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

[Anna_Scott]

Many interesting posts. I’m still following.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Objectively speaking here are some things the early church did NOT have:
Eucharistic Adoration, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, co-redemptrix language, vestments, mandatory celibacy, the language of infallibility, withholding the cup from the laity, the rosary, scapulars, etc. . . . .

gurneyhalleck1,

This is an interesting list; because most of these are what keep me from converting, even though I hold a high regard for Catholicism.

Anna

 

[SpectatorX]

Thank you for looking.
Its funny how people define early. If 350 years is still early then in 2150 AD it will still be early American history. I know it is a matter of perspective but certainly a lot of things have already changed in 225 years.

If we conceded that priests may have worn different shirts in the earliest centuries, would you concede that the ecclesial structure of bishop, presbyter, and deacon was in place since the beginnning? How about doctrinal issues such as the Real Presence and the Communion of Saints? Those all have very early witness, and are far more relevant to this discussion than such things as the shape of the celebrants’ shirts which would hardly be considered part of divinely revealed truth by either side of the debate (except for some extremely radically traditional Catholic sorts, but, once again, different worm can). The point of my question is that I have never recieved a reply that wasn’t itself a distraction from the issue. The latch-onto-a-cursory-discrepancy-while-bypassing-clear-patterns-in-doctrine tactic is definitely a welcome respite from the blather-on-and-on-about-unsupported-antichrist-assignments stuff I used to get - a function of the vast difference in venue, I’m sure - but I still find it somewhat unfulfilling.

 

[SpectatorX]

What I see in the early church writings is a greater acceptance or variation than most organizations would accept today.

Cyprian could disagree we Pope Stephen on heretical baptism without being excommunicated.

While many Protestant ideas many not predominated, they appear to have been accepted as falling within orthodox Christianity.

No doubt there were some disagreements early on, but what was in place was more Catholic than not. The facts that the eventual decisions regarding those differences gave us Catholicism in the end and that the objectors eventually vanished into the aether tend to point either toward Catholicism or belief in some total apostasy a la Mormonism or Jehova’s Witness… ism(?).

I can’t conceive of a third option.

 

[SpectatorX]

This is a very interesting question. As a former Baptist, I understand the claim of attending the Church Christ founded. This is not a claim of Apostolic Succession, but a claim of teaching and following Christ as the early Church did—according to their understanding–that’s where it gets tricky. Ironically, the tradition of the ECF’s is scrapped, along with the liturgy of the early Church.

In the liturgy of my Episcopal Parish (Eucharist Rite I and Rite II,) we recite the Nicene Creek, acknowledging belief in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Catholic = Universal (in all times in all places.)

Apostolic = Participating in the Apostle’s teaching (the Scriptures) and fellowship, the breaking of bread (the Eucharist) and the prayers (Acts 2:42.)

Catholic Encyclopedia, Link: newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

There are probably many Protestants who would not recognize the word “Catholic” in any usage other than the “Catholic” Church.

Anna

I understand the use of the term Apostolic as applied by noncatholics (this is seeming like a tricky term right now). What I mean to question is the validity of that use. Can someone claim their beliefs are Apostolic if their origin is clearly much later? I understand that one might be tempted to invoke the formulation of the Trinity or hypostatis (or perhaps the old CRAM favorite, the Assumption of Mary), but the key difference is that these are clearly built upon existing Christian belief. Sola Fide (many understandings thereof, anyway) and Sola Scriptura are clearly innovations in that regard. The latter was actually instituted as the means of discarding previous development.

I could be taken aback by a group which hit the rewind button all the way back to 597 or so, but what I see before me in general is clearly not what ever was.

