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.
Anna,

I am sorry,but I do not think you are correct.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs” (CCC 1035).

In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often “preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell” (p. 183).

Concerning the reality of hell, the pope says, “In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory . . . according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which abolished hell. . . . [T]he words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). [But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard” (pp. 185–6).

Thus the issue that some will go to hell is decided, but the issue of who in particular will go to hell is undecided.

The following early Church Fathers (many others believed the same) were also absolutely firm on the reality of an eternal hell, as the following quotes show.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him” (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

Second Clement

“If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment” (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

“But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’” (ibid., 17:7).

Justin Martyr

“No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments” (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).

“We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire” (ibid., 21).

“[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons” (ibid., 52).
Nicea325,

I appreciate these quotes. They demonstrate that teachings of the Catholic Church can change over time.

These quotes from ECF’s demonstrate a belief in a literal burning eternal fire. This is a different belief from that of Pope John Paul II. So, it doesn’t appear that the belief re hell held by the early Church is consistent with Catholic beliefs of today.

Again, my issue lies in how a Catholic relates to fallible teachings of the CC, and the fact that those fallible teachings change over time. This is important to sort out when considering Catholicism.

Anna
 
Nicea325,

I appreciate these quotes. They demonstrate that teachings of the Catholic Church can change over time.

These quotes from ECF’s demonstrate a belief in a literal burning eternal fire. This is a different belief from that of Pope John Paul II. So, it doesn’t appear that the belief re hell held by the early Church is consistent with Catholic beliefs of today.

Again, my issue lies in how a Catholic relates to fallible teachings of the CC, and the fact that those fallible teachings change over time. This is important to sort out when considering Catholicism.

Anna
What exactly is changing? I don’t see this change that you speak of?
 
Crazzeto,

I think what everybody is missing here is that my issue lies in how a Catholic relates to fallible teachings of the CC. I’m using Hell as an example, because there is disagreement among Catholics.

Anna
So am I actually, the point I"m trying to make is that there is quite apparently, no infallible proclamation where you seem to beleive that there is one. I hope any of what I previously posted makes some sense.
 
I am confused Anna. You seem to think that the Catholic Church doesn’t know how to view Hell or teach about it when it DOES. Sure there can be disagreement among laymen, but it is what it is. The Church however has hammered out Hell a LONG time ago just like other teachings or dogmas. Whether you choose to accept the Truth the Church gives or not it is still the Truth you have to deal with, but yes like it or not you must submit because it is Christ’s Church…not some man made church.
rben20,

I appreciate your comments. Do you believe it is wrong for a Catholic to disagree with the teachings of a Pope, such as John Paul II?

Anna
 
What exactly is changing? I don’t see this change that you speak of?
I am using hell as an example of Catholic beliefs that have changed over time, and also as an example of Catholics disagreeing with a Pope.

Anna
 
So am I actually, the point I"m trying to make is that there is quite apparently, no infallible proclamation where you seem to beleive that there is one. I hope any of what I previously posted makes some sense.
Crazzeto,

Your posts did make sense, and I appreciate your comments.

I’m not claiming there is an infallible proclamation regarding hell.

I’m trying to understand how Catholics deal with fallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Some seem to submit to the teachings of the Pope (even if they privately disagree). Others openly state disagreement with certain teachings of the Pope.

Hell is an example. Ferde Rombola puts his own private interpretation of hell above the teachings of Pope John Paul II. Which seems strange, since Catholics criticize private interpretation.

Anna
 
Crazzeto,

Your posts did make sense, and I appreciate your comments.

I’m not claiming there is an infallible proclamation regarding hell.

I’m trying to understand how Catholics deal with fallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Some seem to submit to the teachings of the Pope (even if they privately disagree). Others openly state disagreement with certain teachings of the Pope.

Hell is an example. Ferde Rombola puts his own private interpretation of hell above the teachings of Pope John Paul II. Which seems strange, since Catholics criticize private interpretation.

Anna
When a statement is made ex-cathadra, or at council all Catholics (certainly) must assent to the teaching. Otherwise if they obstinantly reject the teaching (note I’m not talking about folks with personal doubts) then they risk falling into grave error, and should consider whether they should abstain from receiving communion.
 
rben20,

I appreciate your comments. Do you believe it is wrong for a Catholic to disagree with the teachings of a Pope, such as John Paul II?

