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

[Javl]

I’ve read them all, Javl. It’s not the facts that are in dispute, it’s the conclusions. Thanks.

OK, Ferde. Conclusions are what we arrive at, with or without facts. If we don’t have understanding, facts and conclusions really mean nothing.

I see you’re almost as old as I am. I’ve got you beat by 11 years. I’ve been studying ALL religions for over 30 of them. Also I’m a revert. Left the Church when I was in my teens and only about 10 years ago did the Holy Spirit grab me by the ear and told me that I was stupid to have left the Truth and the One True Church founded by Jesus. It was a hard lesson, and my ear still hurts, but here I am and I’ll NEVER EVER leave again.

God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

The early Church was Catholic. :yup:

That should simplify this thread.

Yep. St. Ignatius called the Christians of that time ( around 100 AD ) “Catholic”. Since he had used it as a familiar term ( in his letter to the Smyrmeans ), the early Church, and Christians, before that had to be known as Catholic.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I had left this thread after beating my head against the wall too many times. You’ve revived the thread, and I am now following with interest.

Anna

Oops.

I hope it doesn’t have anything to do with the aspect of infallibility. That’s not what interests me about the Bull.

But, anyway, Hi!

GKC

 

[inkaneer]

…But do keep in mind that, as an Anglican I am not bound to affirm any such statements from the RCC, be they ex cathedra, of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Magisterium, or merely sententia communis. You should, of course, do otherwise. And when I say “speculate”, it is on what I know of the history of what actually happened, who did what, to whom, and perhaps, why. A thing that, similarly, I am free to do.

And, as to sub-conditione ordinations, there have been, as far as I know, two only, since 1896.

GKC

You say, “as an Anglican…” My question to you is why are you still Anglican? Your moniker, GKC are the initials of a famous former Anglican named G. K. Chesterton [Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936)] who became Catholic in 1922. In fact there is a program on the Eternal Word Television Network [EWTN] about him entitled The Apostle of Common Sense. He was also known as the “prince of paradox”. His writings were and still are thought provoking and seemingly timeless as when he said:

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

Looking at the political scene here in the United States all one has to do is substitute the word Democrat for Progressives and Republican for Conservatives and realize that Chesterton was indeed correct.

 

[GKC]

No kidding? What a coincidence. Might that be the same Gilbert Keith Chesterton that I’ve been collecting since 1965? Of whom (with some few exceptions related to 2-3 of the Ignatius Press collections of his Illustrated London News columns) I own every book published as under his name, including the posthumous collections edited by his secretary, Dorothy Collins? Making a total of (I haven’t counted in a long time) around 100+ books? And about whom my book collection of titles on him runs somewhere around 65-70 titles, including the first book (first English edition; used to be 2 copies, but I gave one away to a RC SF writer friend of mine) published on him, anonymously, written by his brother Cecil? Of whom I own at least one signed work? And tapes of him speaking (easier to get these days than when I started looking)? And possibly that Apostle of Common Sense is hosted sometimes by Dale Ahlquist, long time president of the Chesterton Society. And the man who wrote a book of the same title, which I usually recommend for beginners on Chesterton, it being a little elementary? And would that Chesterton be the same man to whom the Chesterton Review is pretty much dedicated, a subscription to which I had for 20 odd years? And that’s the man, a copy of whose portrait, as taken from the James Gunn painting of Baring, Belloc and Chesterton hangs in my den? And whose quote you gave below comes from a 1924 ILN column? That Chesterton?

What a set-up. I couldn’t resist. Thanks, inkaneer. It was fun.

And, lest you think I have some sort of monomania on my man Chesterton, I do the same thing with Belloc, Tolkien, Lewis, Knox, Sayers, Williams and Lunn.

GKC

Where did you suppose I got my board name?

You say, “as an Anglican…” My question to you is why are you still Anglican? Your moniker, GKC are the initials of a famous former Anglican named G. K. Chesterton [Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936)] who became Catholic in 1922. In fact there is a program on the Eternal Word Television Network [EWTN] about him entitled The Apostle of Common Sense. He was also known as the “prince of paradox”. His writings were and still are thought provoking and seemingly timeless as when he said:

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

Looking at the political scene here in the United States all one has to do is substitute the word Democrat for Progressives and Republican for Conservatives and realize that Chesterton was indeed correct.