Not that I have any idea what “Eucharist Rite I and Rite II” means, mind you. I’m speaking generally. I tread lightly around Anglicans and Episcopalians - it’s just so hard to know just which ones are “nearly Catholic” and which aren’t.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If we conceded that priests may have worn different shirts in the earliest centuries, would you concede that the ecclesial structure of bishop, presbyter, and deacon was in place since the beginnning? How about doctrinal issues such as the Real Presence and the Communion of Saints? Those all have very early witness, and are far more relevant to this discussion than such things as the shape of the celebrants’ shirts which would hardly be considered part of divinely revealed truth by either side of the debate (except for some extremely radically traditional Catholic sorts, but, once again, different worm can). The point of my question is that I have never recieved a reply that wasn’t itself a distraction from the issue. The latch-onto-a-cursory-discrepancy-while-bypassing-clear-patterns-in-doctrine tactic is definitely a welcome respite from the blather-on-and-on-about-unsupported-antichrist-assignments stuff I used to get - a function of the vast difference in venue, I’m sure - but I still find it somewhat unfulfilling.

My view on the polity of the early church is in-line with most mainstream views. I could reference the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on bishop and the Didache for example. I wonder what we differ on? I believe the earliest church practiced the polity we do. However it does diverge rather quickly (100 years to your polity), in some areas, and this leads to a discussion of the eventual role of a single bishop, the inevitable discussion of the heavily interpolated Ignatius, and the extent to what that should have been?
Yes, the Real Presence, although I would have to point to the Didache and some work done on that document as it relates to early Eucharist theology, does find patristic support and my view does not.
I am not sure what you mean exactly by the communion of saints, it has loaded implications often.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

Just some interesting info:

This is earliest mention I could find of ‘catholic’ from ECFs

~155 AD
Martyrdom of Polycarp 22b
This account Gaius copied from the papers of Irenæus. The same lived with Irenæus who had been a disciple of the holy Polycarp. For this Irenæus, being in Rome at the time of the martyrdom of the bishop Polycarp, instructed many; and many most excellent and orthodox treatises by him are in circulation. In these he makes mention of Polycarp, saying that he was taught by him. And he ably refuted every heresy, and handed down the catholic rule of the Church just as he had received it from the saint. He mentions this fact also, that when Marcion, after whom the Marcionites are called, met the holy Polycarp on one occasion, and said ‘Recognize us, Polycarp,’ he said in reply to Marcion, ‘Yes indeed, I recognize the firstborn of Satan.’ The following statement also is made in the writings of Irenæus, that on the very day and hour when Polycarp was martyred in Smyrna Irenæus being in the city of the Romans heard a voice as of a trumpet saying, ‘Polycarp is martyred.’ (Lightfoot)

The Church has always been, from the beginning, the faith of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (and still is for both the Orthodox and the Catholics). But the faithful wouldn’t have described themselves as Catholics because there was no distinction to be made. What I meant to say that we can match Catholicism/Orthodoxy to the early Christian church by belief rather than by name.

 

[SyCarl]

If we conceded that priests may have worn different shirts in the earliest centuries, would you concede that the ecclesial structure of bishop, presbyter, and deacon was in place since the beginnning? How about doctrinal issues such as the Real Presence and the Communion of Saints? Those all have very early witness, and are far more relevant to this discussion than such things as the shape of the celebrants’ shirts which would hardly be considered part of divinely revealed truth by either side of the debate (except for some extremely radically traditional Catholic sorts, but, once again, different worm can). The point of my question is that I have never recieved a reply that wasn’t itself a distraction from the issue. The latch-onto-a-cursory-discrepancy-while-bypassing-clear-patterns-in-doctrine tactic is definitely a welcome respite from the blather-on-and-on-about-unsupported-antichrist-assignments stuff I used to get - a function of the vast difference in venue, I’m sure - but I still find it somewhat unfulfilling.

The structure of a hierarchy of bishop and presyter (priest) was not in place from the beginning. Paul makes this quite clear.

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
(Tit 1:5-9)

Paul uses elders and overseers as interchangable in this passage.

That of bishop was a later, albiet a still ear4ly development is made clear by Jerome.

