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

[SpectatorX]

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?

 

[Nicea325]

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?

There is no way around it,they were CATHOLIC. The profound misunderstanding many non-Catholics fail to understand is that “Roman” Catholic is a rite,not a separate entity apart from the early Church,which was Catholic. The early church certainly was not Protestant due to the fact all those under Protestanism,Evangelicals,etc were founded many centuries later and those are facts of history. I once had a fundamentalist tell me the church she attended was the church Christ founded? Better yet that the churches mentioned in the Bible were Protestant? Really? Funny how she never bothered to show any historical evidence backing up her claim?

 

[PeaceSerenity]

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

 

[Nicea325]

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

Very true,the first Christians did not even call themselves Christians,but the Way. Catholic was merely an adjective describing the church Christ founded and its followers.The early Christians were very liturgical and even the early church fathers attest to it and the rituals.

I think today so many focus on names rather than looking at it from a historical point of view.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

The Way aka the Jesus Movement. If one really reads the teachings of Jesus he opposed religious authority, ritual, public prayer, wealth just to have wealth, power, civic matters (seperation of faith from politics) and religious laws.

I don’t see any connection to this and any support for the Catholic Church be that the Roman Catholic sect or some other incarnation that sought what Jesus but His example refused in his ministry.

Building a theological position from one ,just one, reference by Jesus in on gospel that was directed at Peter as the foundation of a succession is not acceptable I want to get a reference where Jesus build a holyplace, appointed a leadership and the same things his Father did for the Israelites in the OT. Then you have a case.

But there is no such reference as I can tell from the gospels, the other books I consider secondary since they are not the life and teachings of Jesus just accounts from followers. Many of which clearly went against the goodly example of simple faith of Jesus.

 

[Publisher]

Those who came to call themselves “catholic” or “orthodox” were among one of many groups that spread throughout the Mediteranian world in the first centuries. These groups of Christians eventually grouped together in a common belief and confession by the middle of the second century and stayed in contact with those congregations through letters and developed an heirarchal system of institutional government which eventually alligned itself with the Roman government by the fourth century.

The early church was much more diverse in belief than is Christianity of a whole is today.

 

[awatkins69]

Well Libertarian, I’d like to know whether Our Lord supported religious authority when he said “If they will not listen to the Church, let them be as unto the heathen.”

But anyways, the question I think refers more to the early Church Fathers. There are protestants like James White who would argue that the early Church Fathers support their protestant notions, and who claim that the evidence of the Catholic Church is false. But even a cursory reading of just the Apostolic Fathers will put this to shame. Of course, you could say that the early Church resembled the Orthodox Church, and you would be completely correct. In fact, it probably resembled the Orthodox Church more, considering that the Catholic Church believes in the development of doctrine, whereas the Orthodox Church, at least in practice, seems to adhere to a more conservative understanding of doctrine and liturgy.

 

[GerardMajella]

Well, the way I see it, the earliest “Catholics” were Jews. They attended Jewish synagogue services, observed the Mosaic Laws, and followed all of the Jewish customs of the day (dietary laws, Jewish holidays, circumcision, etc.). These Jews would honor Christ by breaking bread on Sunday and organizing the early rudiments of what we now call the “Mass”, but still observe the traditional Jewish Sabbath (Friday through Saturday evening). It was only later that a clear division between church and synagogue was established.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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?

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

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the “the catholic resurrection” (Justin Martyr), “the catholic goodness of God” (Tertullian), “the four catholic winds” (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of “the general resurrection”, “the absolute or universal goodness of God”, “the four principal winds”, etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase “Catholic Epistles” as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large. . . . .

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

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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.

What we DO know existed from Paul’s epistles, etc are:
People speaking in tongues in the Church, preachers, healers, presbyters working in a council of leadership in more of an elder fashion, bishops and presbyters were terms used interchangeably, married presbyters, people “prophesying,” Pauline language of imputation, people being baptized (like Philip and the Eunach story) into the Church right away without months of catechesis, full immersion baptism, unction being to heal and not for a final blessing for a dying man, married bishops, women and men separated during worship, etc.

