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

[The_Old_Medic]

The title of this thread is both true, and it is not true.

First, lets look at how it is NOT true. The same faith is taught by the Church now, as was taught at the time of the Apostles, allowing for differences in language, etc.

How that title is true:

1. The Church had no “government” back then,. it was tiny, and each Apostle kind of “did their own thing” as they went out and converted people. They all taught the same truth, but the practices differed a bit from one place to another.
2. As the Church grew, it needed leaders. So, gradually things like Priests and Bishops became more codified, in more of a governmental structure.
3. As the Church continued to grow, more and more theological problems were referred to the Bishop of Rome for solution, as were jurisdictional problems, heresies, etc., etc. The Pope (who’s title literally means “Father”, took on more and more of an administrative role, instead of a purely service one.

So, as the church grew, certain things became codified in ways that they were not in the days of the Apostles. More and more administrative offices were opened, more and more Bishops were ordained, the Church moved into different continents (unknown to all at the time of Christ), and people and civilizations changed radically.

EVERY CHURCH HAS CHANGED OVER THE CENTURIES

Martin Luther would not even recognize any of the churches that call themselves “Lutheran”. Neither would John Wesley recognize the Methodists, etc., etc. Those churches have essentially repudiated everything that they were founded upon, have radically changed their theology, and sadly have virtually gotten rid of any Biblical belief at all.

There is not a single Christian church on this earth that operates as the churches did when the Apostles were alive. None of them even come close. There were no churches at all. There was no New Testament at all. Masses (services) were held in private homes, and the Priest/Minister worked a regular job and was a Priest/minister as an extra job.

Virtually all Priests and Bishops were married (including all of the original Apostles that Jesus chose), and there was no such thing as a “full-time” ministry, except perhaps for St. Peter (there is no evidence his wife was living when he went to Rome.).

So, in faith, the church is essentially unchanged.

In the way the faith is shown, in its government, buildings, etc., it is vastly changed, as are all churches from their founding days.

 

[patricius79]

So, I heard an argument recently from protestants that the Catholic Church as it is known today is NOT the same church in the time of the early Church Fathers, apostles, etc. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus says in Matthew 16:18?

Another accusation that I hear is that Constantine founded the Roman Catholic Church, which I find kind of bizarre because early writings dating to 107 AD state the Church as “Catholic”.

So, I heard an argument recently from protestants that the Catholic Church as it is known today is NOT the same church in the time of the early Church Fathers, apostles, etc. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus says in Matthew 16:18?

Another accusation that I hear is that Constantine founded the Roman Catholic Church, which I find kind of bizarre because early writings dating to 107 AD state the Church as “Catholic”.

that is part of the Protestant mythological tradition

one finds in the fathers of first century, 100s, and 200s the same presence of Catholic distinctives one finds later.

and yes it would conflict with Mt 16:18, because the Protestant theory would mean that no historical person for the first millenium had a remotely correct interpretation of Scripture
Augustine

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]). *
catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

 

[estesbob]

th…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.

Barring you been able to show us where this mythical New Testament Church went we do have an open and shut case. you seem to want to use totally subjective criteria based on semantics and liturgical practices, , none of which takes away from the fact that the Catholic Church has an unbroken lineage back to the day Christ founded it.

 

[plaintruth]

lads and ladies are you even answering the thread correctly? Did it ask if the catholic church today is the same as the catholic church of the early church fathers?

why all the talk about church fathers and traditions when it is clear the question was the church ‘about the time of the apostles’. surely the apostles where already decades or centuries long dead before the church fathers. so it was not their time and it is irrelevant to the subject.

and i am not condemning rcc church traditions, all im writing is answering the thread question why the difference? because it is the subject. so please hold your horses !

i’ll give you a simple 3rd reason why the (rcc) catholic church today is not the same as the new testament church:

1. because the rcc church did not exist that time. their is no comparison between the rcc church today and the rcc church in the time of the apostles which did not exist.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.
3. faith in christ is what they taught. faith in the church is what is now taught.