Anna
Well it really depends on what matters we are talking about. For example, if Pope Benedict XVI said we should all get McDonald’s instead of Wendy’s then clearly he is just giving an opinion…something I don’t have to accept. But on matters of Faith and Morals, the Pope is infallible. To give you an example The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Our Lady are beliefs that we among the faithful from the beginning, but were not required for the Faith. You could believe in it or not, the same way you can believe in a young earth or a very old one. It was not strictly needed for belief, but when the Pope talks Ex-Cathadra then it is needed for belief as the teaching is infallible. It has only been used twice and it was for both dogmas I just listed concerning the Mother of God.

I believe you were using Hell as an example. The Church has already said what Hell is, a separation from God, but we do not know how many levels or what tortures or what everything looks like…the Church will simply not say because it something we just don’t know till we are there. We can only imagine certain things and go based of the Holy Scriptures. The Church will say that there most certainly is a Hell and it is separation from God. Why silly yourself with details of what it is when the big picture has already been put right in front of your face?
 
When a statement is made ex-cathadra, or at council all Catholics (certainly) must assent to the teaching. Otherwise if they obstinantly reject the teaching (note I’m not talking about folks with personal doubts) then they risk falling into grave error, and should consider whether they should abstain from receiving communion.
O.K. I understand Catholics must assent to ex-`Cathedra teaching. Didn’t know the part about abstaining from Communion, but it makes sense.

What about the fallible teachings. Should a good Catholic “assent” to them as well? I’m thinking back to our discussion of Eucharistic Adoration.

Anna
 
O.K. I understand Catholics must assent to ex-`Cathedra teaching. Didn’t know the part about abstaining from Communion, but it makes sense.

What about the fallible teachings. Should a good Catholic “assent” to them as well? I’m thinking back to our discussion of Eucharistic Adoration.

Anna
If something is not doctrine, that is it is not infallibly declared then there is no requirement that you assent to it.

For instance, one example (which gurney brought up) is co-mediatrix theory. There are many people out there who really hold fast to this as if it were dogmatic teaching, but the fact of the matter is that is not dogmatic. I’m not requried to believe it, and honestly with out a better explanation that I’ve gotten thus far from some finatics I would have a hard time with it. Maybe if Dr. Hahn or Pope Benedict XVI explained it I might have an easier time with it 🤷

This goes for anything which is known through private revelation, such as the rosary. Technically you don’t have to accept it if you have grave personal problems with it. Personally I do, very much so… And I would suggest that any faithful catholic should at least try giving the teaching authority the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But if an individual researches it, and finds they aboslutly can not accept it, then they are not required to pray it.
 
Crazzeto,

Your posts did make sense, and I appreciate your comments.

I’m not claiming there is an infallible proclamation regarding hell.

I’m trying to understand how Catholics deal with fallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Some seem to submit to the teachings of the Pope (even if they privately disagree). Others openly state disagreement with certain teachings of the Pope.

Hell is an example. Ferde Rombola puts his own private interpretation of hell above the teachings of Pope John Paul II. Which seems strange, since Catholics criticize private interpretation.

Anna
Fallible teachings? Are you confusing actual dogma with the opinions of many Catholics? It does not matter what Catholic disagrees with actual Catholic dogma.The RCC is not concerned with the opinions of its faithful,but only with the Truth. It is simple: take it or leave it! I do not recall Christ catering or waiving His teachings in order to suit everyone’s religious views or opinions. He preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven. Kingdom is exactly that…a Kingdom with only one in charge: God! Precisely why Lucifer was booted out of Heaven.

Any Catholic may intrepret whatever he or she chooses,but at the end of day,the interpretation of the church is all that matters.
 
Fallible teachings? Are you confusing actual dogma with the opinions of many Catholics? It does not matter what Catholic disagrees with actual Catholic dogma.The RCC is not concerned with the opinions of its faithful,but only with the Truth. It is simple: take it or leave it! I do not recall Christ catering or waiving His teachings in order to suit everyone’s religious views or opinions. He preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven. Kingdom is exactly that…a Kingdom with only one in charge: God! Precisely why Lucifer was booted out of Heaven.

