The 1st Century Church Looked Like the Catholic Church

[Tanner9188]

It’s nice when we can agree on something. You are right on the need 4 Catholics to actually listen to Protestants views.

Friend, we are a bible Church, solidly founded on the bible and our beliefs stem from the bible. Your bible is but an altered version of the only bible in existence for some 1,300 years. You dismiss to quickly and lightly the 2,000 consecutive years of service the Catholic Church. As to the “novelities” sure in a 2,000 year period many surfaced, some still hang around today. That is why thee Church has held Church Councils. There have been some 21 Councils over the years to correct, define, explain and teach Truth. I assume [at great risk] that we can agree that on any single issue it is possible for only ONE truth; THEE TRUTH to exist?

Councils seema better way than to just start your own church.

***To not accept the Catholic understanding which is historically proveable and solidly Biblical seems to lack any degree of logic and objectivity. If history and thee bible are wrong, then on what proveable basis can you hold such an uninlightened position? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION. What am I not understanding? ***

***Friend did you have the same knowledge in gradeschool as you did in colledge? Is not a learning curve common, even normal? The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and yet both doctrine and dogma’s taught by the Apostles are still believed and practiced today. The practice of the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ Himself are practiced very much today as they were nearly 2,000 years ago. The Mass of 1,800 years agos is nearly the same as the Mass celebrated today.

The ECF’s teachings are preservered in many historical documents. ANY and ALL teachings that the CHURCH [take that to mean the POPE and the Magistrium] have proclaimed on matters of [and ONLY on matters of] FAITH and or Morals, have NEVER - EVER changed. Further understanding and clairification yes, change NO! PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PROVE ME WRONG!***

This is one of the most absurd,abused and disingenuous positions put forth by the Protestant churchs. How can the Catholic Church NOT BE the ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ, when it was and is the ONLYChristian Church in existence when Christ was on planet earth before His death, and resurection:shrug: How old is your church or any of the other 30,000 non-catholic churches? Maybe 400 years. If He didn’t found His Church when He was on earth, when did He? How did he and how do you explain thee Bible that has been around for at least 1,600 years? I do value your opinions, but please, a bit of intellectual honesty is called for!

Please show us from the writtings of Agustine that he did not believe, teach and have anything but the deepest respect and proper understanding of Christ Real presence in the Eucharist.

As for your claims of Catholic writers. Today one has little trouble finding a fallen away catholic, who like millions of Protestants insist on a right granted by God to sin and to sin greviously. Lk. 17: 1 And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

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.

[Friend you have either the wrong or no understanding of 2 Tim.3:16 and Jn. 21:25 The Church was started by Christ, guided by Christ and is kept truthful and holy by Christ, but He allowed Peter and his 265 consecutive to rule, guide, form and instruct with His help what is to be helad as definitive truth.]

**Augustine NEVER believed in transubstantiation concerning the wafer and the wine.

The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world…" (Augustine**, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).

Who is the bread of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, “I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?” Do not get your mouth ready, but your heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are nourished in the heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.

This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. *To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. *(Augustine John: Tractate 25:12).

In fact, he believed just the opposite. Maybe a Protestant in disguise?

 

[mark_a]

The best way to understand why Protestants make that claim is to learn about the reasons for the split, the Reformation. Read about Martin Luther’s 95 theses, and the abuses of power that were occurring in the Church at that time. Many of the issues that Luther brought up (he posted a query in a forum, which in his time was the church door!) revolved around Papal indulgences, and the power the Pope and clergy claimed over the afterlife, what would happen to the faithful when they died. People were scared into paying money to reduce the time they would spend in purgatory. The Church emphasized “buying your way into heaven” over living the Gospel, Luther felt. This included paying for funeral masses and for masses for deceased family members, to help them get through purgatory a little faster. Luther proposed that the church’s control over a person ended at their death, when God took over, and that the Pope could not and should not hold people hostage to help him remodel St. Peter’s (which is where a lot of the money was going, after the middle man took his cut).

Somewhat reminds you of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the Temple; to Luther that is what the Vatican had become.

Another issue was confession. Luther did not believe that Priests had the power to forgive sins, that only God could do that. He tied this into indulgences because they were being used to bypass having to confess sins. Other reformers, before, during and after Luther, had other issues with what was happening in the Church.