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.

 

[KathleenGee]

Plaintruth…

You are not.

 

[estesbob]

lads and ladies are you even answering the thread correctly? Did it ask if the catholic church today is the same as the catholic church of the early church fathers?

why all the talk about church fathers and traditions when it is clear the question was the church ‘about the time of the apostles’. surely the apostles where already decades or centuries long dead before the church fathers. so it was not their time and it is irrelevant to the subject.

and i am not condemning rcc church traditions, all im writing is answering the thread question why the difference? because it is the subject. so please hold your horses !

i’ll give you a simple 3rd reason why the (rcc) catholic church today is not the same as the new testament church:

1. because the rcc church did not exist that time. their is no comparison between the rcc church today and the rcc church in the time of the apostles which did not exist.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.
3. faith in christ is what they taught. faith in the church is what is now taught.

So did these mythical New Testament Christians go into to hibernation for 1500 years. while god gleefully watched the faithful fall further and further into doctrinal error? It would appear that for the Protestant Guttenberg was more necessary for salvation than Jesus Christ.

 

[Revert_43]

lads and ladies are you even answering the thread correctly? Did it ask if the catholic church today is the same as the catholic church of the early church fathers?

why all the talk about church fathers and traditions when it is clear the question was the church ‘about the time of the apostles’. surely the apostles where already decades or centuries long dead before the church fathers. so it was not their time and it is irrelevant to the subject.

and i am not condemning rcc church traditions, all im writing is answering the thread question why the difference? because it is the subject. so please hold your horses !

i’ll give you a simple 3rd reason why the (rcc) catholic church today is not the same as the new testament church:

1. because the rcc church did not exist that time. their is no comparison between the rcc church today and the rcc church in the time of the apostles which did not exist.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.
3. faith in christ is what they taught. faith in the church is what is now taught.

in point 1 you say the rcc church did not exist
in point 2 you talk about the “new testament” christians
in point 3 you talk about what the “new testament” christians taught

so tell us, please, where exactly did the “new testament” you mention in point 2 come from?

 

[Newsy]

1. because the rcc church did not exist that time. their is no comparison between the rcc church today and the rcc church in the time of the apostles which did not exist.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.
3. faith in christ is what they taught. faith in the church is what is now taught.

#3 is a blatant lie! The Catholic Church has always taught Faith in God through Jesus Christ. Please at least get the facts right!

 

[Newsy]

why all the talk about church fathers and traditions when it is clear the question was the church ‘about the time of the apostles’. surely the apostles where already decades or centuries long dead before the church fathers. so it was not their time and it is irrelevant to the subject.

We refer to the Early Church Fathers because they are close to the source. St Ignatius studied under the Apostle John and was the Third Bishop of Antioch. St Ignatius studied under John for approximately 40 years, I’d say this Early Church Father was in tune with the teaching of the Apostles.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

i’ll give you a simple 3rd reason why the (rcc) catholic church today is not the same as the new testament church:

1. because the rcc church did not exist that time. their is no comparison between the rcc church today and the rcc church in the time of the apostles which did not exist.
2. the tradition the catholics practice today - the new testament christians never did. and im not talking about communion or baptism.
3. faith in christ is what they taught. faith in the church is what is now taught.

Incorrect, you’re new nickname is plainlies! It is because of our faith in Christ that we know He didn’t leave His sheep to the wolves, that He gave us a shepherd with the power and authority to preserve the Truth, the church!

 

[Nicea325]

There is no Roman Catholic church in the time of the apostles. That is why they are different (not the same as the RCC version we have today).

You are right,because the term “Roman” was coined up by Protestants centuries later who were trying to make a distinction from the true Catholic Church. But guess what, the church was founded by Christ who founded a “catholic” church. The Roman Church is just one church under the umbrella of the Catholic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

QUOTE:
The Church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. END QUOTE (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, editor, Garland Publishing, 1999, p. 1049) This is a Protestant publisher.

