The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpectatorX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PeaceSerenity said:
Well, I don’t think they called themselves Catholic, it was just the church…but if we look at their worship/beliefs or if we trace the history of that church they most resemble the Catholic and Orthodox churches of today’s time.

The reason a lot of protestants/fundamentalists like to claim their church was founded by Christ is because they ignore the liturgics of the early church. A lot of my protestant friends think that the early Christians sat in a circle and talked about Jesus in church 🙂
Click to expand...
Some of the people I know must think early Christians had electric guitars and trap drums and sang what would amount to rock n roll songs with lyrics relating to Jesus Christ, and pastors that would get up behind the pulpit wearing just polo shirts and slacks and screamed and shouted their way through some sort of rah, rah, sis-boom-bah pep talk they called a sermon but really wasn’t.🤷
 
LegoGE1947 said:
Some of the people I know must think early Christians had electric guitars and trap drums and sang what would amount to rock n roll songs with lyrics relating to Jesus Christ, and pastors that would get up behind the pulpit wearing just polo shirts and slacks and screamed and shouted their way through some sort of rah, rah, sis-boom-bah pep talk they called a sermon but really wasn’t.🤷
Click to expand...
The early Church met in homes. So, they didn’t have Cathedrals either. 😉

Anna
 
Grant1 said:
But I ask this being a person with a deep respect for the Catholic Church. It is something that came to me when praying.

Peter was not the only church planter and he (and Christ if we believe all scripture) gave their blessing to Paul as well. Then, Paul went out and planted churches and surely we can’t say they didn’t have Christ’s blessing because they are again mentioned in scripture in Revelation by John and each with a different message…but certaily part of The Body. So while I don’t dispute in any way that the current Catholic Church came from Peter (and I very much respect this), I’m not sure why lineage has so much to do with making the current Catholic Church the one “true church” because early on that was not the case.

In addition, I understand the problem with Matthew 18:18 and the difference of “you” being interpreted as singular or plural, but even if we put that scripture aside for a moment, the Great Commission was to all.

So again, I think it’s wonderful the Catholic Church has maintained it’s lineage to Peter, but I don’t know how to reconcile the “one true church” problem. I just don’t see it in the whole of scripture.

Thank you in advance for your sincere and loving answers my Brothers and Sisters.
Click to expand...
Anna_Scott said:
Grant1,

I see you just joined CAF, today. Welcome!

You’re starting off with one of the most complex questions; and one that has been debated for centuries. It comes up often on the forums. This is a topic that needs a thread of it’s own.

Any thoughts on Eucharistic Adoration and the early Church?
Anna
Click to expand...
gurneyhalleck1 said:
As Anna said, Grant, welcome to CAF. I will recommend to you the same book that I recommended to Anna to see a different perspective of this topic than you’ll see from most Catholics in here. Please order this book, the Primacy of Peter, edited and partially written by the late great John Meyendorff, a brilliant and passionate and intelligent Orthodox priest and prolific writer in the 20th Century. He and his cohorts tackle the Peter issues and show you a historical view of the other side of the argument about Peter. It’s fascinating reading, brother…it’s written for a layman and can be read in a couple days easily…Here’s the link for the book in case you’re interested. I highly recommend it and think it might answer your questions or at the very least give you another perspective.

Yours in Christ,
Gurney
amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280524227&sr=8-1
Click to expand...
Grant1 said:
I will certainly look at “The Primacy of Peter.” Iron sharpens iron and I thank you all for your answers and direction. Much to pray about here.

In Christ
Grant
Click to expand...
Grant1,

I see you started a thread entitled, Question about the "One True Church"

That is probably the best place to discuss the “primacy of Peter” issue. Looks like an interesting thread.
Grant1 said:
Hello,

I have been praying about this. I am in no way a theological giant, but have whatever capacity has been given me and attempt to utilize it for His Truth. I sincerely desire answers to the following questions that arose in my prayer time concerning this topic. I dearly love my Catholic and Protestant Brothers and Sisters and pray for insight to help me reconcile the schisms that exist between these two bodies of believers. I have a deep respect for the Catholic church and recoginze it’s historical ties to the early church as well as the great good that it does (and has done) for the world and the cause of Christ our Lord.

So, first off, how is it that the “blessing” of the “One True Church” stayed with Rome rather than Constantinople when the Eastern Orthodox Church split? If I am not mistaken, Catholics do not recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the “One True Church” correct? So why did the “lineage” go with Rome when this split occurred?