So from the point of view of some, though they obviously weren’t called “protestants,” protestants look through the Biblical lens and see these things and determine the early Christians were Protestant.

From a Catholic perspective, a la Newman, the Church was just in its infancy, a nucleus, it had to develop over time with God’s guidance, etc. From the Protestant view, the Church was completely sufficient and a done deal perfect, ready to go day one. It didn’t need to evolve. Catholics would argue that the doctrines of the Trinity, creeds, christology, soteriology, eschatology, episcopal jurisdictions and other important things hadn’t been developed and understood yet. Protestants would argue they were already implicitely in Scripture and self-evident…

 

[Ryu]

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.

What we DO know existed from Paul’s epistles, etc are:
People speaking in tongues in the Church, preachers, healers, presbyters working in a council of leadership in more of an elder fashion, bishops and presbyters were terms used interchangeably, married presbyters, people “prophesying,” Pauline language of imputation, people being baptized (like Philip and the Eunach story) into the Church right away without months of catechesis, full immersion baptism, unction being to heal and not for a final blessing for a dying man, married bishops, women and men separated during worship, etc.

So from the point of view of some, though they obviously weren’t called “protestants,” protestants look through the Biblical lens and see these things and determine the early Christians were Protestant.

From a Catholic perspective, a la Newman, the Church was just in its infancy, a nucleus, it had to develop over time with God’s guidance, etc. From the Protestant view, the Church was completely sufficient and a done deal perfect, ready to go day one. It didn’t need to evolve. Catholics would argue that the doctrines of the Trinity, creeds, christology, soteriology, eschatology, episcopal jurisdictions and other important things hadn’t been developed and understood yet. Protestants would argue they were already implicitely in Scripture and self-evident…

Does it seem like we also see a separation from the world (like the martyrs & Desert Fathers) and a sacramental theology that is lacking in Protestantism? Not putting anyone down…but it seems like there is sometimes a selective reading of the Early Church from some Protestants (and non-Protestants too).

 

[PeaceSerenity]

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…

Eucharist - St. Paul speaks about partaking in the body and blood of Christ just as the other disciples did at the last supper,(1 Cor 11:23-30) so it is likely that the practice of communion existed from the very, very begining. We know for sure that the Eucharist was a part of the early church in AD 110 because of St. Ignatius’ epistles:

Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again… Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Epistle to the Smyreans)

“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.” (Epistle to the Philadelphians)

Vestments - vestments existed in the early church and they were based off of the vestments worn by Jewish levitical priests.

God commanded that when the priests enter the gates of the inner court of the temple, “they shall put on linen robes… and when they go out into the outer court to the people, they shall put off their robes in which they minister and they shall lay them up in the chamber of the sanctuary” (Ezek. 44:17).

The robes of priests were more embellished to distinguish them more clearly from the rest of the congregation.

Mandatory celibacy - while celibacy wasn’t mandatory in the early church, it was highly respected. In fact, the first few generations of Christians believed that Jesus was going to come back during their lifetime so they saw marriage as unnecessary and as a hindrance to spiritual development.

"In the tradition of the Church there is a clear preference for celibacy as opposed to the married state. This stance is not of course hostile to marriage, which is recognized as a profound mystery2, but simply indicates the practical obstacles marriage puts in the way of the pursuit of the spiritual life. For this reason, from the earliest days of Christianity many of the faithful chose celibacy. Thus Athenagoras the Confessor in the second century wrote: “You can find many men and women who remain unmarried all their lives in the hope of coming closer to God"3.”

I skipped some of the objections you raised merely because they are not Orthodox beliefs and I sort of agree with you on that point , I’ll let the Catholics defend that ground.

What we DO know existed from Paul’s epistles, etc are:
People speaking in tongues in the Church, preachers, healers, presbyters working in a council of leadership in more of an elder fashion, bishops and presbyters were terms used interchangeably, married presbyters, people “prophesying,” Pauline language of imputation, people being baptized (like Philip and the Eunach story) into the Church right away without months of catechesis, full immersion baptism, unction being to heal and not for a final blessing for a dying man, married bishops, women and men separated during worship, etc.

