The 1st Century Church Looked Like the Catholic Church

[ConfusedTim]

When you consider the fatc that the early Church (i.e. first few centuries after Jesus died) followed Catholic Church practices and indesputably believed in the eucharist, had the pope as head of the church, had priests (presbyers), bishops etc, how can protestants claim that the catholic church is not the one true church?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

When you consider the fatc that the early Church (i.e. first few centuries after Jesus died) followed Catholic Church practices and indesputably believed in the eucharist, had the pope as head of the church, had priests (presbyers), bishops etc, how can protestants claim that the catholic church is not the one true church?

Because they ignore history, just like the Muslims and other non-Catholic religions do. They close their eyes and drift away from the truth. It´s simple as that.

 

[ConfusedTim]

But thats what i dont get how can people ignore what the early church looked like? I

I was raised a Catholic then left the church for a long time. However started to take an interst in religion again when my wife started going to an evangelical church a few years ago. At that time I started to attend bible classes with her and also go to that church, However i then started asking questions about why we only got rice crackers and grape juice once a month rather than communion and this led me to look at what the earliest Christians did. At that point I could see only the Catholic and Orthodox churches that seemed to look anything like those churches.

 

[ejb21]

I’m not sure how many are familiar with “The Journey Home” on EWTN. But so many of those who have converted to Catholicism have credited their conversion to the reading of the early Church Fathers. Many have said that by going deep into Church history by reading the Church Fathers is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[NHInsider]

When I was growing up Evangelical I was totally unaware of anything Christian between the missionary journeys of Paul and the work of Martin Luther. It was when I began studying history that the “scales fell.”

Most Protestants only know what they’ve been taught, and that’s going back generations now, so it’s not willful ignorance, but it is ignorance.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Dr. Peter Kreeft of Boston College pointed to the early Church, and the writings of the Church Fathers, as a principle reason for becoming Catholic. He was at Calvin College, and was prompted to read the Fathers. He reported that he found that they were all Catholic, and he became one himself.

There’s a good reason the 1st century Church looked like the Catholic Church. It WAS the Catholic Church!

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Jon_Hus]

When I was growing up Evangelical I was totally unaware of anything Christian between the missionary journeys of Paul and the work of Martin Luther. It was when I began studying history that the “scales fell.”

Most Protestants only know what they’ve been taught, and that’s going back generations now, so it’s not willful ignorance, but it is ignorance.

Well my good friend, be so kind as to list the books of church history that you studied that caused the scales to fall. And while you are at it, kindly note to us your favorite work and why it is your favorite. As a student of church history (doctrine and dogma) I would like to compare your library to mine and I’m always buying books so I will take your advice and add to my wish list.

Thank you in advance,
Jon

 

[josethomas2005]

When you consider the fatc that the early Church (i.e. first few centuries after Jesus died) followed Catholic Church practices and indesputably believed in the eucharist, had the pope as head of the church, had priests (presbyers), bishops etc, how can protestants claim that the catholic church is not the one true church?

When you say such things you must consider the following statements. 
          The great American Archbishop JAmes Cardinal Gibbons (1870s) sais, "Peter went to Antioch and established the church there and served as the bishop there".
           The head of the Syro malabar catholic church says, "What is the authrity of Rome? On what basis Rome is appointing bishops all over the world. From where it has got all these powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Rome and Antioch on who is head and superior". 
  You must know that in the first centuries, almost all of the bishops in this world were under the bishop of Antioch.

 

[NHInsider]

Well my good friend, be so kind as to list the books of church history that you studied that caused the scales to fall. And while you are at it, kindly note to us your favorite work and why it is your favorite. As a student of church history (doctrine and dogma) I would like to compare your library to mine and I’m always buying books so I will take your advice and add to my wish list.

Thank you in advance,
Jon

ooh, what an inticing request. I’m going to have to cogitate (and look at my library - it’s been more than 30 years . . .)

I think Justin Martyr was one of the first “whack on the forehead” things I read. Oh, and Polycarp and Ignatius. That was mind-boggling, to someone who had, as I said, known of nothing between Paul and Luther.

Hmm. Just re-read your post and realized you were asking for books ABOUT Church History, not books FROM church history. I did have a standard church history text at university that I will not name because it was SO BORING that what I mostly recall is struggling to stay awake. But that was later. . .