Second, Peter was not the only one to start churches, as is evidenced in Paul’s letters. Peter (and ultimately Christ) extended the title of Apostle to Paul who went and planted churches as well. These churches were not all united under the “Catholic Church” as we know it today, nor were they ever completely, as they spun churches off of them. Paul’s churches (as well as other Apostle’s churches) were certainly numbered as “true” churches by Christ as is also evidenced by their mention in Revelation (whom most of us believe was written by John the Apostle as well.) So, following the direct line of Peter seems problematic to me. If we accept scripture, how can we say Peter’s church is the only true church?

Blessing, and much thanks to any thoughtful and prayerful answers to my questions. I do sincerely seek the Father through the Son. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
turtleoompa said:
They were the Catholic ( Roman and Eastern) and Orthodox of today. The Catholic and Orthodox peoples have been practicing what was handed down to us from the time of Jesus. Shall we say about the time of Pentacost. We have been doing communion, participating in Mass/Liturgy, praying, giving service to others as we were taught by the Apostles of Jesus. Sure the Protestants may not see everything we do in “their”(incomplete) Bible, but the practice was being done by our fathers since at least Pentacost, prior to the Bible. The writings in the Bible were what we were saying in our Masses/Liturgies as we continue to do so to this day. The reason the Catholic/Orthodox communities put the Bible together was so we would have the inspired word of God put together in a “common” book that we could all be in communion with each other during our Mass/Liturgies. The Bible is a Catholic book. The Mass/Liturgy is taken right out of the Bible." It is a very simple thing." It is not complicated to the Catholic/Orthodox communities .It is complicated to people outside of these communities because it is not fully understood by them. So people put a “spin” on something they want to understand, but cannot fully comprehend. There are many Protestant pastors who have converted to Catholicism because they did their" complete homework" and found the" truth." I have made my simple statement and am done. God Bless you all.
Click to expand...
:amen:

From
Drive by poster lol.
 
The early church was indeed Catholic. The church got its name ‘Catholic’ from the Book of Acts in which the term "ecclesia kata holis’’ was used by Luke. Later Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch, would use the term and he is the first that we today know definitely who did. However, the way in which he uses it seems to indicate the term was already in use. That early church was a heirarchial church with bishops, priests and deacons just as the Catholic Church today. That church was led by a universal bishop as evidenced by the church at Corinth in 80 AD writing to Rome for guidance and Pope Clement responding to their request. That early church had seven sacraments administered by the bishop or priests. There was no sola scriptura in the early church and there would not be any sola scriptura until it was invented in the 16th century. The early church was a church with authority to define doctrine and to define what constituted scripture. No protestant sect comes close to what the early church was.

Denying the Catholicity of the early church one is left with claims like those of some Baptists who attempt to trace their way back to Jesus and the Apostles by claiming as their ancestors every heretical group that ever existed as in The Trail of Blood account of William Carroll. It didn’t matter if they were dualists and believed in two gods or preached suicide as a noble act. What mattered was they were not Catholic. That is why to be protestant one must be able to leap over 1500 years of Catholic Christianity and start with what they mistakenly call a ‘Reformation’.

As for the Orthodox who left us after the first millenium may I say that early church history shows that every heresy in the early church originated in the eastern church. In fact some of your Patriarchs, such as Nestorius, were heretics. Constantine, although he did not know it, did the Catholic Church a favor when he moved the capitol of the empire to Byzantium. That way he and his succeeding emperors could corrupt the eastern church, which they did. And where were you when the Barbarians threatened Rome? Where were you when the Dark Ages fell on Western Europe? You offered no assistence. You deny the universality of the pope yet you were not above begging for his assistence when threatened by Moslem forces. Even then when help did arrive in the form of the Crusades you not only failed to provide the support you promised but you conspired with the Moslems to kill the Crusaders who were fellow Christians. Its no wonder the fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople. And lastly, did you ever think that losing Constantinople and the Church of the Holy Spirit [the Haggia Sophia] to the Moslems might possibly be God’s punishment for your schism? Well, maybe you should.
 
First of all if anyone thinks there was an electric anything in the ancient world they’d need some help! 😛

I myself play a Fender Stratocaster with original 3 single-coil pickup setup, light blue with white pick guard. Big Fender fan here. I wish the early church had played electric guitars! They should hear my new Line 6 amp. Geez that thing shoots out the noise! Dang! 😃

Along the lines of what Anna said, priests didn’t wear vestments in the early Church. They didn’t use confessionals, bishops didn’t wear mitres, they didn’t use crucifixes, there was no holy water font, no statues of Mary, no Adoration chapel complete with monstrance, no jubilee doors, and I’m pretty sure no TV channels with Mother Angelica asking “what’s your question” in the little old lady voice…😛

So what was our point here? 😃
LegoGE1947 said:
Some of the people I know must think early Christians had electric guitars and trap drums and sang what would amount to rock n roll songs with lyrics relating to Jesus Christ, and pastors that would get up behind the pulpit wearing just polo shirts and slacks and screamed and shouted their way through some sort of rah, rah, sis-boom-bah pep talk they called a sermon but really wasn’t.🤷
Click to expand...
 