 

[1holycatholic]

No kidding? What a coincidence. Might that be the same Gilbert Keith Chesterton that I’ve been collecting since 1965? Of whom (with some few exceptions related to 2-3 of the Ignatius Press collections of his Illustrated London News columns) I own every book published as under his name, including the posthumous collections edited by his secretary, Dorothy Collins? Making a total of (I haven’t counted in a long time) around 100+ books? And about whom my book collection of titles on him runs somewhere around 65-70 titles, including the first book (first English edition; used to be 2 copies, but I gave one away to a RC SF writer friend of mine) published on him, anonymously, written by his brother Cecil? Of whom I own at least one signed work? And tapes of him speaking (easier to get these days than when I started looking)? And possibly that Apostle of Common Sense is hosted sometimes by Dale Ahlquist, long time president of the Chesterton Society. And the man who wrote a book of the same title, which I usually recommend for beginners on Chesterton, it being a little elementary? And would that Chesterton be the same man to whom the Chesterton Review is pretty much dedicated, a subscription to which I had for 20 odd years? And that’s the man, a copy of whose portrait, as taken from the James Gunn painting of Baring, Belloc and Chesterton hangs in my den? And whose quote you gave below comes from a 1924 ILN column? That Chesterton?

What a set-up. I couldn’t resist. Thanks, inkaneer. It was fun.

And, lest you think I have some sort of monomania on my man Chesterton, I do the same thing with Belloc, Tolkien, Lewis, Knox, Sayers, Williams and Lunn.

GKC

Where did you suppose I got my board name?

That’s a lot of words just to avoid answering his question:

inkaneer:

My question to you is why are you still Anglican?

 

[GKC]

That’s a lot of words just to avoid answering his question:

Yeah, but it was fun. Maybe someone will stumble over another of my hobby areas and I’ll do it again.

The answer is because I’m about where Chesterton was in, roughly, 1908. And I’ve been there for around 45 years. I do not accept all that the RCC requires for one to affirm. I often say if my man Chesterton couldn’t get me over the river, it’s doubtful any thing in the sub-lunar sphere can.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

Oops.

I hope it doesn’t have anything to do with the aspect of infallibility. That’s not what interests me about the Bull.

But, anyway, Hi!

GKC

Not. It’s not the infallibility issue that caught my attention, though I did beat my head against the wall on that issue.

It is your extensive knowledge and historical studies that impress me.

Anna

 

[GKC]

Not. It’s not the infallibility issue that caught my attention, though I did beat my head against the wall on that issue.

It is your extensive knowledge and historical studies that impress me.

Anna

Oh. Aw, shucks.

Let me make an admission: don’t tell anyone.

I am indeed, well read and knowledgeable in the many areas that interest me, in which I collect books, massively. And I have a fair (modestly speaking) general knowledge, reflected in my larger library. But I hedge my bets on boards like this by mainly posting on themes that I usually know more about than the next three people one might meet randomly on the street. I cherry-pick where I post, IOW.

But, all the same…shucks.

GKC

 

[Javl]

Yeah, but it was fun. Maybe someone will stumble over another of my hobby areas and I’ll do it again.

The answer is because I’m about where Chesterton was in, roughly, 1908. And I’ve been there for around 45 years. I do not accept all that the RCC requires for one to affirm. I often say if my man Chesterton couldn’t get me over the river, it’s doubtful any thing in the sub-lunar sphere can.

GKC

Sticking my :twocents: in;

What about Cardinal Newman? He got over what Chesterton could not. Also, I’m interested to note just what sticks in your craw about Catholicism ( truthfully, I did not read all of your posts if you did mention it. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .Speculate if you wish but as the Catholic Encyclopedia states the truth of the matter is that, "… it may be safely assumed is that it fixes the belief and practice of the Catholic Church irrevocably. Leo XIII must have meant to signify this when in his letter to Cardinal Richard, of 5 November, 1896, he declared that his “intention had been to pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever” (absolute judicare et penitus dirimere), and that “Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem”. . .

As I investigate Catholicism, and the claim of authority and valid orders; I realize the CC does not recognize any Sacraments outside the Catholic Church (except for continued Apostolic Succession in EO?? Still questions)—which would mean, according to the CC, Baptism, the Eucharist, etc. in Parishes/Diocese within the Anglican Communion would be considered invalid. An Anglican Baptism is not considered a true and valid Baptism by the CC. The Eucharist in the Anglican Communion is not valid-not really the Body and Blood of Christ. Is that correct?

Anna

 

[Javl]

As I investigate Catholicism, and the claim of authority and valid orders; I realize the CC does not recognize any Sacraments outside the Catholic Church (except for continued Apostolic Succession in EO)—which would mean, according to the CC, baptism, the Eucharist, etc. in Parishes/Diocese within the Anglican Communion would be considered invalid. An Anglican baptism is not a true and valid Baptism by the CC. The Eucharist in the Anglican Communion is not valid-not really the Body and Blood of Christ. Is that correct?

Anna

The Catholic Church recognizes, and accept, as valid any baptism that is in true form. That is that it is the means used for the remission of original sin. It does recognize as valid and licit the baptism of the EO and OO Churches and all those in schism and those of many of the Protestant Churches. It does not recognize the Baptism of Baptists, Anabaptists, or of any cult. These do not believe in baptism for the remission of original sin.

