearest church?” do you think they would only point you toward Catholic Churches?

Because the Catholic Church is the One truth Church of Christ. It contains the fullness of faith and truth.

There those who are also consider members of the Catholic Church but are not in full communion with us because they have no Pope.

But by the virtue of their baptism, Protestants and EO are members of our Catholic Church in a spiritual sense, but their union is imperfect.

To ALL those who are arguing over the exact number of protestant denominations…Who cares?.. it isn’t relevant to this conversation either way. If you want to ask when did the Catholic Church become just one of many denominations,OK. But that is a different question.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the Only Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Btw, the answer to that later question would be when the catholic Church began to denominate itself. (It’s a word. We don’t just have churches divided into denominations, so is money. It means to divide into named subgroups within the larger group. It is a name indicating a class of like individuals, groups, currency, etc., a category within a larger body.)

This is a different topic. We should open a thread what an denomination is.

In other words, the Catholic Church became just another denomination within the larger universal Church when those within that larger universal Church began to sub-divide themselves into groups that were declared to be Catholic and others that it declared were non-Catholic but they weren’t declared to be non-Christian. And perhaps that is as good of a time as any to say when the Catholic Church versus the catholic Church began.

The Catholic Church is neither a denomination. It is a universal Church. There is no division in this Church’s faith and it professes one doctrine.

It seem to me that you like to separate the Catholic Church and catholic church as if they were two different entities. They aren’t. Tell me, why do you think they call this Catholic Answers in the first place? Or why is our Catechism called Catechism of the Catholic Church? It is the Catholic Church. Protestants don’t claim the term Catholic to themselves. In fact some would go at length to omit the word Catholic in the Apostles Creed.

So, if the Catholic Church thought that Bishop Arius was still a Christian even though not an adherent of the theology of the rest of the catholic Church, then that would when the Catholic Churcch began. (My understanding is that Arius was seen as espousing non-Christians theology.) Or if the excommuncation of the Patriach of Constantinople in 1054 means that he is no longer considered part of the universal catholic Church, but is a Christian, then that is when it quite being a universal catholic Church and the Catholic Church began. Perhaps it began in 867 when Greek answering to Patriarch Photius in Constantinople and Latin missionaries answering to Pope Nicholas III in Rome could not see clear to work together on behalf of a single universal Church.

The East and West Christianity which are EO and the Catholic Church is often describe as the two lung of the Church. Though, many EO don’t like it. Dialogues have been discuss for possibility unity btwn both churches and they start with the issue of the primacy of the Pope.

Personally, I think that when the filioque clause was inserted into the Nicene Creed in 589 and we had some parts of the universal Church accept it and some parts of the universal Church not, that we then and there could denominate the universal Church into the Filioque denomination and the non-Filioque denomination. As the Catholic Church identifies itself with the historically filioque group, I think that is when the uniquely Catholic Churcch, versus the catholic Church, began because from that point on there has not been a universal doctrine accepted by all Christians, yet these two subgroups within the larger Church did recognize each other as belonging to the same body of Christ.

Not entirely true. In our Eastern Catholic Church, the filioque clause is not to be said in their Profession of faith in their Divine Liturgy. The Eastern Church has their own Code of Canon Law which is separate from Code of Canon Law of the Roman Rite. It would be incorrect to say that the Catholic Church requires the faithful to recite the filioque clause because in the E. Catholicism they don’t profess it.

 

[SyCarl]

. Tertullian (late 2nd century) challenged the heretical sects of his time to prove their being in possession of the truth, by producing a succession of Bishops. The word “Apostolic” in the Nicene Creed refers to a continuous Apostolic governance.
.

While Terullian did count tracing a succession of bishops as one means of being Apostolic, he did not limit it to that.

To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by **those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men **(as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. (Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32)

newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

Tertullian indicates that a church is Apostolic if it agrees with the same doctrine of the Apostles.

 

[ahem]

Assuming Barrett is right, I’m not sure what there being 8,196 (rather than 25,000) Protestant denominations does to counter the claim that Protestantism is an affront to the doctrinal unity which Christ’s Church is supposed to show.

– Mark L. Chance.

It’s certainly not a position I would take (if that were a case I was trying to make).

 

[ahem]

But if you asked for a protestant church, they would say,“Which one”.

I believe the main reason Catholics see themselves as the one true church is because they are taught that, and that’s why Orthodox believe the same. Rarely (except in the case of cults) do other churches push that (even though some of them behave as though they were the only).

This is not a criticism.

I think that the Reformation helped precipitate the Counter Reformation, and a lot of our thought derives from that (of course I’m not overlooking that there are are other Christians besides Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant).

 

[inkaneer]

I believe the main reason Catholics see themselves as the one true church is because they are taught that, and that’s why Orthodox believe the same. Rarely (except in the case of cults) do other churches push that (even though some of them behave as though they were the only).

This is not a criticism.

I think that the Reformation helped precipitate the Counter Reformation, and a lot of our thought derives from that (of course I’m not overlooking that there are are other Christians besides Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant).

But Jesus said he would establish A church not churches. He also prayed that His followers be one as He and the Father were one. Now maybe we should ask when did the non Catholic Churches begin? Let’s see now, Lutherans began in the sixteenth century, Baptists in the seventeenth, Methodist in the eighteenth, Anglicans in the sixteenth, Did Iganatius or any of the early church writers ever call the church Methodist or Lutheran or Presbyterian or Anglican of any of the non Catholic Churches? No. Starting with Ignatius in 107-110 AD the Christian church was known by one name and one name only and that was The Catholic Church. Even protestant scholars agree. For instance, early church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a noted Protestant scholar , wrote:

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

And history backs up what he says. In 155 we read in “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” the following:

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

The Muratorian Canon also refers to “The Catholic Church” as a “visible society”:

"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).