SpectatorX said:
I’ve had this question stuck in my craw for some time now. I’ve sought the answer at CRAM (that’s not a typo, by the way, I have decided to render that name as such due to a recent, messy falling-out with the moderators there regarding their objectivity: I asked for it, and they penalized me for doing so), but none of the seething malcontents or even the rare reasonable human beings who tarry there could give me any answer at all, really.
Here it is:

Often noncatholics will try to parry any assumption on our part that the early Church was actually Catholic by declaring that they were “catholic” (note the lower case ‘c’) as opposed to “Roman Catholic”. What strikes me as odd is that even if one makes a case that the earliest Christians weren’t Catholic, one must deal with the fact that they certainly don’t resemble anything else which exists in modernity (save the Orthodox, but that’s another can of worms altogether). It seems to be an attempt to argue against Catholicism using standards which cannot be met by the arguer, but, like I said, I could never get a rational response out of anyone.

What say you?
Click to expand...
Of COURSE they were catholic; they had churches, the pope the the holy sacrements, confession, nuns, priests, the holy mass every week, hymns, the pilgrimages, the holy vatican in rome, bishops, the blessed cross… everything identical to today… the ONLY difference is they weren’t yet CALLED catholic.
 
LegoGE1947 said:
Some of the people I know must think early Christians had electric guitars and trap drums and sang what would amount to rock n roll songs with lyrics relating to Jesus Christ, and pastors that would get up behind the pulpit wearing just polo shirts and slacks and screamed and shouted their way through some sort of rah, rah, sis-boom-bah pep talk they called a sermon but really wasn’t.🤷
Click to expand...
Anna_Scott said:
The early Church met in homes. So, they didn’t have Cathedrals either. 😉

Anna
Click to expand...
LegoGE1947 said:
They also had to meet in secret for fear of being dragged off and fed to hungry lions in an ampetheatre somewhere!
Click to expand...
Anna_Scott said:
Yes. Beginnings were rough.

Anna
Click to expand...
gurneyhalleck1 said:
First of all if anyone thinks there was an electric anything in the ancient world they’d need some help! 😛

I myself play a Fender Stratocaster with original 3 single-coil pickup setup, light blue with white pick guard. Big Fender fan here. I wish the early church had played electric guitars! They should hear my new Line 6 amp. Geez that thing shoots out the noise! Dang! 😃

Along the lines of what Anna said, priests didn’t wear vestments in the early Church. They didn’t use confessionals, bishops didn’t wear mitres, they didn’t use crucifixes, there was no holy water font, no statues of Mary, no Adoration chapel complete with monstrance, no jubilee doors, and I’m pretty sure no TV channels with Mother Angelica asking “what’s your question” in the little old lady voice…😛

So what was our point here? 😃
Click to expand...
Great, Gurney. The lack of electricity did rule out quite a few things in the early Church.

The fact is none of us can claim that all the practices in Churches today-- Catholic, Protestant or otherwise–existed in the early Church.

Anna
 
Cashue said:
Of COURSE they were catholic; they had churches, the pope the the holy sacrements, confession, nuns, priests, the holy mass every week, hymns, the pilgrimages, the holy vatican in rome, bishops, the blessed cross… everything identical to today… the ONLY difference is they weren’t yet CALLED catholic.
Click to expand...
Cashue,

Sources, please.

Anna
 
inkaneer said:
The early church was indeed Catholic. The church got its name ‘Catholic’ from the Book of Acts in which the term "ecclesia kata holis’’ was used by Luke. Later Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch, would use the term and he is the first that we today know definitely who did. However, the way in which he uses it seems to indicate the term was already in use. That early church was a heirarchial church with bishops, priests and deacons just as the Catholic Church today. That church was led by a universal bishop as evidenced by the church at Corinth in 80 AD writing to Rome for guidance and Pope Clement responding to their request. That early church had seven sacraments administered by the bishop or priests. There was no sola scriptura in the early church and there would not be any sola scriptura until it was invented in the 16th century. The early church was a church with authority to define doctrine and to define what constituted scripture. No protestant sect comes close to what the early church was.

