The 1st Century Church Looked Like the Catholic Church

[Radical]

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.

So did you get the 2nd Tertullian reference regarding Mary wrong wrt location and/or content?

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.

I think it is you who need to review what was said…the quote you responded to included: Would the likes of Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius, Origen or Augustine embrace or reject the modern CC?

In your response to GoG you said:

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.

Mere recognition was not my concern at all. The trinitarians of 325 AD would easily recognize the Arian church, but they wouldn’t embrace it b/c of a strong disagreement on one doctrine. So just b/c you can show some similarities between modern RC doctrine and the position of a certain ECF doesn’t mean that the ECF in question would embrace modern Catholicism b/c after all you should be able to show essentially identical beliefs between the trinitarian of 325 and the Arian of 325 apart from that one exception…one important exception is all it takes.

However, the early Church fathers without question submit to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and their bishops.

Ignatius most certainly called for obedience to a bishop, but I suspect that he never contemplated that a bishop would possess the quality of character that was possessed by certain popes. I understand Ignatius to be saying that the bishop should be obeyed b/c he properly stands in place of Christ…he says nothing about obedience to an unqualified and disreputable bishop. Nor does he say anything about obedience to a bishop teaching contrary doctrine (such as any one of those many Arian bishops).

 

[SonofMonica]

So did you get the 2nd Tertullian reference regarding Mary wrong wrt location and/or content?

It’s quite possible, sir. I can and do frequently make mistakes. Does our entire conversation hinge upon the particular point being correct or incorrect? If so, I will go back and cite-check myself, but something tells me you’ve already done so and have caught a mistake. If the latter is the case, I will accept it and move on. Let me know.

Mere recognition was not my concern at all. The trinitarians of 325 AD would easily recognize the Arian church, but they wouldn’t embrace it b/c of a strong disagreement on one doctrine.

You are ascribing a different meaning to “recognize” than what I intended. I used it in the same way you used “accept,” meaning to ascribe authority to. E.g., when the United States “recognizes” a particular nation, that means they ascribe authority to its sovereignty, acknowledging the legitimacy of its government. Replace “recognize” in my sentence with “accept” and you will see we are talking about the same thing.

So just b/c you can show some similarities between modern RC doctrine and the position of a certain ECF doesn’t mean that the ECF in question would embrace modern Catholicism b/c after all you should be able to show essentially identical beliefs between the trinitarian of 325 and the Arian of 325 apart from that one exception…one important exception is all it takes.

You misunderstand how the Catholic faith operates. Once the Catholic Church defines a dogma, it is defined. But before it is defined, it is not dogma, and therefore does not have to be believed. This does not mean it was not true from the beginning. It just means that before the Church in council or the Pope declares it to be so, it does not “have” to be believed, in order to be a faithful Catholic. If the Church’s magisterium had not said (which it hadn’t) that Tertullian must believe in the Marian doctrine of the assumption, for example, then Tertullian would not be required to believe in the assumption. Therefore, when he was defending against heretics, there would be no reason to defend against those who denied the assumption. Denying the assumption would not have been heresy at that time. This does not mean that the assumption did not happen. Remember, the Holy Spirit was sent to guide the Church into all truth. This does not mean the truth has ever changed, it simply means the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church into recognizing what has always been true.

Ignatius most certainly called for obedience to a bishop, but I suspect that he never contemplated that a bishop would possess the quality of character that was possessed by certain popes. I understand Ignatius to be saying that the bishop should be obeyed b/c he properly stands in place of Christ…he says nothing about obedience to an unqualified and disreputable bishop. Nor does he say anything about obedience to a bishop teaching contrary doctrine (such as any one of those many Arian bishops).

All men, including bishops and all popes, are sinners. The apostles were sinners. There is no qualification that any person not be a sinner in order to be a bishop. Men of questionable character are part and parcel of the Catholic Church. She is the refuge of sinners. Thanks be to God!

If any bishop is teaching doctrine contrary to the Church, he should be rebuked and corrected, and if he refuses, he should be excommunicated. That was the same in Ignatius’s day as it is now. False shepherds are to be rejected, not followed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

and they listen on deaf eyes… and they are ignorant and bias. Shame on them

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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.