By the time of Cyril of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century the term Catholic Church was so cemented as the name of the Christian church that Cyril would tell his catechumens:

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” (Catechetical Lectures, 18:26). [A.D. 350]).

Allow me to repeat what Cyril says here about the name ‘The Catholic Church’. He says, “… For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” He makes no mention of any other ‘church’ And why should he? After all, protestantism is over a millenium into the future.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

This is a different topic. We should open a thread what an denomination is.

I think I should precisely why it is a part of this thread. The thread titled: Protestants – When did the Catholic Church begin. From my protestant persepctive, the Catholic Church began when it quit being representative of all of Christiandom. And since the quesiton is actually addressed to protestants, perhaps answers from Catholics are what belongs in another thread.

The Catholic Church is neither a denomination. It is a universal Church.

No, I’m sorry to tell you that this is just propaganda. It isn’t really the truth.

There is no division in this Church’s faith and it professes one doctrine.

You mean there is no division in the instution that has its headquarters in Rome. There certainly is a division in the Church. And this division goes back to long before Protestantism arrived on the scene. In fact, it was divisions in the Church that brought about the calling of councils to discuss and resolve those differences. Some of them were more successful than others. To ignore this reality is to ignore the history of your own church let alone the history of the whole Church.

It seem to me that you like to separate the Catholic Church and catholic church as if they were two different entities. They aren’t.

Again, I have to disagree with you. They are. The term Catholic Church is a title, denoting the institutional otganization that recognizes the Pope as head of a body politic (a religious organization). You may wish to claim that it is universal, but it clearly isn’t in anyone eyes accept its own. There are other Christians in the world who are not a part of this organization known as the Catholic Church and yet they are indeed Christians and even recognizes as such by the Catholic Church. Hence, because they are Christians they are part of the body of Christ. And this body of Christ is what Jesus instuted as the Church. When we talk about all of the people in the world who are part of this Church that Jesus instituted we are talking about the universal Church of Jesus Christ, not just the Catholic Church. Because the term universal and catholic (as an adjective, not a name) are synonyms, it is appropriate to refer to all persons who are in Christ as part of the catholic Church, but it is not appropriate to refer to anyone but members of the organization that sees its head as the Pope to be members of the Catholic Church.

Tell me, why do you think they call this Catholic Answers in the first place? Or why is our Catechism called Catechism of the Catholic Church? It is the Catholic Church.

Precisely. These are names that link these things with the instituation organization that goes by the name of the Catholic Church, which, as I just described above is not the same as the catholic Church.

Protestants don’t claim the term Catholic to themselves.

Protestants don;t claim the term “Catholic” at all. What we claim is that used of the term “catholic” cannot be limited exclusive to those who are Catholics, but must (if we are using the term correctly) be inclusive of all who belong to the body of Christ, which is to say the entire universal Church or all Christians of every background, doctrine, faith, stripe, denomination, or even apart from any denomination.

In fact some would go at length to omit the word Catholic in the Apostles Creed.

Indeed, some people would go at length to omit the word “Catholic” from the Apostles Creed. I am one of them. But I am very happy to affirm that I do believe in the holy “catholic” and apostolic church (again “catholic” meaning universal, not the name of any ecclesiastical body), for I not only believe in it but am a part of it.

A question I might ask you is if you really understand what it means to say that you believe in the “catholic church”? I’m not sure that you do. For if you did, you could not say that the “Catholic Church” was the one true Church. How can it be the one true church when it does NOT include in its membership those who are not Catholic. You see the problem is that the Catholic Church isn’t actually catholic because it isn’t universal. But you seem to be so close to this that you are blind to the irony of it all. I feel sorry for you. But, it isn’t a matter that is essential to salvation, so if you die not knowing any better, it won’t effect your eternal destiny one way or the other.

 

[JustaServant]

I believe the main reason Catholics see themselves as the one true church is because they are taught that, and that’s why Orthodox believe the same.

Wrong.
Time and effort spent reading the history of the Church reveals otherwise.
But one has to make the time and the effort.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James,

If I don’t become catholic, how many more years is added to my time in purgatory?

I think you are making some assumptions about what the options are for non-Catholics.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Catholic Church=wherever two or three people gather in the name of Jesus!

Edwin

Please don’t forget to genuflect in front of the tabernacle and sign yourself with holy water on your way out the door when you leave…

James

 

[abcd]

Last I heard it was up to 60,000 and climbing. Anyone can start a protestant denomination today. Just grab a Bible and act like you know what your talking about.

From 8,000 to 60,000? The Catholics keep exagerating the figure pretty soon it will be 500,000. This misrepresentation only hurts your credibility.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Please stay on topic or this thread will be locked.
MF

 

[ahem]

But Jesus said he would establish A church not churches.

Which of 6 the 7 churches of Asia in Revelation are illegitimate?

 

[abcd]

What is your problem, are you here just to start an argument. It is clear you do not like the Catholic Church and are just wanting to bash it, but I won’t waste my time with you. What are you afraid of, the TRUTH. Go start your own Forum but don’t be surprised if your the only one on it.

Maybe I should have put it another way. What is the meaning of the word “church” mean to a Catholic? I would really like an answer.