The "Are you Catholic or Christian" Question

[Church_Militant]

What, 400 ad is early church? even 800 ad as is 100 ad? Much of what CC practices evolved so it is important to specify what is meant by early church. It is not enough to say we do it today cause early church did it.Fact is some things were not done in early church that are done today and vice versa.

Oh…you mean like virtually all of the modern n-C practices from the Reformation on? (Lutheran and Episcopal and Eastern Orthodox excepted)

Anyone who reads things like What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like? will readily see that there is very little there that resembles modern n-C services and beliefs, so your premise there doesn’t work in your favor at all.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

First the Didache is around 100 ad ,after the apostles were all gone. Secondly it talks only of adult or consenting individual being baptized.

100 AD is not early for you? My friend, even Revelation is placed around 95 AD. In Scripture itself, it teaches that entire households were baptized. Households included infants.

You seem very bent on seeking extremely specific details and then presenting them as proof that ‘this wasn’t done in the early Church’. We have shown many, many, many instances where Catholic and Orthodox doctrine is seen extremely early in the Church (far more so than any Protestant doctrine), and then definitively decided upon in council (2 natures of Christ, Trinity, divinity of Christ) or decree (translation of Canon, threats of Anathema).

You (and almost all Protestants) hold to parts of these teachings (Trinity, divinity of Christ, need for canonization of Scripture), but selectively reject others. I can see no logic behind it, except that you have taken tradition that has been handed down by the Reformers. This is all I see; I see no continuity with historic Christianity, only a radical departure from it.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that you proclaim Christ Jesus, but we must acclaim Him together, as one. The method of the Catholic Church ensures this, as we continue in the tradition of the Apostles and resolve disputes that divide, and always have. I hope for unity, but it comes at the cost of acknowledging absolute truths.

Grace and peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ to you!

 

[JamesCaruso]

Oh…you mean like virtually all of the modern n-C practices from the Reformation on? (Lutheran and Episcopal and Eastern Orthodox excepted)

Anyone who reads things like What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like? will readily see that there is very little there that resembles modern n-C services and beliefs, so your premise there doesn’t work in your favor at all.

:thumbsup:This is my belief, as well, at least, doctrinally speaking. . There may be something to be said for the living out of the Gospel in the lives of some of our separated brethren. Simply possessing the correct doctrines, which of course is foundational, and following the rituals handed down from the earliest Church with lip service, does not rise to the level of actually living life in the Spirit of God, not to say that many Catholics do not. For those who do, they can truly be said to have it all. It is my deeply held belief that Catholicism rightly lived is the best of all aspects of Christianity rolled up into one. No other denomination can lead as straight nor be relied upon with such utter confidence as the Catholic faith,

 

[Midwest88]

One way I answer is that I am a Catholic Christian, and not in name only. Today in America, just saying you are a Catholic is not enough since it includes you with everyone from Pope Benedict to Nancy Pelosi. The general public really does not have a clue as to what a Catholic is anymore.

I just say I’m a practicing Catholic who supports capitalism and social conservatism.

bold: That’s the problem with being non exclusive, at least the term. Anyone can claim they are a Catholic yet their thoughts, actions and beliefs say otherwise. It causes mass confusion and skewers whatever meaning the word has. I would understand if they went to Church, thought long and hard about their choices and admitted “Do you know what, I was wrong and made foolish mistakes,” but nay, they most likely do not.

 

[Delta2]

This is quick issue I wanted to raise:

Forgive me for perhaps being OCD about this , but it seems to be rather common for people to distinguish Catholic from Christian, especially when one says their Christian as if Catholics are not . Forgive me for being blunt, but I think this is something we have to emphasize in conversation and conversion, so that it’s clear that Catholics are Christians and that other Christian faiths are Protestant or something else. Please clarify otherwise, and thanks for your comments.

All Catholics are Christians but not all denominations or sects can’t be assumed as Christians because their doctrine is totally different

I mean like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and etc…etc…

 

[pocohombre]

Oh…you mean like virtually all of the modern n-C practices from the Reformation on? (Lutheran and Episcopal and Eastern Orthodox excepted)

Anyone who reads things like What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like? will readily see that there is very little there that resembles modern n-C services and beliefs, so your premise there doesn’t work in your favor at all.

The stuff I read about the early church worship (100ad) is quite universal and certainly no more catholic than Orthodox or Protestant

 

[pocohombre]

100 AD is not early for you? My friend, even Revelation is placed around 95 AD. In Scripture itself, it teaches that entire households were baptized. Households included infants.

You seem very bent on seeking extremely specific details and then presenting them as proof that ‘this wasn’t done in the early Church’. We have shown many, many, many instances where Catholic and Orthodox doctrine is seen extremely early in the Church (far more so than any Protestant doctrine), and then definitively decided upon in council (2 natures of Christ, Trinity, divinity of Christ) or decree (translation of Canon, threats of Anathema).

You (and almost all Protestants) hold to parts of these teachings (Trinity, divinity of Christ, need for canonization of Scripture), but selectively reject others. I can see no logic behind it, except that you have taken tradition that has been handed down by the Reformers. This is all I see; I see no continuity with historic Christianity, only a radical departure from it.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that you proclaim Christ Jesus, but we must acclaim Him together, as one. The method of the Catholic Church ensures this, as we continue in the tradition of the Apostles and resolve disputes that divide, and always have. I hope for unity, but it comes at the cost of acknowledging absolute truths.

Grace and peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ to you!

So you agree Didache says nothing about infant baptism?

 

[butbob]

I am 69 y/o and was a Protestant until I was 27 y/o and still have some Protestant friends, (Including my brother. There are some Protestants who do not consider us Catholics Christians but they are in error and I believe that part of it is that there is still an amazing amount of hostility towards Catholcism since the Protestants left the Church. Evangelical Protestants claim that to be a Christian one must believe in Salvation by Belief alone. That If the person believes that Jesus is the Savior that that person will automatically go to Heaven no matter what they do the rest of their life.

Of course we Catholics and some Protestants have read the Book of James in the New Testament where he answers this question. The Apostle James states clearly the whole question of faith versus works and declares that Faith without works is dead. Of course Martin Luther wanted the Book of James removed from the Bible but he was outvoted by the other Protestant leaders.

well i guess you have not understood the work of the counsal of trent- in 1551-1565

ECUMENISM AND THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Sep 7, 2008 in Roman Catholicism

by Mary Ann Collins

(A Former Catholic Nun)

www.CatholicConcerns.com

December 2001

Revised November 2002

There is a hidden agenda behind the ecumenical movement. Official Catholic documents from the Second Vatican Council show that the purpose behind ecumenism is to bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church.

The Council of Trent anathematized every Christian who disagrees with any detail of Catholic doctrine. These anathemas have never been canceled. An anathema means that the Catholic Church has placed someone under a solemn ecclesiastical curse. (Anathemas will be explained more fully later in this paper.)

VATICAN II AND ECUMENISM

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) wrote 16 official documents. It also gave some groups of experts the task of working out the details of how to apply the principles and directives of the Council. These groups of men wrote official “post conciliar” documents to more fully elaborate what had been written by the Council. The conciliar and post conciliar documents are published together in a two-volume work.

The Council’s “Decree on Ecumenism” states that ecumenical activity cannot result in changing any aspect of the Catholic faith. [Note 1] This foundational principle is reflected in the post conciliar documents dealing with ecumenism.

For example, Post Conciliar Document No. 42 says that the purpose of ecumenism is to transform the thinking and behavior of non-Catholics so that eventually all Christians will be united in one Church. It states that unity means being “in the Catholic Church.” [Note 2]

In other words, as far as Rome is concerned, “unity” means that all Christians will become Roman Catholics.

In addition, Church history states that the followers of Jesus first called themselves, “The Way”. This is in the book of Acts. About the year 80, 90, or 100, the followers of Jesus started calling themselves Christians. By the 300’s St. Paul had started many individual churches and so everyone would be clear that even though there wre many Christian Churches that there is really only one Church, the Christians began calling themselves Catholic (Universal) Christians) so that everyone would be clear that there is only one Church. I hope what I have written has been helpful. What I wish is that Us Catholic Christians would stop calling Protestants Christians and us Catholics. God bless you all. Amen.

 

[Church_Militant]

So you agree Didache says nothing about infant baptism?

That’s pretty weak. The fact is that it says more about baptism that almost all n-C communities do, which shows that it is they who’re in error and not the Catholic Church.

As for infant baptism, one does not need to appeal to Didache, but there are ECF documents that support it as well as the New Testament. I’ll supply the following link to an article on it and then perhaps we can get back on topic. The Case For Infant Baptism

When someone asks me if I’m a Christian or if I’m saved, my response is simply, “Absolutely! I’m Catholic!”

 

[Porknpie]

It’s a rather long argument whether Catholics are Christians or the reverse.

The Question should really be , “Is your local church Orthodox in the New Testament”.

God Bless

Mike,

We can read the writings of the early Catholic Church to understand what Christ taught the apostles and what the apostles taught their descendants…long before the Catholic Church canonized the bible. Catholic means 'Universal" yes…but by the early 2nd century was being used to describe the specific Church of Christ and those that followed the apostles…who were the true followers of The Way.

“Orthodox” questions to ask :

“does your church have Bishops and apostolic succession that was so important to the early Church?”

“do your church have the 7 sacraments, including the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Sacramental Baptism (including that of infants) that was practiced in this early church?”

“do you follow your local pastor or St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John…who was an apostle of Jesus?”

“does your church follow that One and same faith that was practiced throughout the whole world as Irenaeus says?”

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God.** Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. **B]Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“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).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy.** But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in** particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

 

[Porknpie]

A professed believer is saved and should submit him or herself for Baptism.
Churches who practice infant baptism ignore this. An infant cannot believe or repent but is also guilty of nothing.

Mike, you are arguing with management on infant baptism. The debate in the early church was not whether or not to baptize infants or wait until the age of reason…it was should they be baptized on the day of their birth or on the 8th day as was done for circumcision. We can read the early church writing to understand what was believed. Belief that was handed down by Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to their descendants. Not baptizing infants would have shocked the ancient Church. It’s with this understanding that the bible needs to be read and understood. “Whole households” includes infants or do you have a verse that says otherwise? Chapter and verse please.

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

John 10
27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.[c] 30 The Father and I are one.”

A true believer cannot be lost to the Lord. This is controversial in churches today.

St. Paul who says he was saved, is being saved and has hope in his salvation…that we should work out our salvation in fear and trembling and he warns that one can be cut off from the vine. The bible says that there is sin that is Mortal and non-Mortal…the mortal ones cause separation from God’s grace and we can lose the gift of salvation but our own free will … by rejecting it. So yes, a true believer can be lost but we do it to ourselves.

By the way, this was not a controversy in the early Church…not until “faith alone” 1,500 years later did a controversy start about our free will cutting us off from God.

Romans 10:9
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Believing is to follow… if you don’t follow you will be cut off.

A declared Christian is saved. The Holy Spirit dwells in those Born Again.

Born again is the need for sacramental baptism from original sin as the Church as understood and practiced for 2,000 years.

Ephesians 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

We are saved by Grace, Through Faith working in Love. I could also mention that we are saved by Works, Not by Faith Alone…

2Tim3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for proof, for correction, of instruction in righteousness.

This is of course, very Catholic and in context, St. Paul was writing about old OT. But the bible was written by, for and about the Catholic Church … and one of the major reasons the canon was put together in 400 ad was to have a universal set of readings used at Mass …the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Many churches today follow a man-made traditions…rejecting Christ’s Church and not keeping the Sacraments …many churches are not in keeping with what Christ taught the apostles…and their stubbornness to admit they are wrong to adhere to the Truth is not unlike the Pharisees in Jesus’ day.

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[Porknpie]

CONTINUED

Why are some churches today filled with statues?

What statues do you have a problem with Mike? My church has the stations of the cross on the walls…it’s a great way to pray to our Lord and reflect on his sacrifice for us.

Some with kneelers in front of them.

Kneeling is a great position for prayer.

You wouldn’t see a statue in a Jewish Temple

Really Mike? What was on the Ark of the Convenant? Cherubim.

Some say that they are just Art but what do you think the OT saints would say about them?

God Loves art…don’t you know?

Relics and Charms are also pagan.

Read 2 Kings…God can work wonders through relics … Elisha wasn’t pagan was he?

20 So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. 21 As a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet.

There are plenty of good arguments on this subject on the internet. The Catholic Answers website has their arguments. Enjoy the research.

We can agree here Mike. A wonderful website outside of catholic.com is scripturecatholic.com. One can read the writings of the early church and understand what they believed verses what man made up 1,600-2,000 years after the death of Christ. I’d start with learning about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Sacramental Baptism. Wherever the 12 apostles went after the death of Christ, they taught both… plus 5 other sacraments.

God Bless, Pork (depiction of Cherubim below)

 

[Miriam1947]

Porknpie, thanks for the link in your sig: Reading the Catechism in a year. I think I’ll start today.

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie, thanks for the link in your sig: Reading the Catechism in a year. I think I’ll start today.

Miriam,

Terrific. A year can start today! Just put it in your calendar to remind yourself. Personally, I’ll read one to two days at a time depending on my work schedule.

It’s been good to read it along with the audio book.

And do listen to my favorite Jesuit’s homilies. Having attended a Jesuit college and being from Chicago myself… I have a special place for him. He reminds me of some of the Jesuits I used to know.

Pork