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

[MarieaGrace]

PART 11

It is sometimes said that in the parable of the vine and the branches in John 15 that the branches represent the denominations. Whoa! When Jesus spoke that parable there was not a denomination in the world. Not even the one true church he built had yet been established. He was speaking to his audience, his disciples. He says, “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered.” (John 15:6 NKJV) He says, “If you abide in Me.” (John 15:7 NKJV) Get the words “anyone” and “you”.
If he was speaking to denominations, obviously false, it was as an act of prophecy for there would not be a denomination established anywhere for well over 1,000 years into the future.
One has to ask the question why is it that a person cannot be just a member of the church Christ established? Why must one also be a member of a denomination which was unheard of in Jesus’ time? I asked the lady that who I mentioned in the first paragraph of this article. She could never give me an answer other than to say just because, just because it was no longer possible.
Do you believe that? If so why do you believe it? Why could one not just follow the teachings of the New Testament and do what they did in the first century to become Christians (there are many examples of conversions in the book of Acts), then join together in a congregation of like minded people and worship doing exactly what they did way back in the days of the apostles, no more, no less, organize the congregation as they organized theirs – elders leading the congregation with deacons serving – and just try and do exactly the same things in the same way as they did back then? Let us then call ourselves nothing but disciples, nothing but Christians, and give our congregation a name that is scriptural (call it what they called it back then). If we were to do that would that make us just another denomination or would it make us a true church of Christ, a church built by Jesus?
Some believe it would make you just another denomination. Think about that. It is the same as saying what Jesus established in the first century was a denomination. If we did what they did back then we would just be a denomination. Jesus established a denomination? Yeah, I really believe that don’t you?
Can the church we find in the New Testament be restored in a community today? If not why not? As long as you have the original plans you can restore or make anew anything just as it was in its original form. Give me the original plans for a piece of antique furniture that has been unseen for even hundreds of years and it can be made again today just like it was originally.
Give me a set of plans for playing a game, say a game the American Indians played 200 years ago, and even though I have never seen the game played I can replicate it simply by following the plans. When I play that game I will be playing what they played. You get the idea. All one needs is the plan. Does the New Testament give us a plan regarding the one church? To ask is to answer.
The original New Testament church we read about in our Bibles did end up in apostasy. This was prophesied. “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come (the Day of Judgment – DS) unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. 2:3-4 NKJV)
Paul also told the elders of the church in Ephesus, “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:29-30 NKJV)
While Catholics believe they are the one church there is none of them that I know of who would claim they are the church one would have if he was able to replicate today the church we find on the pages of the New Testament. They readily admit they must go outside of the pages of the New Testament to get the church they have today. Authority with them does not reside solely in scripture.
You cannot find the original New Testament church in the Catholic church of today but neither can you find it in any of the Protestant denominations either. If Jesus built a church and just one there was a time when he did that – on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
Thus we have a time for its establishment admitted by all (at least as far as I know never having heard of any who disagree). Yet, not a single denomination will lay any claim whatsoever as to having come into existence back then. When one admits the group he is a member of did not even exist in New Testament times he pretty much has lost his case as to making any claim as to being a part of that which was established.
If your desire is to be a part of the church Jesus built you have the original plans for it. You are only a denomination because you want to be one. If you have the plans for the original church Jesus built what more do you need than the will to implement them? Once you do so you can then admit to being the one church Jesus built and will no longer have to deny it. I would call that a bright day

 

[Anna_Scott]

Javl,

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

Anna

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

What, indeed. Javl’s my friend, BTW.

Anna

P.S. Soldier X, your kinda like the cat with nine lives. You do have a few remaining, though.

 

[SpectatorX]

It is sometimes said that in the parable of the vine and the branches in John 15 that the branches represent the denominations. Whoa! When Jesus spoke that parable there was not a denomination in the world. Not even the one true church he built had yet been established. He was speaking to his audience, his disciples. He says, “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered.” (John 15:6 NKJV) He says, “If you abide in Me.” (John 15:7 NKJV) Get the words “anyone” and “you”.
If he was speaking to denominations, obviously false, it was as an act of prophecy for there would not be a denomination established anywhere for well over 1,000 years into the future.

I’m not sure that verse can be used that way. The “anyone” you are making into a plural or collective noun is actually just singular. “Anyone” was originally contracted from “any” and “one”. The Greek term used is tis which is also a singular pronoun.