It is documented secular history that the Catholic Church has existed from A.D. 33 to the present in an unbroken continuum. If you wish to take a contrarian position, you must prove it – not to me, but to university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians.

Protestantism is based on circular reasoning – proving the (incomplete) Bible by the Bible.

Catholic reasoning is linear. The Church has four sources: The (complete) Bible, Sacred Apostolic Tradition, the Magisterium, and sacred and secular history.

Protestantism seems to believe that the heavens opened and the Bible fell out. God said: “This is my Word. Figure out for yourselves what it means. And, don’t forget, your eternal life depends on you getting it right!”

Protestantism is a guessing game – guess which interpretation is right, mine or his or yours? Been there, done that.

Jim Dandy

Radical has no such evidence and never will. Radical revises history to his own whims and agendas. Not matter how hard he tries he will never change history as we have it today. Trust me he will give his list of modern scholars,but does not matter,none of his sources debunks 2,000 years of history. End of case !

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Okay,but how many denied it is the questioned to be asked? By the way, others were also called rock,thus it is not limited to God alone.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Okay,but how many denied it is the questioned to be asked? By the way, others were also called rock,thus it is not limited to God alone.

I am confused, you want to know how many explicitly denied that Peter was the rock? I don’t really know if that’s very relevant; nobody really debated over its meaning because it wasn’t thought of as a very important verse. Peter was understood to be special among the apostles, but most bishops also had the understanding that all bishops were the successors of Peter, not just the bishop of Rome. It wasn’t until around 900 AD that the identity of the rock became important because it became the central justification for the centralization of power in the papacy.

 

[Nicea325]

I am confused, you want to know how many explicitly denied that Peter was the rock? I don’t really know if that’s very relevant; nobody really debated over its meaning because it wasn’t thought of as a very important verse. Peter was understood to be special among the apostles, but most bishops also had the understanding that all bishops were the successors of Peter, not just the bishop of Rome. It wasn’t until around 900 AD that the identity of the rock became important because it became the central justification for the centralization of power in the papacy.

Okay, I’ll rephrase it: How many rejected Peter was the Rock?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Okay, I’ll rephrase it: How many rejected Peter was the Rock?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s completely irrelevant to the point which I was originally trying to make: that the rock could also legitimately be interpreted as Christ. If you wish to view alternative interpretations of Matthew 16:18 which were put forth by the Church Fathers themselves as attacks upon your Church, then so be it, but then it has to come with the admission that there is a clear break between the modern thinking of the Roman Catholic Church and the thinking of the Church Fathers. There is simply no need to be so defensive about this.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s completely irrelevant to the point which I was originally trying to make: that the rock could also legitimately be interpreted as Christ. If you wish to view alternative interpretations of Matthew 16:18 which were put forth by the Church Fathers themselves as attacks upon your Church, then so be it, but then it has to come with the admission that there is a clear break between the modern thinking of the Roman Catholic Church and the thinking of the Church Fathers. There is simply no need to be so defensive about this.

I would agree that we need not be defensive about this issue. As in any living organization, the words of Christ may take on deeper meaning as time goes by. While I don’t have time to research this at the moment, I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the Rock, ultimately, is Christ Himself. But it is also true that Christ handed over His authority to Peter, first of all, and then to the other Apostles. I think it is evident that this was done in the interest of unity.

 

[Radical]

Radical has no such evidence and never will.

Jim Dandy at least was headed in the right direction with requiring “university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians.” …and I provided just that. If there wasn’t evidence for my position (as you claim) then the historians that I listed wouldn’t weather the storm of a peer-review. Not only do they weather the storm, but they are held in high regard. If there was no evidence for my position and if Jim Dandy was right in claiming that it “is documented secular history that the Catholic Church has existed from A.D. 33” then US Catholic bishops wouldn’t be so troubled by what is being taught in Catholic universities…forget about the secular historians, not even all Catholic professors would claim “that the Catholic Church has existed from A.D. 33”. Between you and me, I am the one that would happily resort to peer-reviewed historians. In contrast, you simply label modern scholars as “revisionists” and resort to those scholars that you can still find to endorse your desired history.