To these men, the Catholic Church was no longer the true church of Christ because it had strayed from the teachings of Jesus. It had been the “one true church” in the 1st Century. But that was not case, they argued, 1500 years later.

It all started to blow up when Luther posted those 95 theses, was initially ignored by the area heirarchy, and then started circulating them privately. The printing press fanned the flames by helping spread his and other reformers’ ideas. They touched a nerve with a lot of people and the rest, as they say, is history.

This is a nice presentation.

Although the Catholic Church today does not suffer from the abusive excesses that it did in the 1500’s, to Protestants it is still the same ole church, and still not the one true church of Jesus. I doubt whether that argument will ever be settled.

I gotta agree here. And judging by the way Protestantism is morphing exponentially, that’s about the only thing they can agree on.

 

[Radical]

You can’t be serious…

I am probably less than serious more than half the time, but in this instance I am serious. It is an interesting summary that you produced…where did it come from? I don’t presently have the time to deal with all 39 of your points, so I’ll pick and choose from a few…and those who care will probably be able to figure out how I’d address the remainder. I had mentioned that I did not accept the Marian doctrines apart from her virginity at the Lord’s birth and I had questioned whether certain ECFs would embrace or reject the modern CC…and so, wrt this particular issue one would ask if the ECFs would embrace or reject the current Marian doctrines of the CC? Here is what you produced wrt those Marian doctrines:

a) Re Martyr: 6) reference to Mary as “The Virgin”;
b) Re Tertullian: (11) expounding on the Virgin Mary being the new Eve. (36) Christ committing the Virgin Mary to the Church and the Church being judged for how it treats her;

Now, how in the world do you think that a reference to Mary as “the Virgin” would mean that Martyr would embrace the other Marian doctrines? How in the world do you think that a reference to Mary as “similar to Eve” would mean that Tertullian would embrace the other Marian doctrines? Same question for your point #36. BTW could you please give me the precise reference for #36…my quick search didn’t turn up that bit.

There’s 39 listed ways to recognize the Catholic Church in the “early Church” right there,…

So Tertullian arguing for the trinity makes him Catholic rather than Protestant in inclination?

…and I’ve barely scratched the surface of the Fathers’ writings.

agreed

Have you even attempted to read any of these?

yep. You do realize that: a) probably none of your points would make the early church Catholic vs Orthodox?
and b) few of your points would make the ECF in question more Catholic than Protestant? Further, even if Ignatius favored a monarchical bishop, it hardly establishes that Ignatius would embrace a church that a) purported to trade in grace as if it was a common commodity, b)that holds to a number of Marian doctrines in addition to her status of virgin at birth or c) that appointed for itself all sorts of bishops at Rome that Ignatius would have never followed or obeyed b/c they never came close to possessing the qualifications required of an overseer by Paul…

 

[annem]

Radical

Now, how in the world do you think that a reference to Mary as “the Virgin” would mean that Martyr would embrace the other Marian doctrines? How in the world do you think that a reference to Mary as “similar to Eve” would mean that Tertullian would embrace the other Marian doctrines? Same question for your point #36. BTW could you please give me the precise reference for #36…my quick search didn’t turn up that bit.

Hi. You are correct partially. The mentions of Mary are small in the first century, although from 200 AD on they are very clear. However, you are mistaken about Catholic dogma. Catholics believe the apostles received a sacred deposit of faith. They believe the Holy Spirit will guide the kingdom of God on this earth–yes, you guessed it, the Catholic church–so that it never errs.

However, not every dogma was revealed clearly in the first ten years of the church. Take, for example, the Holy Spirit. It took four centuries to grasp all the ramifications and to proclaim the correct truths about the Holy Spirit.

Which, today, even the Protestants believe.

However, to try to find every single thing believed today by the Catholic church in documents dating to 50 AD is impossible; no Catholic could claim such a thing.

Is that what you believe the Catholic church teaches? If so, you’ve picked up a mistaken line here.

ANyway, hope I’ve explained it clearly enough.

May God grant you a million miracles! Annem

 

[annem]

Radical

few of your points would make the ECF in question more Catholic than Protestant? Further, even if Ignatius favored a monarchical bishop, it hardly establishes that Ignatius would embrace a church that a) purported to trade in grace as if it was a common commodity, b)that holds to a number of Marian doctrines in addition to her status of virgin at birth or c) that appointed for itself all sorts of bishops at Rome that Ignatius would have never followed or obeyed b/c they never came close to possessing the qualifications required of an overseer by Paul…

Have you read the letters of Ignatius? What always strikes me about the letter of Ignatius and 1 Clement is that they sound exactly like the Catholic church today.

