The Catholic Church known today is NOT the same Catholic Church in the time of the apostles?

[Cavaradossi]

In the quote above ("…This is the rock which the gates of hell do not prevail"), Augustine clearly spells out what “the rock” is. So again, I ask-- did he change his mind at some point in his interpretation of “the rock?” I honestly don’t know. But that’s why I bring up his assertion of papal primacy. Whatever his view of “the rock” was (and perhaps he himself interpreted the rock differently at different points in his life), he still came back to the Catholic view of papal primacy. Which makes his interpretation of “the rock” essentially moot, because it didn’t influence him away from the Church or the concept of papal primacy.

Quite frankly, until you’re able to divorce the concept of papal primacy from Matthew 16:18, there’s no point in continuing this debate. I answered a very specific post talking about how interpretations of “the rock” being Christ are weak with evidence that St. Augustine considered the rock to be Christ. You are the one who insists that it has to do with papal primacy, not me. St. Augustine doesn’t even think it’s important whether we interpret the rock as being St. Peter or Christ, as he makes clear in his Retractationes. It has nothing to do with papal primacy and only to do with interpretations of the identity of the rock. I honestly don’t know how to make it any clearer than that.

 

[josephback]

Quite frankly, until you’re able to divorce the concept of papal primacy from Matthew 16:18, there’s no point in continuing this debate. I answered a very specific post talking about how interpretations of “the rock” being Christ are weak with evidence that St. Augustine considered the rock to be Christ. You are the one who insists that it has to do with papal primacy, not me. St. Augustine doesn’t even think it’s important whether we interpret the rock as being St. Peter or Christ, as he makes clear in his Retractationes. It has nothing to do with papal primacy and only to do with interpretations of the identity of the rock. I honestly don’t know how to make it any clearer than that.

Augustine wasn’t the only Church Father. And he wasn’t infallible. Please check out the link

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

Augustine wasn’t the only Church Father. And he wasn’t infallible. Please check out the link

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

A majority of Church Fathers did not believe that the rock was Peter. Of course, it wasn’t important to them at all how the verse was interpreted (as St. Augustine mentions), so nobody fought over it. It has only been since medieval times that the Catholic Church has insisted that there is only one correct interpretation of that verse. I won’t venture out to speculate on why that might be so (although any inquiring mind might be able to fill in the blanks), but I will say that to insist that there is only one correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is in disagreement with the Church Fathers and the Tradition.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Drywall wrote:

So what? I also use the term “Church” to refer to the 1st century Church…such usage doesn’t mean that I equate the Church of the first century with the Catholic Church(es) of the 4th, of the 16th or of the 21st centuries.

There was the Catholic Church and various heresies that developed even during the lifetime of the Apostles. There have been heresies throughout the history of Christianity. With which heresy(ies) do you identify?

Really? It is a better documented secular history that shows that American football has existed from the late 19th century to the present in an unbroken continuum…but nobody worth their salt claims that the present game is the same one that existed in 1890 or in 1904.

I know nothing about the American football. I became a Catholic through my years of study of the history of Christianity. I was an atheist at the time, interested in religion only as an intellectual inquiry.

There are plenty of university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians that already agree with me…just b/c you label an innovation as a “development” so that you can claim a “continuum” doesn’t mean that you have achieved a legitimate continuity. The Pharisees could have labelled their additions to the law as developments of the seed laid down by Moses…an organic growth if you will. Such a claim, by itself, doesn’t make the “development” either good or something less than an innovation

You might find The Founding of Christendom interesting. Written by Warren J. Carroll, Ph.D., who has advanced degrees from Harvard and Columbia, it is the first volume of a 6-volume history of Christianity. Dr. Carroll is a convert to the Church.

Also recommended is How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D., holder of four Ivy League degrees including an A.B. from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia, also a convert to the Church as a result of his historical research. Did you know the Catholic Church invented the university? Provided the framework for the Scientific Revolution? And that a astrophysicist-priest proposed the Big Bang theory? That the “father” of geology, genetics, and many other sciences were Catholic priests? Dr. Woods documents the presence of the Church through the centuries.

Also consider reading the History of the Church by Eusebius, written c. A.D. 324.

Originally posted by J Dandy: Protestantism is based on circular reasoning – proving the (incomplete) Bible by the Bible.

I understand why you ignored this.

isn’t that 5? In any event secular history ain’t that supportive,…it tends to see a lot of innovation. As to the rest, it appears to be entirely circular, with the required interpretation provided by the CC (so as to establish its own authority).

I counted “history” only once. The authority of the Church was established by her founder, Jesus Christ. To the Apostles, the leaders of His Church, He said: “Who hears you, hears me . . .” Luke 10:16; “… I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven . . .” Mt 16:18-19; “I will be with you always, to the end of the world” Mt. 28:20; KJV; “…and he [the Father] will give you another advocate, to be with you always, the Spirit of truth…” Jn 14:16; "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, that the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you , . .Jn 14:26; “the powers of death will not prevail against it” [My Church] Mt 16:18-19; and more.

Jim Dandy

 

[plaintruth]

still does not answer the thread question, just declarations.

since this is an rcc forum, obviously the thread question when it refers to the ‘catholic church’ means the rcc.

im adding a 2nd reason why the rcc (catholic church) today is not the same as thenew testament church.

1. the rcc church did not exist that time.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.

. Let’s not get into a semantics argument about what to call the early church. . The point is it was ]the

Catholic Church regardless of what one . Name one wants to hang on it… the Catholic Church was the only Christian church until the Reformation. . In fact it is the only Christian . Church today -the rest just being Christian denominations bravely holding onto whatever portion of the truth they retained when they left the church.

 

[Silver_Spring]

Quite frankly, until you’re able to divorce the concept of papal primacy from Matthew 16:18, there’s no point in continuing this debate.

And as long as you insist that a quote from Augustine that includes the sentence – “This is the rock which the gates of hell do not prevail” – has nothing to do with Matthew 16:18, then there’s no point in continuing this debate.

 

[estesbob]

still does not answer the thread question, just declarations.

since this is an rcc forum, obviously the thread question when it refers to the ‘catholic church’ means the rcc.

im adding a 2nd reason why the rcc (catholic church) today is not the same as thenew testament church.

1. the rcc church did not exist that time.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.

So where did this mythical New Testament Church go? Did it go in hibernation for 1,500 years only to awaken with Doctrines that had been unheard of by all who went before them.

The truth theCcatholic Church has been in existence since Christ founded it-an unborken 2,000 years of consistent doctrines, the on going guradian of the Truth. Every piece of the truth your has denomination has came from the Church. The book you hold dear came from the Church. The concepts of the Trinity and origianl sin came for the Church. You owe everthing good in your denomination to the Church whether you realize it or not.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

1. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.

Pray tell, what traditions are the ones you would like to bring up?

 

[Radical]

Drywall wrote:

really? him too?

There was the Catholic Church and various heresies that developed even during the lifetime of the Apostles. There have been heresies throughout the history of Christianity. With which heresy(ies) do you identify?

every single one taught by the apostle Paul

You might find The Founding of Christendom interesting. Written by Warren J. Carroll, Ph.D., who has advanced degrees from Harvard and Columbia, it is the first volume of a 6-volume history of Christianity. Dr. Carroll is a convert to the Church.

To address the subject of the thread and in particular to gain a better understanding of the Church during the times of the apostles I would recommend:

James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament

Ben Witherington III, New Testament History

or, if you wanted to look into the development of Church Government in the Early Church you could look at:

Francis Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops

I believe that they are all considerably more accomplished scholars then Carroll…BTW are you sure about the Harvard degree?

Also recommended is How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D., holder of four Ivy League degrees including an A.B. from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia, also a convert to the Church as a result of his historical research. Did you know the Catholic Church invented the university? Provided the framework for the Scientific Revolution? And that a astrophysicist-priest proposed the Big Bang theory? That the “father” of geology, genetics, and many other sciences were Catholic priests? Dr. Woods documents the presence of the Church through the centuries.

and this has what to do with the thread topic?

Also consider reading the History of the Church by Eusebius, written c. A.D. 324.

I have considered that idea…my translation by Paul L. Maier is quite good and I might note that the effort in translating Eusebius doesn’t seem to have caused him to convert to Catholicism…go figure

I understand why you ignored this.