Radical revises history to his own whims and agendas.

When I did my Masters in history, we were required to read and familiarize ourselves with what the best historians had to say on a matter. If we wanted to disagree with a position advocated by a reputable scholar, then we had to justify it with proper analysis and evidence…simply charging them as “revisionists” didn’t fly in the department…and rightly so. History is about proper investigation and not name-calling. Wasn’t it like that where you did your Masters?

Not matter how hard he tries he will never change history as we have it today. Trust me he will give his list of modern scholars,but does not matter,none of his sources debunks 2,000 years of history. End of case !

Can you see how you are being inconsistent? You don’t like modern scholarship which is improving our understanding of historical events (in part b/c we are uncovering more and more evidence)…yet you say that I will “never change history as we have it today.” The history as we have it today has already changed from the out-dated and slanted version that you cling to. I don’t have to do anything. Thanks to “university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians” my case is being built for me (and quite often the builders are Catholic themselves). .

 

[estesbob]

Jim Dandy at least was headed in the right direction with requiring “university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians.” …and I provided just that. If there wasn’t evidence for my position (as you claim) then the historians that I listed wouldn’t weather the storm of a peer-review. Not only do they weather the storm, but they are held in high regard. If there was no evidence for my position and if Jim Dandy was right in claiming that it “is documented secular history that the Catholic Church has existed from A.D. 33” then US Catholic bishops wouldn’t be so troubled by what is being taught in Catholic universities…forget about the secular historians, not even all Catholic professors would claim “that the Catholic Church has existed from A.D. 33”. Between you and me, I am the one that would happily resort to peer-reviewed historians. In contrast, you simply label modern scholars as “revisionists” and resort to those scholars that you can still find to endorse your desired history.
When I did my Masters in history, we were required to read and familiarize ourselves with what the best historians had to say on a matter. If we wanted to disagree with a position advocated by a reputable scholar, then we had to justify it with proper analysis and evidence…simply charging them as “revisionists” didn’t fly in the department…and rightly so. History is about proper investigation and not name-calling. Wasn’t it like that where you did your Masters?
Can you see how you are being inconsistent? You don’t like modern scholarship which is improving our understanding of historical events (in part b/c we are uncovering more and more evidence)…yet you say that I will “never change history as we have it today.” The history as we have it today has already changed from the out-dated and slanted version that you cling to. I don’t have to do anything. Thanks to “university-trained, accredited, peer-reviewed historians” my case is being built for me (and quite often the builders are Catholic themselves). .

And under your unslanted version of history where did these mythical New Testament Christians end up going for the next 1500 years and until the so-calledReformation, when a group of men decided that every Christian who went before them got it wrong?

Of course a problem with your premise is that you on one hand claim that the Catholic Church did not exist from the days of the apostles, but offer no alternative as to what did exist other than vague comments about some mythical New Testament Christians who seem to have disappeared from the scene shortly after the end of the first century

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s completely irrelevant to the point which I was originally trying to make: that the rock could also legitimately be interpreted as Christ. If you wish to view alternative interpretations of Matthew 16:18 which were put forth by the Church Fathers themselves as attacks upon your Church, then so be it, but then it has to come with the admission that there is a clear break between the modern thinking of the Roman Catholic Church and the thinking of the Church Fathers. There is simply no need to be so defensive about this.

With all due respect,but I am not being defensive at all, I am simply putting a legit argument on the table. Alternative interpretations? I do not have an alternative interpretation,only what has been put forth centuries ago. Now if that is a source of tension for you,then so be it. Now the ALTERNATIVE interpretation you stated that Jesus was referring to himself is exactly that: modern and quite weak.

Peace.