It was when I was studying early medieval European history and I kept bumping into church stuff (Bede, Alcuin, Gregory d’Tours–it’s actually impossible to create a “secular” European history course if you’re intellectually honest) and then sort of worked backward from there to the primary source materials . . . and discovered that church history as I had known it had a giant hole in it. Which, when I began to read, made it pretty clear (at least to me) who was teaching novel concepts and who had preserved Apostolic tradition.

If I think of any really worthwhile histories, I’ll list them . . .

 

[Jon_Hus]

ooh, what an inticing request. I’m going to have to cogitate (and look at my library - it’s been more than 30 years . . .)

I think Justin Martyr was one of the first “whack on the forehead” things I read. Oh, and Polycarp and Ignatius. That was mind-boggling, to someone who had, as I said, known of nothing between Paul and Luther.

Hmm. Just re-read your post and realized you were asking for books ABOUT Church History, not books FROM church history. I did have a standard church history text at university that I will not name because it was SO BORING that what I mostly recall is struggling to stay awake. But that was later. . .

It was when I was studying early medieval European history and I kept bumping into church stuff (Bede, Alcuin, Gregory d’Tours–it’s actually impossible to create a “secular” European history course if you’re intellectually honest) and then sort of worked backward from there to the primary source materials . . . and discovered that church history as I had known it had a giant hole in it. Which, when I began to read, made it pretty clear (at least to me) who was teaching novel concepts and who had preserved Apostolic tradition.

If I think of any really worthwhile histories, I’ll list them . . .

OK, so, can I say that the ante-Nicene fathers are were responsible for opening your eyes? Don’t want to put words in your mouth.

 

[ConfusedTim]

OK, so, can I say that the ante-Nicene fathers are were responsible for opening your eyes? Don’t want to put words in your mouth.

John, i am happy to have my eyes opened if i am wrong, please give me evidence that you have that the early church did not belive that the eucharist was the actual body and blood of Jesus, or that it did not have a pope that was seen as head of the church or bishops to name a few things.

 

[Harpazo]

When you consider the fatc that the early Church (i.e. first few centuries after Jesus died) followed Catholic Church practices and indesputably believed in the eucharist, had the pope as head of the church, had priests (presbyers), bishops etc, how can protestants claim that the catholic church is not the one true church?

Some Protestants claim that the Roman Church is not the one true church because they might see the Orthodox as the one true Church.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

The Church Fathers helped me out for a slightly different reason, given that I was coming from a Muslim mindset (being a Muslim convert at the time). Islam teaches the Church went astray and tarnished the word of God, whereas the Church Fathers showed me a consistent teaching from the time of Christ to the time of Islam. That made Christianity real for me.

 

[SSTeacher]

ConfusedTim;5488752:

When you consider the fact that the early Church (i.e. first few centuries after Jesus died) followed Catholic Church practices and indisputably believed in the Eucharist, had the pope as head of the church, had priests (presbyters), bishops etc, how can Protestants claim that the Catholic Church is not the one true church?

Some Protestants claim that the Roman Church is not the one true church because they might see the Orthodox as the one true Church.

In Christ,
Andrew

Sounds familiar.:dancing:

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[Eucharisted]

In one famous exorcism, demons admitted to starting the various heresies in the Church. I believe this is the same for Islam and other false religions too. Though they do all have some truth in them.

 

[Radical]

When you consider the fatc that the early Church (i.e. first few centuries after Jesus died) followed Catholic Church practices and indesputably believed in the eucharist, had the pope as head of the church, had priests (presbyers), bishops etc, how can protestants claim that the catholic church is not the one true church?

I’ll assume that you would actually like an answer to your question. If so, I would suggest that you start by listening to the Protestant explanations (as opposed to listening to non-Protestants tell you why Protestants can be so ignorant as to not believe all that the Catholic Church claims for itself).

It is true that most Protestants are ignorant of early church history…but then, it is also true that most conservative Catholics are also ignorant of early church history. The difference is that most of those ignorant Protestants don’t particularly care about what an ECF in 300 AD believed and most of those ignorant Catholics think that they know what that ECF in 300 AD believed b/c they have read (sometimes even copied and pasted) a view quotes from that ECF.