One has to ask the question why is it that a person cannot be just a member of the church Christ established? Why must one also be a member of a denomination which was unheard of in Jesus’ time? I asked the lady that who I mentioned in the first paragraph of this article. She could never give me an answer other than to say just because, just because it was no longer possible.
Do you believe that? If so why do you believe it? Why could one not just follow the teachings of the New Testament and do what they did in the first century to become Christians (there are many examples of conversions in the book of Acts), then join together in a congregation of like minded people and worship doing exactly what they did way back in the days of the apostles, no more, no less, organize the congregation as they organized theirs – elders leading the congregation with deacons serving – and just try and do exactly the same things in the same way as they did back then? Let us then call ourselves nothing but disciples, nothing but Christians, and give our congregation a name that is scriptural (call it what they called it back then). If we were to do that would that make us just another denomination or would it make us a true church of Christ, a church built by Jesus?

This is exactly the sort of reasoning I was questioning when I made this thread. You seem to take for granted that the Church was what you say it is from the very beginning, but nothing we know about it historically points us in that direction. If you’re going from Scripture Alone to make this assesment, you have to understand that Scripture just doesn’t have a lot to say about ecclesial structure and that the structure I would support fits quite nicely into the same gaps which allow yours.

Some believe it would make you just another denomination. Think about that. It is the same as saying what Jesus established in the first century was a denomination. If we did what they did back then we would just be a denomination. Jesus established a denomination? Yeah, I really believe that don’t you?
Can the church we find in the New Testament be restored in a community today? If not why not? As long as you have the original plans you can restore or make anew anything just as it was in its original form. Give me the original plans for a piece of antique furniture that has been unseen for even hundreds of years and it can be made again today just like it was originally.

I can’t imagine that disposing of what the Church actually was in order to chase after one’s interpretation of how it was in the New Testament - which is actually a major sticking point because we don’t really agree on that, either (“gaps,” remember?). Such would only produce a few more denominations.

 

[SpectatorX]

The original New Testament church we read about in our Bibles did end up in apostasy. This was prophesied. “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come (the Day of Judgment – DS) unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. 2:3-4 NKJV)

This doesn’t really say that the entire Church will disappear from history, does it?

Paul also told the elders of the church in Ephesus, “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:29-30 NKJV)

And again, “draw away” doesn’t really sound like an internal problem. This seems more indicative of external heresies such as Gnosticism.

While Catholics believe they are the one church there is none of them that I know of who would claim they are the church one would have if he was able to replicate today the church we find on the pages of the New Testament. They readily admit they must go outside of the pages of the New Testament to get the church they have today. Authority with them does not reside solely in scripture.
You cannot find the original New Testament church in the Catholic church of today but neither can you find it in any of the Protestant denominations either. If Jesus built a church and just one there was a time when he did that – on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

This sort of begs the question “is doctrinal development bad?” Nobody who accepts hypostasis or the Trinity could say so. You must admit that nobody before Nicea could recite the Nicene creed. “I will lead you unto all truth” makes it sound kinda’ like there were still some matters to be ironed out, after all. Which leads me to Sola Scriptura. If this was to be the norm, why didn’t it show up for 1500 years? I’m just saying that your proposition has some inconsistencies in it. You chide some people for having a church you cannot find in the New Testament, but then introduce as a standard a late-arriving doctrine. I am Catholic because I believe Catholicism (the collection of beliefs regarding God and morality which can be defined as Catholic) is true. If you can convince me otherwise, I will be otherwise, but the discussion must move beyond mere assumption. No argument which depends on an assumption of fact which I do not accept (i.e. Sola Scriptura) can possibly sway me.

Thus we have a time for its establishment admitted by all (at least as far as I know never having heard of any who disagree). Yet, not a single denomination will lay any claim whatsoever as to having come into existence back then. When one admits the group he is a member of did not even exist in New Testament times he pretty much has lost his case as to making any claim as to being a part of that which was established.

Au contraire, mon ami - hence my citation of doctrinal development.

If your desire is to be a part of the church Jesus built you have the original plans for it. You are only a denomination because you want to be one. If you have the plans for the original church Jesus built what more do you need than the will to implement them? Once you do so you can then admit to being the one church Jesus built and will no longer have to deny it. I would call that a bright day

I tend to disagree. There is no book of the New Testament which seeks to explain ecclesial structure. Though, I will agree that the day on which we can all claim belonging to the Church Jesus built is indeed a bright one (I was aiming for ‘objective’ with that, how’d I do?).

 

[MarieaGrace]

I am assuming that there is no definitive answer, because of doctrine and covenants, which are man made. But you did amazingly great and you were the only one who would dare to touch this, i admire your spunk and response. The only answer for all denominations are to merge and i feel that the real church is not as large as you think. Remember in scriptures of old, God always leaves a remnant but it is always small. God Bless you! Psalms 96

 

[AmateurPianist]

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?