However, Ignatius could hardly follow dogmas which developed over time.

they never came close to possessing the qualifications required of an overseer by Paul.

What do you mean by this? I am sorry, I don’t understand it. Could you explain?

May God grant you a million miracles! Annem

 

[Holly3278]

The first century Church was the Catholic Church.

 

[mark_a]

So Tertullian arguing for the trinity makes him Catholic rather than Protestant in inclination?

Correct, there were no Protestant Trinitarians at that time.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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 you’re overlooking a few things.​

• For instance, a particular Church can start well, & fall into error. An NT example is that of the Galatian Church. If that can happen, then it is not self-evident that it cannot happen again; that it did, seems reasonably clear from what is said to some of the seven Churches in Revelation 2 & 3. So the mere fact that Rome began well - as it seems to have - is not a reason to comclude that it cannot ever have fallen away. Others did - so what reason is there to suppose it cannot possibly have done so ?

Objection: the words of Christ in Matt 16 rule this possibility out, at least where the see of Peter is concerned. Fair enough - but this reply takes a lot for granted, that cannot be. There are too many steps between the words of the verse, & the conclusions drawn from it by a RC, for it to be convincing to those who do not already accept the validity of the arguments that lead to the RC conclusion. RC use of it assumes too much.

• There is the argument based on historical facts: if the see of Rome were all that RCs say it is, one might not unreasonably expect that the occupants of it would reflect in their characters the character of Christ. This is rather difficult to see in its history, to put it mildly. And the difference between the characters of some of the occupants, & the character of Christ,has been so impressive as to make the arguments for its alleged position in the Church sound rather hollow.
• The things mentioned are non-distinctive - or
• are matters of interpretation: how far was the presbyter distinguished from the episcopos ? - or they
• read back the more recent past into the remoter past: RCs accept transubstantiation - but it is doubtful (to say the least) whether transubstantiation can be said to have been believed in the first centuries, because though the doctrine might be seen as a truthful interpretation of the early belief, it does not follow that the early belief was as specific as the meaning of the word transubstantiation. Belief in the Eucharist, however indisputable, does not necessarily amount to accepting transubstantiation.

Those are some of the reasons. IMO Catholics are apt to think that, because the Church is the True Church, & because Christ does not change, the CC is equally changeless, & is therefore much the same in 2000 as it was in 100. The Church has changed immensely through the centuries - and this in no way affects the theological doctrines about it. What is affected, very greatly, is how we look at the history of the Church. This in turn is of great practical importance: for it affects how we think about other Christianities; & we hear, time and again, they are very many. We won’t be well-equipped to understand them if we have misunderstood our own past; much of which is theirs too.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I found it

Here it is: olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml

To quote:​

• …God made use of His arch-enemy, the devil, to prove the Real Presence. He repeatedly forced him publicly to profess his firm belief in it, to confound the heretics for their disbelief, and acknowledge himself vanquished by Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. For this purpose, God allowed a certain Mme. Nicola Aubrey, an innocent person, to become possessed by Beelzebub and twenty-nine other evil spirits.

Remarks:

• As C.S Lewis pointed out, the devil is not God’s enemy, but the angel Michael’s. To call the devil the enemy of God, is to do it too much honour, as though it were an “anti-God”, a co-eternal Evil Principle of equal status to God. That idea is closer to Manicheeism than to Christianity.
• If a doctrine can be proved true (the author may mean mean “prove” in its old sense “test”), then faith is needless.
• A God who can torment people so horribly just to “make a point” is not a very nice God at all, but a manipulative so-and-so. ISTM that a Christian God would require Catholics to rely on faith.
• Why choose someone described as “innocent” for demonic possession ? Isn’t such behaviour worthier of something other than God ? And why 30 demons ? Isn’t one more than enough ?
• Belief in the Real Presence is anything but good evidence that the believer is Catholic, since it is compatible with several forms of Protestantism. The author is ignorant either of Protestantism or of Catholic dogma: of Protestantism, probably (given his status as a Catholic priest).