People speaking in tongues - “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal”, probably not no 1 on the list of important things

married presbyters, full immersion baptism, unction being to heal - the orthodox church still does these things, and some catholic churches (esp. Byzantine rite)

women and men separated during worship - still done to some extent

So from the point of view of some, though they obviously weren’t called “protestants,” protestants look through the Biblical lens and see these things and determine the early Christians were Protestant.

From a Catholic perspective, a la Newman, the Church was just in its infancy, a nucleus, it had to develop over time with God’s guidance, etc. From the Protestant view, the Church was completely sufficient and a done deal perfect, ready to go day one. It didn’t need to evolve. Catholics would argue that the doctrines of the Trinity, creeds, christology, soteriology, eschatology, episcopal jurisdictions and other important things hadn’t been developed and understood yet. Protestants would argue they were already implicitely in Scripture and self-evident…

I don’t even know what your faith is…San Francisco Giants…? So forgive me if I’m missing some sarcasm or something but it seems like you’re playing devil’s advocate for both sides But no one can look at a highly liturgically-based church and call it protestant

 

[Edmundus1581]

That is an interesting and challenging question, and one I have faced from protestants also.

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).

Absolutely right that the earliest Christians (including the new testament Christians) resemble modern protestantism much less than they resemble Catholicism.

The Orthodox are very close to Catholicism in most matters of creed and practice. In particular, they honour sacred tradition as being part of revelation (compared with protestant Sola Scriptura).

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.

That is a very important and succinct observation! If we accept that Christ ensured that His teachings would be preserved, then where are those teachings? Particularly, are they in scripture alone, or are they preserved by the Church? If someone argues against them being preserved by the Church, then they must show from scripture alone how they have been preserved in scripture alone. You won’t get a rational response, and the more you press them, and dissect their arguments, the more you will get an “irrational” (ha ha) resonse.

I found this very good link to the historical and biblical inconsistencies of Sola Scripture. ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt [Patrick Madrid]

 

[awatkins69]

One thing we must acknowledge is that the Protestants would be correct in saying that the earliest Christians believed in Millenialism. Look at Sts. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

 

[Rightlydivide]

PeaceSerenity
When did vestments appear and what is your source?
Thank you

 

[PeaceSerenity]

PeaceSerenity
When did vestments appear and what is your source?
Thank you

This is a google book that traces church vestments as we know them today and it says that concrete proof is visible with bishops in the fourth century. It’s called Church Vestments: Their Origin and Development.

Simpler vestments, though, were found in the early church and resembled tunics more than what we see today, “the chiton or tunic, a long garment with sleeves, which reached to he ground. The preferred color for celebrants was white as a symbol of that holiness and purity which the Lord commanded”. I can’t find a date for that, though, I will keep looking.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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.

 

[John7]

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.

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)

 

[Nicea325]

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.

What we DO know existed from Paul’s epistles, etc are:
People speaking in tongues in the Church, preachers, healers, presbyters working in a council of leadership in more of an elder fashion, bishops and presbyters were terms used interchangeably, married presbyters, people “prophesying,” Pauline language of imputation, people being baptized (like Philip and the Eunach story) into the Church right away without months of catechesis, full immersion baptism, unction being to heal and not for a final blessing for a dying man, married bishops, women and men separated during worship, etc.

So from the point of view of some, though they obviously weren’t called “protestants,” protestants look through the Biblical lens and see these things and determine the early Christians were Protestant.

From a Catholic perspective, a la Newman, the Church was just in its infancy, a nucleus, it had to develop over time with God’s guidance, etc. From the Protestant view, the Church was completely sufficient and a done deal perfect, ready to go day one. It didn’t need to evolve. Catholics would argue that the doctrines of the Trinity, creeds, christology, soteriology, eschatology, episcopal jurisdictions and other important things hadn’t been developed and understood yet. Protestants would argue they were already implicitely in Scripture and self-evident…

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?

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.

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?

 

[SyCarl]

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.