Any Catholic may intrepret whatever he or she chooses,but at the end of day,the interpretation of the church is all that matters.
Nicea,

That’s what I thought. Just as you said, “at the end of the day the interpretation of the Church is all that matters.”

I just found this on the Vatican website. It says, "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;. . . . "

Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.
(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
So, doesn’t that mean a Catholic should not disagree with the Roman Pontiff? A Catholic is to show “submission of mind and will” to the Pope, even when he is not speakig “ex cathedra”?

Anna
 
Nicea,

That’s what I thought. Just as you said, “at the end of the day the interpretation of the Church is all that matters.”

I just found this on the Vatican website. It says, "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;. . . . "

Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

So, doesn’t that mean a Catholic should not disagree with the Roman Pontiff? A Catholic is to show “submission of mind and will” to the Pope, even when he is not speakig “ex cathedra”?

Anna
Anna,

I’ll have to get back to you regarding a proper reading of this document. I will say that I have yet to hear anyone I sincerly trust suggest that we must fully accept every statement of the Pontiff as being infallible automatically.

Now, on the other hand, I have heard and do agree that we should make the assuption of truth. That is, when we read something we should make the assumption that the Pope (or bishop) isn’t just making stuff up. We should first offer our assuption of trust, and acceptance. Before we start researching and deciding we don’t agree.

For me this is what faith is. Trust first.
 
Anna,

I’ll have to get back to you regarding a proper reading of this document. I will say that I have yet to hear anyone I sincerly trust suggest that we must fully accept every statement of the Pontiff as being infallible automatically.

Now, on the other hand, I have heard and do agree that we should make the assuption of truth. That is, when we read something we should make the assumption that the Pope (or bishop) isn’t just making stuff up. We should first offer our assuption of trust, and acceptance. Before we start researching and deciding we don’t agree.

For me this is what faith is. Trust first.
Crazzeto,

This is a 1964 document. It is very interesting.

Anna
 
More specifically, I believe that comes directly from Vatican II, which I fully asent to as being infallible.
Crazzeto,

Well, Vatican II did include a number of future Pontiffs, including Pope Benedict XVI— and my hero, Pope John Paul II.

Anna
 
Crazzeto,

This is a 1964 document. It is very interesting.

Anna
With out digging too deeply into the document as such, I would like to first highlight this:
  1. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
So as such, even this document acknowleges that not every single statement of the pope, even in matters of faith and morals will in fact be infallible. Rather, one must determain the true disposition of his mind and will. Again, I haven’t really dug into this, in fact to be perfectly honest your question is good enough that I might try calling Fr. Mitch Pacwa tomorrow to see what his thoughts are about it.

God bless!
 
With out digging too deeply into the document as such, I would like to first highlight this:

So as such, even this document acknowleges that not every single statement of the pope, even in matters of faith and morals will in fact be infallible. Rather, one must determain the true disposition of his mind and will. Again, I haven’t really dug into this, in fact to be perfectly honest your question is good enough that I might try calling Fr. Mitch Pacwa tomorrow to see what his thoughts are about it.

God bless!
Crazzeto,

I did notice the part you underlined, and that does makes sense.

I appreciate your willingness to look into this. These are tough issues for someone like me who is considering Catholicism.

Thanks,
Anna
 
Nicea,

That’s what I thought. Just as you said, “at the end of the day the interpretation of the Church is all that matters.”

I just found this on the Vatican website. It says, "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;. . . . "

Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

So, doesn’t that mean a Catholic should not disagree with the Roman Pontiff? A Catholic is to show “submission of mind and will” to the Pope, even when he is not speakig “ex cathedra”?

Anna
Anna, I do not see any issue with the statement from your source. Honestly,I think you are reading far to much into the matter.

Anna,unfortunately the church does not have absolute mind or physical control over every single Catholic. Some Catholics will still disagree with the pope and that is nothing new. I really think you are looking to deep in the matter.
 
Anna, I do not see any issue with the statement from your source. Honestly,I think you are reading far to much into the matter.

Anna,unfortunately the church does not have absolute mind or physical control over every single Catholic. Some Catholics will still disagree with the pope and that is nothing new. I really think you are looking to deep in the matter.
There is a point at which such disagreement becomes heresy however, and it is good to know what point that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top