 

[Radical]

Hi Annem,

Radical

Hi. Well, I have to say that the first century church’s dogmas won’t be exactly the same because the church was in its infancy. All the basic truths were already there, but the full understanding, for example, of the role of the Holy Spirit would be hammered out over four centuries.

Or don’t you agree that it took four centuries to understand the role of the Holy Spirit? Surely you will admit that Protestants believe what we came to believe in the 4th century; or not?

Don’t forget–it is the Protestants who want to be exactly the same as the 1st century church. Catholics have a very different view, which is that although the doctrines may have been held in an infant form then, their full explanation would grow over time.

That is a good point. We Protestants want to eliminate (what we see as) error and return to the church in its earliest form and you Catholics think the develpoments were kept free of error.

And as for poor Martyr, etc., of COURSE some of their statements are in error, compared to later developments of doctrine. There is hardly a church father you can name who hasn’t said some egregious error. But, to the Catholic, so what? It wasn’t their fault that a dogma hadn’t been settled. THey were perfectly at liberty to state whatever they wanted. It was their statements, their arguments, led by the Holy Spirit, that would lead us to our beliefs now.

…and then of course, I don’t believe that the ECFs had a monopoly on guidance by the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine. The Holy Spirit and the promise of his guidance is given to all believers and not just to the ECFs or not just to those who attended the early ecumenical councils or not just to those aligned with the bishop of Rome. All decisions subsequent to the NT are the proper subject of review and correction.

Scholars are NOT at liberty to challenge settled dogma, so if you have been reading ‘scholars’ who challenge basic beliefs, they can go on calling themselves morning, noon and night and it won’t make it true.

Agreed, but you should know that between those scholars and the CC, it is the CC that comes closest to calling itself the morning, noon and night…and that doesn’t make its version of history true or its interpretations of scripture correct.

Here’s a fast, easy way to find out what the Catholic church believes: go to your library and get out a Catholic catechism. It has everything there.

That should be:
Here’s a fast, easy way to find out what the Catholic church ** currently ** believes: go to your library and get out a Catholic catechism. What these scholars are more interested in is: What should the CC believe if is to be properly connected to what the church initially believed?

I know what you mean about miracles…isn’t it the best and most glorious of miracles that both of us believe? I love all my my Protestant brothers and sisters and hope to see them in heaven!

I’ll add you to my list of Catholics that I intend to track down (after they get out of purgatory) and say “I told you so”.

I am so happy to believe, and so sorry for everyone (including the rest of my family, sigh) who is an atheist.

May God grant your prayers for the salvation of your family. Peace.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You can’t be serious…

In Justin Martyr’s First Apology alone, we see clearly expounded sacramental doctrines of (1) baptismal regeneration; (2) eucharist in which bread and wine are transmutated into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ; (3) reserving the Sacrament;

In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho we see (4) the Eucharist as a sacrifice; (5) proof that Esdras (deuterocanonical/apocryphal) is considered part of Sacred Scripture; (6) reference to Mary as “The Virgin”; (7) reference to only two advents (no secret “rapture” before the parousia, to be found here); (8) Church is the new Israel (refutation of the dispensationalist idea that Israel and the Church are separate); (9) repudiation of the heresy that God imputes righteousness to sinners because of their faith instead of actually making them righteous; (10) you must repent before being judged

In Tertullian’s **On the Flesh of Christ **we see (11) expounding on the Virgin Mary being the new Eve.

Tertullian’s On Baptism reveals teaching that (12) baptism is a sacrament that sanctifies us through the washing away of sins; (13) the type of water or “mode” of baptism is of no consequence because the water itself is holy; (14) the necessity of baptism for salvation; (15) bishops, priests and deacons should be the normal ministers of baptism, despite the fact that laity could validly baptize; (16) a period of catechesis before baptism for adults asking for it

Tertullian’s **On Prayer **reveals (17) the practice of saying the Our Father (Lord’s Prayer) as something Christians do repeatedly and often; (18) the necessity of being present at mass; (19) the Eucharist as a sacrifice; (20) reception and reservation of the Host; (21) stations (praying the hours); (22) kneeling

Tertullian’s Against Praxeus deals with (23) the doctrine of the Trinity; (24) suffering with Christ; (25) the procession of the Son from the Father in unity with the Holy Spirit (as we say in the Nicene Creed)

Tertullian’s Against All Heresies talks about (26) the Catholic church, (27) apostolic succession (28) the Church as one institution; (29) the episcopacy; (30) the succession by Clement of Peter; (31) being admitted to communion (32) authority of the Church coming from Rome; (33) the apostolic places of authority as having “thrones”; (34) catechumens; (35) exorcisms; (36) Christ committing the Virgin Mary to the Church and the Church being judged for how it treats her;

Ignatius** to Polycorp** speaks of (37) the necessity of acting in accordance with the bishop; (38) reiterating the threefold ministry of bishop, priests and deacons; (39) having your marriage blessed by the Church, the bishop; the rest of his writings reiterate over and over again the concept of obedience to the bishop

There’s 39 listed ways to recognize the Catholic Church in the “early Church” right there, and I’ve barely scratched the surface of the Fathers’ writings. Have you even attempted to read any of these?

That looks like evidence that the first Christians were High Anglicans ​

The fact that X is believed or done, is an entirely different matter from X’s being right doctrinally or morally. Which in turn is an entirely different matter from its being a permanent feature of the Church’s life. Which in turn is an entirely different matter from its being geographically universal.

What that list does not include, is any of the ways in which the Fathers were not like the modern CC or RCC (take your pick). If those were included, the picture might look a bit different. BTW - the typos (“Praxeus” for “Praxeas” (= “Busybody”); “Polycorp” for “Polycarp”) give the impression that the list is from some web-page.

If the apocryphal Esdras is proved to be canonical, then Trent is in error, & St. Justin has single-handledly blown the infallibility of the Church, & of Ecumenical Councils, to smithereens: which is an “own goal”. As for Mary being a virgin, Luke 1 says that anyway

 

[annem]

Radical

…and then of course, I don’t believe that the ECFs had a monopoly on guidance by the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine. The Holy Spirit and the promise of his guidance is given to all believers and not just to the ECFs or not just to those who attended the early ecumenical councils or not just to those aligned with the bishop of Rome. All decisions subsequent to the NT are the proper subject of review and correction.

Well, that is the Protestant take, I know. But doesn’t that make each single person the decider on what is right and wrong? This is something I’ve never clearly understood from the Protestant perspective. In my brother-in-law’s church–Presbyterian–for example, it seems to me that every person has a different belief about abortion. But who is to say who is wrong and who is right?

Whereas I can go to the catechism and see exactly what my church teaches.

That should be:
Here’s a fast, easy way to find out what the Catholic church currently believes: go to your library and get out a Catholic catechism. What these scholars are more interested in is: What should the CC believe if is to be properly connected to what the church initially believed?

The Catholic perspective is that the church has ALWAYS held onto the same dogmas. Some are more fully developed now than initially. As far as what the early church believed–well, we claim it is the same beliefs and the same church.

I’ll add you to my list of Catholics that I intend to track down (after they get out of purgatory) and say “I told you so”.

Please do!! I’ll be the one in the hut looking up at all those people in their mansions.But I’ll be really glad to see you–

God grant you millions of miracles, ANnem

 

[mark_a]

I’ll add you to my list of Catholics that I intend to track down (after they get out of purgatory) and say “I told you so”.

Here’s another who could stand to pray the “litany of humility”.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

What that list does not include, is any of the ways in which the Fathers were not like the modern CC or RCC (take your pick). If those were included, the picture might look a bit different. BTW - the typos (“Praxeus” for “Praxeas” (= “Busybody”); “Polycorp” for “Polycarp”) give the impression that the list is from some web-page.

Surely you’ve heard of the Poly Corp, a humanitarian organization made up of four-sided planes.

 

[annem]

Gottle of Geer

What that list does not include, is any of the ways in which the Fathers were not like the modern CC or RCC (take your pick).
If the apocryphal Esdras is proved to be canonical, then Trent is in error, & St. Justin has single-handledly blown the infallibility of the Church, & of Ecumenical Councils, to smithereens: which is an “own goal”. As for Mary being a virgin, Luke 1 says that anyway ## That looks like evidence that the first Christians were High Anglicans

Hi, looks like you don’t understand how Catholics believe doctrine develops. So I thought I’d explain.

First, NONE of the early fathers in the church were entirely correct, if you examine every word they wrote. Of course not. How could they be, if the doctrine hadn’t been defined first? Take the Trinity. It would be argued back and forth about for four centuries before they even began to reach an agreement about the dogma.

Does that mean that the church father who wrote something wrong about the Trinity in 140 AD is not to be trusted, or not to be read? No, you have to read the fathers with a full understanding of church history.

May God grant you a million miracles! Annem

 

[Radical]

ANnem

Radical

Well, that is the Protestant take, I know. But doesn’t that make each single person the decider on what is right and wrong?

But doesn’t God make each single person the decider on how that person will answer Christ’s question: “Who do you say I am?”
The difference between your approach and mine is not that I decide right and wrong w/o (name removed by moderator)ut from others…I think such (name removed by moderator)ut is essential (though not binding). It is not that I decide what I will believe is right and what I will believe is wrong and you don’t… you have done the same thing by deciding that you will believe that what the CC is right etc. We each decide who we will follow.

This is something I’ve never clearly understood from the Protestant perspective. In my brother-in-law’s church–Presbyterian–for example, it seems to me that every person has a different belief about abortion. But who is to say who is wrong and who is right?

I guess they have to defer to God…not a bad option IMHO

God Bless

 

[SonofMonica]

I am probably less than serious more than half the time, but in this instance I am serious. It is an interesting summary that you produced…where did it come from?

I used my lunch hour, actually read the texts for Catholic doctrines, and made the summary myself. Thank you for finding it interesting, as it did take some time.

I had mentioned that I did not accept the Marian doctrines apart from her virginity at the Lord’s birth and I had questioned whether certain ECFs would embrace or reject the modern CC…and so, wrt this particular issue one would ask if the ECFs would embrace or reject the current Marian doctrines of the CC? Here is what you produced wrt those Marian doctrines:

No, sir. Go back up and read the quote of yours I was responding to. It mentioned nothing about Marian doctrines. You can’t critique something I didn’t write, and I did not write a defense of Marian doctrines.

Now, how in the world do you think that a reference to Mary as “the Virgin” would mean that Martyr would embrace the other Marian doctrines? How in the world do you think that a reference to Mary as “similar to Eve” would mean that Tertullian would embrace the other Marian doctrines?

I never claimed that those references proved anything of the sort. See above. However, the early Church fathers without question submit to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and their bishops. So if the bishops say it’s part of the faith, it’s part of the faith. Do you have any evidence that either of these ever taught against the bishops or said it’s okay to depart from what their bishops taught them? I can and have produced much to the contrary.

You do realize that: a) probably none of your points would make the early church Catholic vs Orthodox?
and b) few of your points would make the ECF in question more Catholic than Protestant?

There was no Orthodox Church and there were no Protestants when these men lived, sir. To the extent the Orthodox and Protestants agree with the Catholic Church on these matters, they are just as correct about them.

Further, even if Ignatius favored a monarchical bishop, it hardly establishes that Ignatius would embrace a church that a) purported to trade in grace as if it was a common commodity, b)that holds to a number of Marian doctrines in addition to her status of virgin at birth or c) that appointed for itself all sorts of bishops at Rome that Ignatius would have never followed or obeyed b/c they never came close to possessing the qualifications required of an overseer by Paul…

There is only one Church, sir. Ignatius most certainly would subscribe to her teachings. You ramble at length about no issue at all. Paul taught the Christian faith as he received it from the Catholic church. You misunderstand it.

 

[SonofMonica]

That looks like evidence that the first Christians were High Anglicans ​

LOL, already standing up for the King of England’s primacy! Talk about some prophetic ECFs.

The fact that X is believed or done, is an entirely different matter from X’s being right doctrinally or morally. Which in turn is an entirely different matter from its being a permanent feature of the Church’s life. Which in turn is an entirely different matter from its being geographically universal.

I know that. But Radical was asking whether these ECFs would recognize the Church as it exists today, and I made a quick list of things that I skimmed from a few of their writings that indicate they would recognize her.

What that list does not include, is any of the ways in which the Fathers were not like the modern CC or RCC (take your pick).

I wasn’t trying to make such a list. In fact it was a list of the opposite, as would be expected, given the point attempted to be made.

If those were included, the picture might look a bit different. BTW - the typos (“Praxeus” for “Praxeas” (= “Busybody”); “Polycorp” for “Polycarp”) give the impression that the list is from some web-page.