I never knew you were a Muslim, Wolf? You converted you said. What exactly led you to Islam? I imagine in Savannah, GA there isn’t a sizable Islamic influence? But then again I live in California which has every influence under the sun! Especially the religion of Arnoldism. lol

 

[Louie1983]

I never knew you were a Muslim, Wolf? You converted you said. What exactly led you to Islam? I imagine in Savannah, GA there isn’t a sizable Islamic influence? But then again I live in California which has every influence under the sun! Especially the religion of Arnoldism. lol

Get toooo tha Choooper! gooooo. lol ( sorry couldn’t resist).

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I never knew you were a Muslim, Wolf? You converted you said. What exactly led you to Islam? I imagine in Savannah, GA there isn’t a sizable Islamic influence? But then again I live in California which has every influence under the sun! Especially the religion of Arnoldism. lol

I posted a part of my conversion story here (I split it into two parts, starting at post #23).

You can also read a more detailed story of my conversion here, and a complimentary post about it here, both of which are on my blog.

Also, small note - I only recently came to Savannah, GA, my spiritual journey mostly took place in Virginia. I’m a military brat, so I’ve been around.

 

[PJM]

**Tanner **** “St. Augustine NEVER believed in transubstantiation concerning the wafer and the wine” **

Jesus addressed to His disciples after the supper 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.

50 is Jn.11:55-57 “Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover, to purify themselves. They were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? That he will not come to the feast?”​

Jesus is speaking here of His pre-death, pre-resurrection body; NOT His Current Glorified Risen body.

92 is Jn.16:1-4 “I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.”​

102 is Jn. 16:23-28 …COLOR=“red”] 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father."​

Indeed Jesus did leave the world to return to Heaven. NOW IN HIS GLORIFIED BODY that in many ways emulates His Godly Nature, Christ has NO LIMITATIONS, is able to bilocate, pass through solid walls, appear and disapear at Will. He is physically in heaven and here on earth in THOUSANDS of Catholic Church Tabernacles at the same time.

118 is Jn.19: 23-24 “When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments…​

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.

I could not find this quote after hours of research But this is ONLY confirming the necessity for FAITH in the Eucharist!

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

Again we are told that FAITH should be sufficient!

10 “After the sacrament of the miracle, He introduces discourse, that, if possible, they who have been fed may be further fed”… … ***Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” …”For He insinuates the truth, that Himself is that meat: this shines out clearly in the sequel, Which the Son of man will give you.” ***​

"]# 12 “ What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? For He had said to them, Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.”

In fact, he believed just the opposite. {of Catholic Dogma} Maybe {he’s} a Protestant in disguise?

May God forgive you for your duplicitous, pernicious post!

There is a super-abundance of historical and Biblical support for this position, I shall provide a list of verses you can look up for yourself. There is also clear and specific evidence that refutes your heresy included in this post.

“ Who therefore, unless blinded by amazing madness, or hard and steeled by amazing obstinacy, would be unwilling to put faith in the sacred Scriptures, which have foretold the faith of the whole world? AUGISTINE Letter on “Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen” 399 AD

“I am the living bread, which came down from heaven… The manna also came down from heaven; but the manna was only a shadow, this is the truth. *If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. *When did flesh comprehend this flesh which He called bread? That is called flesh,and for that reason all the more flesh does not comprehend it… For they were terrified at this: they said it was too much for them; they thought it impossible. Is my flesh, says He, for the life of the world. Believers know the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be the body of Christ. Let them become the body of Christ, if they wish to live by the Spirit of Christ. Understand, my brethren, what I mean to say. … My body, of course, lives by my spirit. Would you then also live by the Spirit of Christ? Be in the body of Christ. The body of Christ cannot live but by the Spirit of Christ. The Apostle Paul, expounding this bread, says: One bread, says he, we being many are one body. 1 Cor. 10:17 O mystery of piety! O sign of unity! O bond of charity! He that would live has where to live, let him draw near, let him believe; let him be embodied, that he may be made to live. Let him not be a rotten member that deserves to be cut off; let him not be a deformed member whereof to be ashamed; let him be a fair, fit, and sound member; let him cleave to the body, live for God by God: now let him labor on earth, that hereafter he may reign in heaven.” AUGUSTINE Tractate 26: on Jn. 6:41-59; art. 13