For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops… And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee… When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself.

(Letter 146)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXLVI.html

Also the method of appointment also seems to have differed in earliest times. The Didache tells Christians to choose bishops for themselves.

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.
Chapter 15

newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

 

[SyCarl]

I Sola Fide (many understandings thereof, anyway) and Sola Scriptura are clearly innovations in that regard. The latter was actually instituted as the means of discarding previous development.

These concepts are clearly present in the early church. Irenaeus writes that the oral apostolic teachings were now recorded in Scripture.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)

newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

In other words, oral Trqadition and Scripture have the same content.

John Chrysostom writes that we have the Scriptures instead of Paul and if we want to know anything we can look to the Scriptures.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…All such, then, “is given by inspiration of God”; therefore, he means, do not doubt; and it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”…“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us…For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!
(Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)

newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Elsewhere he writes that the Scriptures are what protect us from error and false teachers.

Observe the marks of a robber…secondly, not according to the Scriptures, for this is the, “not by the door.”…And with good cause He calleth the Scriptures “a door,” for they bring us to God, and open to us the knowledge of God, they make the sheep, they guard them, and suffer not the wolves to come in after them. For Scripture, like some sure door, barreth the passage against the heretics, placing us in a state of safety as to all that we desire, and not allowing us to wander; and if we undo it not, we shall not easily be conquered by our foes. By it we can know all, both those who are, and those who are not, shepherds.
(Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, Homily 59)

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.lxi.html

Both Chrysostom and Augustine make statements that any person believing sola scriptura would accept.

Now these things we say superficially, as to men not knowing the Scriptures. But our discourses would be unnecessary if you would believe and take heed to the divine word, for that would teach you all things.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.
John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)

newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,Cto wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.
Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)

newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

Are there other truths? None would deny this, but what we need is in Scripture.

The idea of faith alone is mentioned by too many to quote here. They include Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Bede, Basil of Caesaria, Oeucumenius, Marinus Victornius, Origen and Augustine. In many places, as well, works are said to follow faith and show faith, which is akin to the Protestant concept of true faith.

 

[ChristianSurfer]

Thank you for looking.
Its funny how people define early. If 350 years is still early then in 2150 AD it will still be early American history. I know it is a matter of perspective but certainly a lot of things have already changed in 225 years.

Careful, remember the date the bible was canonized

 

[Rightlydivide]

Careful, remember the date the bible was canonized

Then my point stands. If you wish to discuss the canon, I’m discussing that with the venerable Elvisman right now.

 

[Nicea325]

SyCarl:

Both Chrysostom and Augustine make statements that any person believing sola scriptura would accept.

Quote:
Now these things we say superficially, as to men not knowing the Scriptures. But our discourses would be unnecessary if you would believe and take heed to the divine word, for that would teach you all things.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)

Are you claiming Augustine was a believer of Sola Scriptura? If you do,then you are taking his words way out-of-context. Sola Scriptura is an innovation begun by the reformers centuries later.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But it’s always fascinating to read the Fathers. They constantly quote Scripture after they make statements of theological opinion. I notice as I read Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc. that they all constantly quote Scripture to prove and emphasize their views and beliefs. Even the Didache quotes Scripture. Many people in here would call it “proof-texting” but the Fathers did it? Augustine is no different. He used Scripture to formulate his views. His conversion itself was motivated by Romans. It was merely his neo-platonic and manichaean past that helped him understand Scripture and make sense of it. I think many folks in here forget the role Scripture played and continues to play in formulating doctrine and theology.

Are you claiming Augustine was a believer of Sola Scriptura? If you do,then you are taking his words way out-of-context. Sola Scriptura is an innovation begun by the reformers centuries later.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**They all obviously see the early church from their own view, that’s why they formed their church communities in the way they did. I’m not defending any of them. I’m merely saying that they obviously believe the early church to have been like their church or else they would be Catholic. **

The early Christians were Protestants from their Biblical lens? Which group of Protestants,since there exists so many different ones? Where some the early Christians Methodist? Assemblies of God? Southern Baptists?