As much I hate to admit spelling mistakes, I promise that I made it. I only had a short period of time to do it between getting back from the courthouse and getting a quick bite to eat. I apologize for the spelling and what are probably a few numbering or other mistakes, as I am starting to get used to my secretary fixing everything… Point is, there are a lot of signs in the ECFs that they would recognize the modern Church and the continuity of her teachings.

If the apocryphal Esdras is proved to be canonical, then Trent is in error, & St. Justin has single-handledly blown the infallibility of the Church, & of Ecumenical Councils, to smithereens: which is an “own goal”. As for Mary being a virgin, Luke 1 says that anyway

Like the Anglican quip, once again, cute. But you know what I meant…

 

[ConfusedTim]

Because you’re overlooking a few things.​

• For instance, a particular Church can start well, & fall into error. An NT example is that of the Galatian Church. If that can happen, then it is not self-evident that it cannot happen again; that it did, seems reasonably clear from what is said to some of the seven Churches in Revelation 2 & 3. So the mere fact that Rome began well - as it seems to have - is not a reason to comclude that it cannot ever have fallen away. Others did - so what reason is there to suppose it cannot possibly have done so ?

Objection: the words of Christ in Matt 16 rule this possibility out, at least where the see of Peter is concerned. Fair enough - but this reply takes a lot for granted, that cannot be. There are too many steps between the words of the verse, & the conclusions drawn from it by a RC, for it to be convincing to those who do not already accept the validity of the arguments that lead to the RC conclusion. RC use of it assumes too much.

• There is the argument based on historical facts: if the see of Rome were all that RCs say it is, one might not unreasonably expect that the occupants of it would reflect in their characters the character of Christ. This is rather difficult to see in its history, to put it mildly. And the difference between the characters of some of the occupants, & the character of Christ,has been so impressive as to make the arguments for its alleged position in the Church sound rather hollow.
• The things mentioned are non-distinctive - or
• are matters of interpretation: how far was the presbyter distinguished from the episcopos ? - or they
• read back the more recent past into the remoter past: RCs accept transubstantiation - but it is doubtful (to say the least) whether transubstantiation can be said to have been believed in the first centuries, because though the doctrine might be seen as a truthful interpretation of the early belief, it does not follow that the early belief was as specific as the meaning of the word transubstantiation. Belief in the Eucharist, however indisputable, does not necessarily amount to accepting transubstantiation.

Those are some of the reasons. IMO Catholics are apt to think that, because the Church is the True Church, & because Christ does not change, the CC is equally changeless, & is therefore much the same in 2000 as it was in 100. The Church has changed immensely through the centuries - and this in no way affects the theological doctrines about it. What is affected, very greatly, is how we look at the history of the Church. This in turn is of great practical importance: for it affects how we think about other Christianities; & we hear, time and again, they are very many. We won’t be well-equipped to understand them if we have misunderstood our own past; much of which is theirs too.

If the Catholic Church started well and fell away - at what particular point did this happen and was the world left with no church until the reformation?

Regarding the see of Rome not being Christ like - ALL of the apostles who walked with Jesus failed miserably so why should any Pope be different

Transubstantiation - there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that they early church understood that they were eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus - they would not called it “transubstantiation” because that term had not been defined but the effect is exactly the same.

The church has evolved since the first Century because a) not all the gospels had been written at that time and b) there were many false gospesl in existence. It was not till later that the Catholic bishops sorted and sifted (guided by the Holy Spirit) the liturgy into its present form.

 

[Des]

ANnem But doesn’t God make each single person the decider on how that person will answer Christ’s question: “Who do you say I am?”
The difference between your approach and mine is not that I decide right and wrong w/o (name removed by moderator)ut from others…I think such (name removed by moderator)ut is essential (though not binding). It is not that I decide what I will believe is right and what I will believe is wrong and you don’t… you have done the same thing by deciding that you will believe that what the CC is right etc. We each decide who we will follow.

You make it sound as if the Apostles never taught binding truths on their followers.
When Christ told them to go and Preach and to Teach he meant a ‘certain’ truth. It’s up to us if we want it or not. Like abortion, that certain truth is there in the CC. And it’s up to us if we want it or not. Same with Marriage, same with condoms, same with Baptism etc. Your protestant Churches have a tough time when it comes to teaching ‘certain’ truths for all Christian followers when it comes to morality or the teachings of the Apostles or there’d be no splintering. It’s one of the simplest concepts a person can understand.