Denying the Catholicity of the early church one is left with claims like those of some Baptists who attempt to trace their way back to Jesus and the Apostles by claiming as their ancestors every heretical group that ever existed as in The Trail of Blood account of William Carroll. It didn’t matter if they were dualists and believed in two gods or preached suicide as a noble act. What mattered was they were not Catholic. That is why to be protestant one must be able to leap over 1500 years of Catholic Christianity and start with what they mistakenly call a ‘Reformation’.

As for the Orthodox who left us after the first millenium may I say that early church history shows that every heresy in the early church originated in the eastern church. In fact some of your Patriarchs, such as Nestorius, were heretics. Constantine, although he did not know it, did the Catholic Church a favor when he moved the capitol of the empire to Byzantium. That way he and his succeeding emperors could corrupt the eastern church, which they did. And where were you when the Barbarians threatened Rome? Where were you when the Dark Ages fell on Western Europe? You offered no assistence. You deny the universality of the pope yet you were not above begging for his assistence when threatened by Moslem forces. Even then when help did arrive in the form of the Crusades you not only failed to provide the support you promised but you conspired with the Moslems to kill the Crusaders who were fellow Christians. Its no wonder the fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople. And lastly, did you ever think that losing Constantinople and the Church of the Holy Spirit [the Haggia Sophia] to the Moslems might possibly be God’s punishment for your schism? Well, maybe you should.
Click to expand...
Wow. You sound scary. :bigyikes:

Anna
 
crazzeto said:
For me this begs the question, how is it acceptable in this case, but not the general case?
Click to expand...
Keeping in mind that I don’t think adoration in general is evil:

Because it is directed to, or derived from, a fairly practical end. There needs to be enough Sacrament Reserved for the Good Friday liturgy, and once the Sanctuary has been stripped, it needs to be kept somewhere else - soo it goes to a side chaple, or a side altar that has been especially set up. I have never seen it put in a monstrance for this. Given the occasion, the all night prayer vigil is a very natural image. In a way, its power comes from the fact that it is unusual. Every other day of the year a priest can consecrate the Eucharist, enough for those who are present and to deliver to those who are unable to attend. Reservation because we won’t be able to consecrate it the next day is in itself unique, and worthy of special prayer and meditation.
 
Cashue said:
Of COURSE they were catholic; they had churches, the pope the the holy sacrements, confession, nuns, priests, the holy mass every week, hymns, the pilgrimages, the holy vatican in rome, bishops, the blessed cross… everything identical to today… the ONLY difference is they weren’t yet CALLED catholic.
Click to expand...
Is this a sarcastic post? If not,it is rather doubtful. The Vatican was certainly not there from the beginning, that is an almost silly thing to say.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Part 2 of 2
Understanding what is before us does not necessarily lead to a practice which was not given to us by Christ. As I said, “Why settle for gazing at the Sacrament, when we can consume the Sacrament.”
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make sense to literally eat Christ’s literal flesh; for His Sacrifice, where HE SHED His OWN BLOOD, was “once for all.” :eek:
 
That’s not an accurate and fair assessment of what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. They aren’t eating Jesus like something at TGIFridays, like ribs or something. They are eating His flesh and blood sacramentally. It is His glorified presence and intangiable to our senses. He is there in His totatlity but sacramentally so it’s a divine mystery, not flesh as our flesh is or else cannibalism would be a valid charge. I’d go to the Catholic Answers Forum search and look up articles on it. There are plenty that deal with the cannibalism charge.

Also, Catholics DO believe the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is a continual participation of the “once and for all” sacrifice at Calvary. They believe that the Mass is outside of time and that it is the same exact sacrifice, not a repeat of it and not multiplying what Christ already did. I recommend also reading some articles on CA about that.

I think you need to look at these things through the eyes of the Early Church Fathers, a sacramental lens, and try not to “make sense” of it through the lens you’re using as an evangelical. The Catholic view is very true to what the Early Fathers taught and in the spirit of John 6, the Last Supper, and what saints have taught for centuries…
Protestant101 said:
It doesn’t make sense to literally eat Christ’s literal flesh; for His Sacrifice, where HE SHED His OWN BLOOD, was “once for all.” :eek:
Click to expand...
 
Protestant101 said:
It doesn’t make sense to literally eat Christ’s literal flesh; for His Sacrifice, where HE SHED His OWN BLOOD, was “once for all.” :eek:
Click to expand...
Obviously it didn’t make sense to eat Jesus flesh thats why most of his disciples left and Jesus didn’t bother to stop them why do you think?

We are not sacrificing Christ again all we are doing is representing the one sacrifice that happened 2,000 yrs ago in memory of what he did.

God Bless
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top