I doubt it…

The authority of the Church was established by her founder, Jesus Christ. To the Apostles, the leaders of His Church, He said: “Who hears you, hears me . . .” Luke 10:16; “… I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven . . .” Mt 16:18-19; “I will be with you always, to the end of the world” Mt. 28:20; KJV; “…and he [the Father] will give you another advocate, to be with you always, the Spirit of truth…” Jn 14:16; "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, that the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you , . .Jn 14:26; “the powers of death will not prevail against it” [My Church] Mt 16:18-19; and more.

the early church’s understanding of these verses is where the books that I recommended above would be of considerable use…

 

[Edward_H]

In what way is an oak tree the same or different from the acorn?

 

[Newsy]

im adding a 2nd reason why the rcc (catholic church) today is not the same as thenew testament church.

1. the rcc church did not exist that time.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.

You may want to do a quick Google search of the Early Church Fathers before you condemn the traditions of the Catholic Church.
BTW, your #1 in not a valid reasoning. Just because a term doesn’t exist, this proves nothing regarding the object the word describes.** The word “rock” comes from the english language and the english language didn’t exist at the time of Christ, therefore there were no “rocks”. **See how that reasoning is of no use? The word Trinity appears nowhere in the Bible, yet we believe that God is Trinitarian. The lack of terminology has no bearing on the existence of an object, idea or group.

 

[Edward_H]

Many superficially-read people post these kinds of ‘arguments’.

They often posit "an invisible church’ which guided the closing of the canon, and then conveniently morphs over after that into other forms, leaving the apostate Catholic Church, etc. etc. They can’t seem to find “invisible church” spelled out in the Bible.

But if you read Acts, and you read the early Church fathers writings and history, you’ll find the very same Church you see today, with a shepherd, with appointed bishops, replacing leaders, making decisions, administering the sacraments, walking humbly with God.

 

[Radical]

In what way is an oak tree the same or different from the acorn?

Is the oak tree from the same species as the acorn? Did man graft a different species on to what grew from the acorn? Is one living and is one dead? You would need to answer these questions and many others before you could get a good answer to your question…But why bother? If I wanted the best answer to your question I would check with an arborist or a botanist or some such expert, but I surely wouldn’t check with those experts regarding whether the CC of today is in any way similar to the Church of the first century (b/c when they describe to me how branches and roots grow and how leaves sprout, it doesn’t in any way resemble how doctrines and institutions grow, accrete and develop)…just saying

 

[Edward_H]

Is the oak tree from the same species as the acorn? Did man graft a different species on to what grew from the acorn? Is one living and is one dead? You would need to answer these questions and many others before you could get a good answer to your question…But why bother? If I wanted the best answer to your question I would check with an arborist or a botanist or some such expert, but I surely wouldn’t check with those experts regarding whether the CC of today is in any way similar to the Church of the first century (b/c when they describe to me how branches and roots grow and how leaves sprout, it doesn’t in any way resemble how doctrines and institutions grow, accrete and develop)…just saying

Sure.

And I bet if Jesus started talking to you about mustard seeds, fish, vines, branches you’d take the same supercilious and skeptical approach…just saying.

 

[Radical]

Sure.

And I bet if Jesus started talking to you about mustard seeds, fish, vines, branches you’d take the same supercilious and skeptical approach…just saying.

No, not at all…But why would you suggest that? Did you think that your question about the oak and acorn was on par with the things that Christ said?

 

[Edward_H]

No, not at all…But why would you suggest that? Did you think that your question about the oak and acorn was on par with the things that Christ said?

No…you mentioned branches first.

 

[Radical]

But if you read Acts, and you read the early Church fathers writings and history, you’ll find the very same Church you see today, with a shepherd, with appointed bishops, replacing leaders, making decisions, administering the sacraments, walking humbly with God.

Sullivan, in From Apostles to Bishops comes to a very different conclusion. I wouldn’t call him “superficially-read” and here is what he wrote:

"There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those in Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church.