**I never said the Mass didn’t exist in the Early Church. It obviously did. It was very similar in form and liturgy to the Jewish worship of the synagogue as it was a carry-over from its Jewish roots. Like I said, I never implied or stated the Mass wasn’t in the early church. You’re putting words in my mouth there. And also I never said that any of those things were “false.” You’re assuming I feel that way. I’m trinitarian all the way as well as a believer in the Eucharist, sacraments, etc. I’m merely saying that those doctrines had not been hammered out yet. Does that make them false? Of course not. My statement is simple. What we call “Catholic” today is much more than having Mass. It is a huge, vast array of things: Adoration, Divine Mercy, scapulars, purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit, Infallibility, Immaculate conception, marian dogmas, Fatima visions, natural family planning and all sorts of other things that didn’t exist in those days of the Early Church. They developed over time. Most Protestants will tell you that the Church had all she needed day one. They don’t see the Church as an infant at that time, but mature and complete, not needing any more growth and what they consider “innovations.” The Medievel doctrines, many of which I mentioned about, are what Protestants view as corrupting influences and watering down the Church. That’s my point. That’s how they view it. So they consider the early church more like their churches, protestant. **
Not entirely true with all the above mentioned. Simply because it was not in today’s form does not mean it did not exist. The Mass was already practiced and very similar to today’s Mass. And one can also state the early Christians did not have the official doctrines of the Trinity,Incarnation,canon of scripture,etc. Does it make false?

 

[awatkins69]

Just a note, we should not forget that the Church teaches that the Holy Bible is the infallible Word of God. Thus we should place it on an equal standing with Holy Tradition. If the Fathers used the Bible to back up their beliefs, well, that’s exactly what they should have been doing. It’s exactly what we should be doing as well. We see in the writings of the saints verses from Scripture being thrown left and right, even the most modern of saints. The Bible is a rule of faith, which should be treated with extreme reverence and love. The question is whether we should use it as the *sole *rule of faith, and whether it can be interpreted entirely correctly outside of the apostolic authority of the Church.

 

[SpectatorX]

Paul uses elders and overseers as interchangable in this passage.

That of bishop was a later, albiet a still ear4ly development is made clear by Jerome.

I disagree. Within Catholicism, a bishop is a priest, but not all priest are bishops. In that regard, your verse doesn’t quite disprove what you want it to disprove. My prior statement was made with Ignatius in mind, actually:

Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ
(Letter to the Magnesians)

The body of St. John the apostle was still warm in the grave, you see. It would be difficult for one to deny the apostolicity of the threefold ministry.

Also the method of appointment also seems to have differed in earliest times. The Didache tells Christians to choose bishops for themselves.

Again, whether or not the bishop is chosen by his future flock is not necessarily contrary to any particular Catholic doctrine so long as he is ordained by the laying of hands by one who was likewise appointed (going back to the apostles, of course; I expect that one who posts here is more than familiar with the concept of apostolic succession). I have the name of a particular Early Church Saint on the tip of my toungue who became an area’s bishop by popular demand. That’s going to bug me all day…

In any case, this concept is clearly demonstrated in 2 Timothy 1:6.

 

[SpectatorX]

My view on the polity of the early church is in-line with most mainstream views. I could reference the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on bishop and the Didache for example. I wonder what we differ on? I believe the earliest church practiced the polity we do. However it does diverge rather quickly (100 years to your polity), in some areas, and this leads to a discussion of the eventual role of a single bishop, the inevitable discussion of the heavily interpolated Ignatius, and the extent to what that should have been?

You are certainly hitting some of the points I’ve heard before, but at least you are doing so without pejoratives. I could get used to this place, I think. You say that the Early Church practiced as you do until it changed to something else. I wonder what you use as your starting point. If Scripture alone, I might suggest that the very same gaps in the text which allow for the construction of a noncatholic structure also allow for a Catholic one. The New Testament has these gaps because it was primarily written to people who were already familiar with the polity and practice of the day (“whatever that may be” I’ll throw in for objectivity). As for Ignatius: he flatly states a number of doctrinal matters merely 10 years or so after the death of the last apostle (the very one who instructed him in the Faith, no less). I would argue that no interpolation is required; the most important data points are already provided. If it weren’t for him, I might still be grasping at straws.

What I would really like to see is some evidence for this divergence which doesn’t depend on debatable hermeneutics. Who practiced this “precatholic” Christianity?

Yes, the Real Presence, although I would have to point to the Didache and some work done on that document as it relates to early Eucharist theology, does find patristic support and my view does not.

“Source center and summit,” my friend!

I am not sure what you mean exactly by the communion of saints, it has loaded implications often.

In practice, both prayer to and for the departed in Christ. I understand that such is witnessed in the earliest Christian tombs available.

 

[SpectatorX]

These concepts are clearly present in the early church. Irenaeus writes that the oral apostolic teachings were now recorded in Scripture.

In other words, oral Trqadition and Scripture have the same content.

That seems a rather rash conclusion given that in chapter two of the same book he claims “It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” Furthermore, he goes on to critique the fact that the Church previous “neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about” in the beginning of chapter three.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

This is a practical application of the concept of Sacred Tradition (and Apostolic Succession, tangentially) in which he declares that doctrines which do not stem from the deposit of Faith cannot be considered apostolic. If you interpret that St. Ignatius preaches Sola Scriptura based on the quotation you provided, you miss the forest for the trees. The explanation for your quote itself goes along with the one I offered regarding preists and bishops below: Scripture is Sacred Tradition, but not all Sacred Tradition is Scripture.

Ugh! Look at the time.

Stay tuned for part two!

 

[crazzeto]

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

They called them selves catholic or universal from the very start… It wasn’t until the reformation that people started trying to the term to describe the church as a sect.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are certainly hitting some of the points I’ve heard before, but at least you are doing so without pejoratives. I could get used to this place, I think. You say that the Early Church practiced as you do until it changed to something else. I wonder what you use as your starting point. If Scripture alone, I might suggest that the very same gaps in the text which allow for the construction of a noncatholic structure also allow for a Catholic one. The New Testament has these gaps because it was primarily written to people who were already familiar with the polity and practice of the day (“whatever that may be” I’ll throw in for objectivity). As for Ignatius: he flatly states a number of doctrinal matters merely 10 years or so after the death of the last apostle (the very one who instructed him in the Faith, no less). I would argue that no interpolation is required; the most important data points are already provided. If it weren’t for him, I might still be grasping at straws.

What I would really like to see is some evidence for this divergence which doesn’t depend on debatable hermeneutics. Who practiced this “precatholic” Christianity?

“Source center and summit,” my friend!

In practice, both prayer to and for the departed in Christ. I understand that such is witnessed in the earliest Christian tombs available.

I suppose you are referencing the seeming monarchial bishopric of James as your support? I think we read that as more of a single…pastor…who does assume more authority than a plurality of elders as other texts indicate. So sure, I do see your point but I believe the bulk of the evidence indicates our polity. I suppose you might also appeal to Paul’s appointing people. But that is akin to a large church planting smaller churches; which once again is how we do things.
The thing about Ignatius is you do recognize that with the larger and shorter recessions there exists heavy interpolations. Of course you then appeal to only the shorter recession. I find that because his polity differs from Clement, the Didache, and Polycarp that it increases the odds of interpolations. Is that a slam dunk? No, I suppose not.

I would need a little more in the source department, as you can understand, for the concept of prayer’s to the departed. Anything first or second century would be nice.
I avoid pejoratives at all costs. I am one of the nicest people on this forum. Ask anyone.