One of the greatest dividing lines is the attitude one has for the ECFs. The Catholic tends to think that (typically) if an ECF taught (X) in 300 AD, then (X) must have been believed in 150 AD and if (X) was believed in 150 AD then it must have been taught by the apostles themselves in 75 AD. Thus, amongst Catholics there tends to be an attitude that an ECF would not dream of introducing a true novelty and that if one ECF so strayed, then the other ECFs would collectively dismiss and eliminate that novelty. Further, there is a belief in Catholicism that the Catholic church is the one true church and that a certain promise by Christ must be interpreted to mean that the one true church can not officially teach error. (The “officially” qualifier is needed b/c history gives examples where Catholic leaders taught error.)

In contrast, this Protestant tends think that if an ECF taught (X) in 300 AD, then it is far from certain that (X) was believed in 150 AD and even if (X) was believed in 150 AD, then it is still far from certain that (X) was taught by the apostles themselves in 75 AD. I do believe that the ECFs did introduce true novelties and that, on occasion, the ECFs grabbed onto such novelties and expanded upon them. Further, since I do not believe that the CC is the one true church, the alleged promise by Christ (to keep the one true church from officially teaching error) would not apply to he CC (if I held to that interpretation of the promise, which I don’t).

…indesputably believed in the eucharist,…

Indisputably believed what about the Eucharist? A Catholic author by the name of J T O’Connor, wrote a book on the Eucharist called “The Hidden Manna”. That book seems rather respected in catholic circles. O’Connor, a fellow that believes that Augustine held to a real presence, felt that he had to acknowledge that van der Meer, the author of a renowned work on Augustine, concluded that with respect to Augustine: “It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.” That is what a renowned (O’Connor’s word) expert on Augustine concluded…yet you feel qualified to say that the early belief in the Eucharist was indisputably Catholic? How so?

…had the pope as head of the church,…

A rather famous Catholic historian by the name of Garry Wills doesn’t believe this claim (except wrt Peter being a focal point for unity)…and if you read his books Papal Sin and Why I am Still Catholic you would get a glimpse of some of the historical evidence that causes some historians to reject your claim that papal supremacy was taught from the outset. Your claim is far from indisputable…and from what I can tell, losing ground in historical circles.

…had priests (presbyers), bishops etc, how can protestants claim that the catholic church is not the one true church?

As one goes down your list, Protestants tend to conclude that your listed items (plus, of course, the Marian doctrines and indulgences) are things that have been added to the original “Rule of Faith” and have now become mandatory beliefs. Therefore, the modern CC has a set of mandatory beliefs that is different from the original set of mandatory beliefs that was held by the true apostolic church(es). A different set of mandatory beliefs means that it is a different church…and if it is a different church, then it is not the one true church.

That is the Reader’s Digest Condensed version. I hope that it helped you understand a different perspective.

 

[Jon_Hus]

John, i am happy to have my eyes opened if i am wrong, please give me evidence that you have that the early church did not belive that the eucharist was the actual body and blood of Jesus, or that it did not have a pope that was seen as head of the church or bishops to name a few things.

Tim, the topic of discussion is the 1st century church and how it looked like the modern Roman Catholic Church. A poster (NHInsider) mentioned that his study of the ante-Nicene Fathers changed his mind and “opened his eyes” to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. There is actually only one ante-Nicene Father who wrote in the first century, and that is Clement.

I own the 10 volume hard cover set of those works and I’m in my opinion fairly well read with regard to the fathers. However, this is a massive collection and sit down and re-read all 10 volumes would take about a year literally. I’m willing to review specifics if you Tim or NHInsider say they are of value but right now I have other academic persuits so I cannot spend a whole lot of time searching for a needle in a haystack.

To answer your specific questions Tim, just tell me where the ante-Nicene Fathers specifically state that “the eucharist was the actual body and blood of Jesus” I will look them up and see for myself. Many posters on this forum list numerous refrences to the A-N fathers to support these contentions but I ask that you reframe from a huge list as I will not spend hours pouring over the books as I cannot do that right now but I will look a a few refrences and comment on them in context.

Tim, then you ask “… or that it (the 1st century church) did not have a pope that was seen as head of the church or bishops to name a few things.” Your question is asking me to prove a negative which if a foe of the Roman Catholic Church asked in like fashon would stir up a hornets nest, Kindly re-phrase the question.