As for the other sacraments, as far as I know of it only recognizes those Churches who have a continuing, licit and valid, Apostolic sucession, such as the EO and OO Churches.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[GKC]

As I investigate Catholicism, and the claim of authority and valid orders; I realize the CC does not recognize any Sacraments outside the Catholic Church (except for continued Apostolic Succession in EO)—which would mean, according to the CC, baptism, the Eucharist, etc. in Parishes/Diocese within the Anglican Communion would be considered invalid. An Anglican baptism is not a true and valid Baptism by the CC. The Eucharist in the Anglican Communion is not valid-not really the Body and Blood of Christ. Is that correct?

Anna

Let me play.

Always subject to correction.

The RCC recognizes any Trinitarian baptism as sacramentally valid, providing form, matter and intent are proper. Details affect that, but generally, any Trinitarian bpatist meets the criteria.

The RCC also recognizes the Orders of the Old Catholics (again, caveats apply) and the PNCC, as valid but illicit. Same for the Orthodox orders.

Yes, the RCC considers the Eucharist in the Anglican realm to be invalid, per Apostolicae Curae.

Short answers.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

Oh. Aw, shucks.

Let me make an admission: don’t tell anyone.

I am indeed, well read and knowledgeable in the many areas that interest me, in which I collect books, massively. And I have a fair (modestly speaking) general knowledge, reflected in my larger library. But I hedge my bets on boards like this by mainly posting on themes that I usually know more about than the next three people one might meet randomly on the street. I cherry-pick where I post, IOW.

But, all the same…shucks.

GKC

And such an honest confession. Rare.
Anna

 

[GKC]

The Catholic Church recognizes, and accept, as valid any baptism that is in true form. That is that it is the means used for the remission of original sin. It does recognize as valid and licit the baptism of the EO and OO Churches and all those in schism and those of many of the Protestant Churches. It does not recognize the Baptism of Baptists, Anabaptists, or of any cult. These do not believe in baptism for the remission of original sin.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

The intent required in baptism is that of facere quod facit ecclesia, and that usually is satisfied by Baptist baptisms. The level of intent necessary to assume validity is not high. It is why an atheist can validly baptize.

But if you have a definitive RCC statement otherwise, I would gladly learn of it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Sticking my :twocents: in;

What about Cardinal Newman? He got over what Chesterton could not. Also, I’m interested to note just what sticks in your craw about Catholicism ( truthfully, I did not read all of your posts if you did mention it. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Only a masochist reads all of my posts.

I am glad for Newman. He obviously was where he should have been. And my man Chesterton likewise.

But I’m like my man Lewis. Can’t make the trip.

GKC

 

[GKC]

And such an honest confession. Rare.
Anna

Yeah, but…the number of my hobby areas is huge.

Of course, the writings of John Dickson Carr, or the subject of old time radio shows rarely come up on boards like this, but still…

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Catholic Church recognizes, and accept, as valid any baptism that is in true form. That is that it is the means used for the remission of original sin. It does recognize as valid and licit the baptism of the EO and OO Churches and all those in schism and those of many of the Protestant Churches. It does not recognize the Baptism of Baptists, Anabaptists, or of any cult. These do not believe in baptism for the remission of original sin.

As for the other sacraments, as far as I know of it only recognizes those Churches who have a continuing, licit and valid, Apostolic sucession, such as the EO and OO Churches.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Let me play.

Always subject to correction.

The RCC recognizes any Trinitarian baptism as sacramentally valid, providing form, matter and intent are proper. Details affect that, but generally, any Trinitarian bpatist meets the criteria.

The RCC also recognizes the Orders of the Old Catholics (again, caveats apply) and the PNCC, as valid but illicit. Same for the Orthodox orders.

Yes, the RCC considers the Eucharist in the Anglican realm to be invalid, per Apostolicae Curae.

Short answers.

GKC

Javl & GKC,

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes short answers are helpful.

Most of you who know me, know that I am a former Baptist. Ironically, the Southern Baptist Convention does not recognize a Baptism that is performed as a Sacrament that imparts graces, such as the remission of sin.

Anna

 

[GKC]

Javl & GKC,

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes short answers are helpful.

Most of you who know me, know that I am a former Baptist. Ironically, the Southern Baptist Convention does not recognize a Baptism that is performed as a Sacrament that imparts graces, such as the remission of sin.

Anna

I’m a former Baptist myself.

Most in the SBC would not recognize anything but “Believer’s baptism”, by immersion.

GKC

 

[Javl]

The intent required in baptism is that of facere quod facit ecclesia, and that usually is satisfied by Baptist baptisms. The level of intent necessary to assume validity is not high. It is why an atheist can validly baptize.

But if you have a definitive RCC statement otherwise, I would gladly learn of it.

GKC

I usually go according to the Magisterium which is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and An Adult Catholic Catechism ( by the German Bishops, with Cardinal Ratzinger ). There are other sources, but I deem these two the most authoritive.

Also I agree to a point with you as far as the Baptists go. I should have qualified my statement by say “not all Baptist Churches”. Mea culpa, my apologies.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem