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

[crazzeto]

Anna,

I’d like to start with Eucharistic Adortation first… But before I do I feel like I need a bit of information for you…

What comes to mind when you think “real presense”.

 

[MariaG]

The original church of Jesus and the disciples was called “The Way” it was one of many churches but the very first one of the originals of Jesus.Many Presbyters were married and it was a booming church and when they traveled they also took their wives as much as possible and their children they were families and Jesus believed in families, weddings and get together.Catholic church did not start back then it was started aft4er the second century as it is written in history books and has not changed because it is true.Many of the catholic doctrines have changed for dating reasons but the real history remains the same.They can go back to Christ but they cannot tell you where they were located because they were started in Rome and i will not go any further I thought this was a nondenominational site?

This is a Catholic site. Here you can learn what the Church actually taches instead of the lies and misconceptions widely spread about the church.
God bless,
Maria

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieaGrace
The original church of Jesus and the disciples was called “The Way” it was one of many churches but the very first one of the originals of Jesus.Many Presbyters were married and it was a booming church and when they traveled they also took their wives as much as possible and their children they were families and Jesus believed in families, weddings and get together.Catholic church did not start back then it was started aft4er the second century as it is written in history books and has not changed because it is true.Many of the catholic doctrines have changed for dating reasons but the real history remains the same.They can go back to Christ but they cannot tell you where they were located because they were started in Rome and i will not go any further I thought this was a nondenominational site? **

ok. so, what do you think it happened to the Way after the CC was found in the 4th century?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And you can also learn new lies and misconceptions leveled toward Protestants as well

This is a Catholic site. Here you can learn what the Church actually taches instead of the lies and misconceptions widely spread about the church.
God bless,
Maria

 

[MarieaGrace]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieaGrace
The original church of Jesus and the disciples was called “The Way” it was one of many churches but the very first one of the originals of Jesus.Many Presbyters were married and it was a booming church and when they traveled they also took their wives as much as possible and their children they were families and Jesus believed in families, weddings and get together.Catholic church did not start back then it was started aft4er the second century as it is written in history books and has not changed because it is true.Many of the catholic doctrines have changed for dating reasons but the real history remains the same.They can go back to Christ but they cannot tell you where they were located because they were started in Rome and i will not go any further I thought this was a nondenominational site? **

ok. so, what do you think it happened to the Way after the CC was found in the 4th century?

All the disciples traveled and started the 7 churches. they had names and you will find them in Revelations chapter 2.The church was never really a building they always spoke on mountain tops or in homes etc. The spirit of God lives in all Christians and that is what makes people one in the spirit, not an organization or building but it’s nice to come in out of the cold. There is nothing wrong with a building, they never named it after each other they named it after the town or anything but peoples names look in the book you will see it never mentions names, just Antioch or philadelphia, Ephesus etc.

 

[crazzeto]

All the disciples traveled and started the 7 churches. they had names and you will find them in Revelations chapter 2.The church was never really a building they always spoke on mountain tops or in homes etc. The spirit of God lives in all Christians and that is what makes people one in the spirit, not an organization or building but it’s nice to come in out of the cold. There is nothing wrong with a building, they never named it after each other they named it after the town or anything but peoples names look in the book you will see it never mentions names, just Antioch or philadelphia, Ephesus etc.

Except there were more than 7 Churches, lots more than 7 actually… Just a few churches not mentioned in Rev.

Byzantia (Constantinople)
Rome
Alexandria
Jerusalem (seen in Acts)

 

[Nicea325]

All the disciples traveled and started the 7 churches. they had names and you will find them in Revelations chapter 2.The church was never really a building they always spoke on mountain tops or in homes etc. The spirit of God lives in all Christians and that is what makes people one in the spirit, not an organization or building but it’s nice to come in out of the cold. There is nothing wrong with a building, they never named it after each other they named it after the town or anything but peoples names look in the book you will see it never mentions names, just Antioch or philadelphia, Ephesus etc.

Okay,but those 7 churches were not doing their own thing and teaching separate doctrines.They are belonged to same ONE Church Christ founded. They were NOT Protestant in nature or founded by any Protestant

 

[wisdomseeker]

All the disciples traveled and started the 7 churches. they had names and you will find them in Revelations chapter 2.The church was never really a building they always spoke on mountain tops or in homes etc. The spirit of God lives in all Christians and that is what makes people one in the spirit, not an organization or building but it’s nice to come in out of the cold. There is nothing wrong with a building, they never named it after each other they named it after the town or anything but peoples names look in the book you will see it never mentions names, just Antioch or philadelphia, Ephesus etc.

ok, but my question was. what happened to the Way when the CC was found in the 4th century. can you answer this since you know so much about the history of the Church?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

I’d like to start with Eucharistic Adortation first… But before I do I feel like I need a bit of information for you…

What comes to mind when you think “real presense”.

Crazzeto,

Telling you what I have in mind is only going to cause a diversion. If I define the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, in any way that is inconsistent with the Catholic view; you will say I do not understand the Eucharist. Therefore, I would not be able to identify the “theology” of the Apostles that points to Eucharistic Adoration. If my definition of the “Real Presence” is identical to yours, except for the fact that it is offered to me by a non-Catholic Priest, then we have a “valid orders” issue. I’ve been down both these roads before. They are both very interesting roads; but not where I need to go at the moment.

I’m asking for the “theology” of the Apostles that you claim points to Eucharistic Adoration, in light of Catholic beliefs and practices regarding the Eucharist.

I understand you believe the Apostles were the first Catholics. Don’t want to go down that road at the moment either. Just show me the proof of the theology of the Apostles that points to Adoration of the Eucharist in Adoration Chapels. Forget, for a moment, that I am not Catholic.

Anna

 

[MariaG]

And you can also learn new lies and misconceptions leveled toward Protestants as well

Never by me, always corrrected if I see, and usually in the form or sweeping generalizations that only apply to a particular denomination rather than all protestants. Whereas there are many Christian sites promote lies in the guise of “telling the truth” or “educating” people about the Catholic church.

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto,

Telling you what I have in mind is only going to cause a diversion. If I define the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, in any way that is inconsistent with the Catholic view; you will say I do not understand the Eucharist. Therefore, I would not be able to identify the “theology” of the Apostles that points to Eucharistic Adoration. If my definition of the “Real Presence” is identical to yours, except for the fact that it is offered to me by a non-Catholic Priest, then we have a “valid orders” issue. I’ve been down both these roads before. They are both very interesting roads; but not where I need to go at the moment.

I’m asking for the “theology” of the Apostles that you claim points to Eucharistic Adoration, in light of Catholic beliefs and practices regarding the Eucharist.

I understand you believe the Apostles were the first Catholics. Don’t want to go down that road at the moment either. Just show me the proof of the theology of the Apostles that points to Adoration of the Eucharist in Adoration Chapels. Forget, for a moment, that I am not Catholic.

Anna

I really wasn’t looking to argue the point of the real presence, rather I was merely looking to see what you think about it. I’m about to head off to bed, so I’ll address this further tomorrow. Good night.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I really wasn’t looking to argue the point of the real presence, rather I was merely looking to see what you think about it. I’m about to head off to bed, so I’ll address this further tomorrow. Good night.

Crazzeto,

I’m sorry. I’ve been a bit touchy the last few days. Didn’t mean to take it out on you.

Anna:blush:

P.S. I did read Scott Hahn’s book, The lamb’s Supper, The Mass as Heaven on Earth. Actually read it all the way through twice and started a third time–did interrupt the third reading to read a couple of books by N.T. Wright. Anyway, The Lamb’s Supper is a beautiful book. There is very little with which I would disagree. The book gives a detailed description of the Holy Eucharist from the Catholic perspective.

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto,

I’m sorry. I’ve been a bit touchy the last few days. Didn’t mean to take it out on you.

Anna:blush:

P.S. I did read Scott Hahn’s book, The lamb’s Supper, The Mass as Heaven on Earth. Actually read it all the way through twice and started a third time–did interrupt the third reading to read a couple of books by N.T. Wright. Anyway, The Lamb’s Supper is a beautiful book. There is very little with which I would disagree. The book gives a detailed description of the Holy Eucharist from the Catholic perspective.

Terrific! Thats a good starting point… Now if you’ll indulge me, I would like to actually tackle this one from the comfort of my home at the office. I’m afraid that I’d rather like to spend more time than I typically do quickly hacking out a message here and there on this one…

I do so personally love my adoration time! =)

 

[Anna_Scott]

Terrific! Thats a good starting point… Now if you’ll indulge me, I would like to actually tackle this one from the comfort of my home at the office. I’m afraid that I’d rather like to spend more time than I typically do quickly hacking out a message here and there on this one…

I do so personally love my adoration time! =)

O.K. Craz. I look forward to it.

Anna

 

[Javl]

As a point of information The use of “Catholic” to describe the early Church was used by St. Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans in 110 AD ( ante-Nicene ). The name “Roman” was originally added to “Catholic” as a derogatory term. It is used today to identify it from other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. Many schismatic churches appropriate the term “Catholic” and use it to describe themselves, but they are truly not. There is only one Catholic Church which comprises both Eastern and Western rites.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[crazzeto]

As a point of information The use of “Catholic” to describe the early Church was used by St. Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans in 110 AD ( ante-Nicene ). The name “Roman” was originally added to “Catholic” as a derogatory term. It is used today to identify it from other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. Many schismatic churches appropriate the term “Catholic” and use it to describe themselves, but they are truly not. There is only one Catholic Church which comprises both Eastern and Western rites.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

As well and Oriental which everyone seems to forget even exists… Just throwing a shout out for our forgotten bretheren

 

[Anna_Scott]

As a point of information The use of “Catholic” to describe the early Church was used by St. Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans in 110 AD ( ante-Nicene ). The name “Roman” was originally added to “Catholic” as a derogatory term. It is used today to identify it from other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. Many schismatic churches appropriate the term “Catholic” and use it to describe themselves, but they are truly not. There is only one Catholic Church which comprises both Eastern and Western rites.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javl,

I’m in one of those “schismatic” Churches.

Anna

 

[Soldier_X]

Javl,

I’m in one of those “schismatic” Churches.

Anna

Those crazy schismatics. What are we gonna do with 'em? :thumbsup:

 

[SpectatorX]

Those crazy schismatics. What are we gonna do with 'em? :thumbsup:

What the?! “Soldier X”?! A picture of Cable as an avatar?! Sarcastic repartee?

Did my Anglican doppleganger cross universes or did I?!

P.S. Would that make me Stryfe? I think I need to sit down…

 

[MarieaGrace]

Wisdomseeker and MarieaG, i have my answer for you;

Which Denomination Did Jesus Build?
Why is it no single congregation will admit to being the one church Jesus built? Does something smell bad here? I am afraid so.
Years ago I had a lady tell me it was impossible to be just a Christian without being in a denomination. Did Jesus build a denomination? Which denomination did Jesus build?

I fear the lady I spoke of above was in grave error those many years ago but she was in a bind. What do I mean? Those who are in denominational churches generally all agree that those in other denominations can be saved the same as they can. Which means what?

It logically follows if you hold to that thinking that you can never admit your denomination is the one church Jesus built. If you did that it would put all other denominations outside the church thus you have to take the position this woman took. Jesus is “the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and the body is his body, the church. (Eph. 1:22-23) That is the very thing your denomination can never admit to being if you believe others in other denominations can and will be saved.

Think about that long and hard. You can never admit your group is the body of Christ, the church Jesus built. Is there something wrong here? Why would anyone want to be a member of your group if it is not the body of Christ, not the church Jesus built, if you cannot admit that it is? If it is the body of Christ, the church Jesus did build, then it excludes all other groups.

Of course they say the answer to that is that all denominations collectively make up the one church and our denomination is a part of that one church, the universal church. It would be comical if not so serious. The implication is that doctrine and truth do not matter nor does practice. Believe what you want, practice what you want, just believe intellectually that Jesus is the Son of God and that is all that matters.

What a waste Paul writing all those letters to the church at Corinth trying to correct wrong practices (shall we say sin). A waste because it did not matter; they believed in Jesus and were going to be saved anyway. And Jesus too for there was evidently, according to denominationalism, no need for those 7 letters to the churches of Asia found in Revelation, especially those giving warning for doctrine and practice do not matter if you can be saved in any denomination regardless of belief and practice.

Paul spoke of his ways in Christ which he said “I teach everywhere in every church.” (1 Cor. 4:17 NKJV) Every church in New Testament times received the same teaching. There were no opposing doctrines save from false teachers. What was taught in one place by a Holy Spirit inspired teacher was taught in every place. Now we say it doesn’t matter; they will be saved the same as we, just believe in Jesus.

What does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it mean it makes little to no difference what he taught on a subject through the inspired writers of the New Testament? Is the idea we will believe in Jesus for salvation but we will not believe him in doctrinal teaching and it won’t matter in the least? Is that the idea?

Denominationalism by its very nature has at its core the concept that doctrine does not matter. It teaches opposing and contradictory doctrines and sometimes things clearly condemned in scripture, things like the acceptance of homosexuality, women preachers and women in leadership positions in the church, these things just as examples, and we say they will be saved too because they believe in Jesus.

I have long felt people do not know what it means to believe in Jesus. Today it seems to mean you can believe he is the Savior but you cannot believe another word he uttered. Is that faith in Jesus, the faith that matters, the faith that saves? Or, we just take the approach that he said it but it does not matter. If you want to okay, if not okay.

Paul said we were to all be “of one mind.” (2 Cor. 13:11 NKJV) To the saints at Philippi he said, “stand fast in one spirit, with one mind.” (Phil. 1:27 NKJV) We are to be “likeminded … being of one accord, of one mind.” (Phil 2:2 NKJV) Peter taught the same thing in 1 Peter 3:8, “all of you be of one mind.” (NKJV) Denominationalism says it does not matter; we can be saved with division and difference being of many minds, not just one mind.