One conclusion seems obvious: **Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do. **On the other hand, many reputable Catholic scholars, who share the consensus regarding the gradual development of the episcopate in the early church, remain convinced that we do have solid grounds for holding that bishops are the successors of the apostles. Such scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution.’ At the same time, they insist that the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian literature is crucial, and must be treated with scholarly integrity. It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation." (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001, 15-16.)

that is but one of the many problems with your “the very same Church” claim that you make. Sullivan believes in apostolic succession, but acknowledges that it is a development and that his belief is a product of faith. You could also look at Papal Sin by Garry Wills (another Catholic) for more details as to how the modern CC has changed drastically from what existed at the time of the apostles. He is isn’t superficially-read either. The question of the thread is one that is answered very differently by various learned and reputable scholars…Catholics shouldn’t pretend that they have an open and shut case for saying that it is the same…especially when no one here has suggested what criteria are to be used to determine “sameness”. Once certain criteria have been suggested we might want to see if any one on the other side actually agrees with that set of criteria…so that there is actually some meaning to the discussion.

 

[Edward_H]

Sullivan, in From Apostles to Bishops comes to a very different conclusion. I wouldn’t call him “superficially-read” and here is what he wrote:

"There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those in Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church.

One conclusion seems obvious: **Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do. **On the other hand, many reputable Catholic scholars, who share the consensus regarding the gradual development of the episcopate in the early church, remain convinced that we do have solid grounds for holding that bishops are the successors of the apostles. Such scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution.’ At the same time, they insist that the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian literature is crucial, and must be treated with scholarly integrity. It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation." (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001, 15-16.)

that is but one of the many problems with your “the very same Church” claim that you make. Sullivan believes in apostolic succession, but acknowledges that it is a development and that his belief is a product of faith. You could also look at Papal Sin by Garry Wills (another Catholic) for more details as to how the modern CC has changed drastically from what existed at the time of the apostles. He is isn’t superficially-read either. The question of the thread is one that is answered very differently by various learned and reputable scholars…Catholics shouldn’t pretend that they have an open and shut case for saying that it is the same…especially when no one here has suggested what criteria are to be used to determine “sameness”. Once certain criteria have been suggested we might want to see if any one on the other side actually agrees with that set of criteria…so that there is actually some meaning to the discussion.

How are you the same person today as you were when you were born? How are you different? Is your soul the same? Are you still a child of God? Are you still part of the Body of Christ?

 

[Radical]

How are you the same person today as you were when you were born? How are you different? Is your soul the same? Are you still a child of God? Are you still part of the Body of Christ?

I don’t know why you would ask these questions. What criteria are you suggesting that we use for determining “sameness” WRT a human person? …and why would we reference them in determining “sameness” WRT Christian Churches. Regarding “sameness” WRT Christian Churches.I would suggest looking at things such as:

1. are the core doctrines identical?
2. is the form of governance identical?

WRT a human, we still think he is the same guy even if his beliefs have totally changed between Monday and Tuesday. My “Church criteria” don’t work for humans…why would your questions regarding human personhood apply in any way to the Church?

 

[Edward_H]

I don’t know why you would ask these questions. What criteria are you suggesting that we use for determining “sameness” WRT a human person? …and why would we reference them in determining “sameness” WRT Christian Churches. Regarding “sameness” WRT Christian Churches.I would suggest looking at things such as:

1. are the core doctrines identical?
2. is the form of governance identical?

WRT a human, we still think he is the same guy even if his beliefs have totally changed between Monday and Tuesday. My “Church criteria” don’t work for humans…why would your questions regarding human personhood apply in any way to the Church?

St Paul gives us a number of beautiful examples of using the body to understand our relationship with God and his Church, following Jesus’s own example of taking on a body. He could have saved us in an infinite number of ways. But he gave dignity to our body, to human form. There must be great value and insight here that God wants us to think about, to use the intellect and imagination He gave us…to love Him and others.

So, I am following St Paul’s example.

Individually we may grow older and our “accidents” may and often do change, but our essence does not change. Our hair changes color or we lose it…but we still have a will, a mind, a soul.

We don’t have 1 brain one day, and 2 brains the next. The unity and functions of the body don’t change. The brain doesn’t make decisions one day and clean blood the next.

Our bodies actually can be used to understand our relationship with God. God gave us our bodies so we could understand Him and our nature to Him and to other members in His Church.

Pope John Paul II’s beautiful Theology of the Body (129 talks) addresses love by considering very deeply our body.

Our body’s own design points to God, it highlights divine unity, our destiny, in its sexual design. Great stuff for another thread.