Irenaeus, which NHInsider mentiones does in fact write about the Bishop of Rome. This is true.What doesn’t get reported is that Irenaeus credits both Peter and Paul with founding the Church in Rome.While this statement is a departure from the OP, it is also at odds with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches ie: Peter founded the church in Rome. It is also at odds with the 15th and 16th chapter of the book of Romans by reason of inclusion and exclusion.

Tim, the ante-Nicene Fathers, while interesting to read is also hard reading. Some of the writings are suspect. At the end of the day, the A N Fathers are very valuable but they are not Scripture. I am very happy for you Tim, that the Lord Jesus has opened your eyes and that your cup overflows with blessings as the Lord promises. I’m not questioning that. An individual here on this forum states that the ante-Nicene Fathers spoke to his heart, turned it around and completly changed his belief system. I’m not questiong that either, but what I’m asking for is a little direction as to where in the 8 thousand pages of writings to look. I will read 300 or 400 pages, just point me in the right direction.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[annem]

Radical

One of the greatest dividing lines is the attitude one has for the ECFs. The Catholic tends to think that (typically) if an ECF taught (X) in 300 AD, then (X) must have been believed in 150 AD and if (X) was believed in 150 AD then it must have been taught by the apostles themselves in 75 AD.

Hi. Don’t mean to disagree, but I am a Catholic, and have been studying the early church for years, and I would never have put it that way. What, exactly, are you talking about here?

A rather famous Catholic historian by the name of Garry Wills

I can call myself a lobster but it doesn’t make it true.

Therefore, the modern CC has a set of mandatory beliefs that is different from the original set of mandatory beliefs that was held by the true apostolic church(es)

Radical, would you mind providing me with a specific doctrine you feel was not held by the true apostolic church? What about the Eucharist, since you mentioned it? Is that something you feel was not held by the earliest Christians?

May God grant you great miracles! Annem

 

[annem]

both Peter and Paul with founding the Church in Rome.While this statement is a departure from the OP, it is also at odds with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches ie: Peter founded the church in Rome. It

Sorry, don’t mean to disagree, but you are incorrect about Peter and Paul. Peter and Paul both helped start the church in Rome. Of course. Although there were clearly Christians/Catholics there much earlier than either of their arrivals.

You seem to be saying that Peter ‘founded’ the church in Rome, which would be an incorrect statement, since there were already Catholics there.

What Peter had, which is unique, was the role of head bishop/pope. There could certainly be more than one bishop in a city; but only one head bishop/pope.

While Catholics love the city of Rome, the city has nothing to do with the office of chief bishop/pope. If Rome vanished tomorrow and the pope in it, the cardinals would simply meet and find another pope.

May God grant you miracles! Annem

 

[Radical]

Hi Annem, nice to meet you!

Radical

Hi. Don’t mean to disagree, but I am a Catholic, and have been studying the early church for years, and I would never have put it that way. What, exactly, are you talking about here?

I am simply describing what I have observed on these threads. To establish that the early church (at its very origin) believed in (something like) the perpetual virginity of Mary, quotes from ECFs of centuries later will often be offered as proof…w/o any acknowledgement that what has really been offered is only proof of an ECF’s belief at 300 AD +/- and not proof of what the church first believed. It could only be proof of what the first church believed if one adopted the “chain” that I described…300 AD => 150 AD => 75 AD.

I can call myself a lobster but it doesn’t make it true.

I take it you mean the bit about Wills being a “Catholic”. This, of course, cuts both ways…the Bishop of Rome can claim supremacy, but that doesn’t make it true. The CC can claim that it is the one true church, but that doesn’t make it true. A fellow (even a pope) can claim that one must believe (X) to be a true Catholic, but that doesn’t make belief (X) of apostolic origin or make it a true claim .

Radical, would you mind providing me with a specific doctrine you feel was not held by the true apostolic church? What about the Eucharist, since you mentioned it? Is that something you feel was not held by the earliest Christians?

a) Petrine supremacy as taught today by the CC
b) apart from the virgin birth, the Marian doctrines
c) indulgences, treasury of merits
d) a real bodily presence
e) apostolic succession as taught today by the CC

May God grant you great miracles! Annem

He has,…and may he continue to grant you great miracles too.