The apostolic church existed in one organization.

Now a neutral observer would observe Christianity existing in many organizations.

The issue is whether
(A) Only one of these organizations that exist today must be in God’s sight the sole heir of the apostolic church
(B) Many organizations can be in God’s sight the heirs of the apostolic church.

You claim the former while we claim the latter. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Javl]

Javl,

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

Anna

Which one is that?

Len

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great points. Those arguments are inevitable either way you answer them with regard to your first paragraph.

Eucharistic Adoration is something I’m seeking to work out and understand and swallow myself. I’ve tried it and I felt I was out of step with the purpose of the Eucharist. “Take, eat” are the mandates of the communion, a meal. It is in the context of a meal in each instance of Scripture whether in the Gospels, or Acts, or Pauline references. In the early church it was around the agape meal. Always a meal, always consumed, part of an encounter with Christ.

I’ve heard a lot of rationalizing around Adoration and I’m open to all opinions but it is a bit of a stumbling block for me, I’ll admit. I heard a poster one time ask, “if Adoration is a logical development and is in line with Apostolic thinking, why don’t the Orthodox practice Adoration like Catholics do?” The answer cracked me up on Catholic Answers: “The Orthodox never developed Adoration beause they use levened bread and it wouldn’t fit in the monstrance.” I kid you not. That was the answer.

My rector at the Anglican parish I currently attend thinks Adoration is tantamount to heresy, a grave error in misunderstanding Christ’s intentions for the Eucharist. He called it a “serious error” one day. I’m not sure I feel that strongly about it. He’s an evangelically-leaning Anglican so it makes sense. JI Packer is his man, so no surprise with his reactions!

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

 

[Javl]

The apostolic church existed in one organization.

Now a neutral observer would observe Christianity existing in many organizations.

The issue is whether
(A) Only one of these organizations that exist today must be in God’s sight the sole heir of the apostolic church
(B) Many organizations can be in God’s sight the heirs of the apostolic church.

You claim the former while we claim the latter. It really is as simple as that.

One question that I have never heard a satifactory answer to: Why is it the when scripture is to be taken literally, Protestants say that it’s only symbolic, and when scripture is symbolic it is taken literally?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Soldier_X]

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…

Hahaha…I have come back from the future to save CAF from the Apocalypse. Good to meet ya

 

[Soldier_X]

What, indeed. Javl’s my friend, BTW.

Anna

P.S. Soldier X, your kinda like the cat with nine lives. You do have a few remaining, though.

Thank you. Those lives are very important to me haha…gotta get as much use out of 'em as possible!

Now back to my beloved Anglican schism. Who knew that the Early Church was Episcopalian? Oh wait…they were Catholic.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Great points. Those arguments are inevitable either way you answer them with regard to your first paragraph.

Eucharistic Adoration is something I’m seeking to work out and understand and swallow myself. I’ve tried it and I felt I was out of step with the purpose of the Eucharist. “Take, eat” are the mandates of the communion, a meal. It is in the context of a meal in each instance of Scripture whether in the Gospels, or Acts, or Pauline references. In the early church it was around the agape meal. Always a meal, always consumed, part of an encounter with Christ.

I’ve heard a lot of rationalizing around Adoration and I’m open to all opinions but it is a bit of a stumbling block for me, I’ll admit. I heard a poster one time ask, “if Adoration is a logical development and is in line with Apostolic thinking, why don’t the Orthodox practice Adoration like Catholics do?” The answer cracked me up on Catholic Answers: “The Orthodox never developed Adoration beause they use levened bread and it wouldn’t fit in the monstrance.” I kid you not. That was the answer.

My rector at the Anglican parish I currently attend thinks Adoration is tantamount to heresy, a grave error in misunderstanding Christ’s intentions for the Eucharist. He called it a “serious error” one day. I’m not sure I feel that strongly about it. He’s an evangelically-leaning Anglican so it makes sense. JI Packer is his man, so no surprise with his reactions!

gurneyhalleck1,

Well, gurney, here we are once again—sorting through the same issues. I’ve heard from Crazzeto. He’s really busy, but will get back to our discussion. I’m really interested in hearing what he has to say about the theology of the early Church that would point to Eucharistic Adoration.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You and I are just mutual sorters! LOL

All I’m doing right now is caring for this little stray 3-week-old kitten I found at the park dumped, and digging through Catholic-Protestant theology…a day in the life LOL

gurneyhalleck1,

Well, gurney, here we are once again—sorting through the same issues. I’ve heard from Crazzeto. He’s really busy, but will get back to our discussion. I’m really interested in hearing what he has to say about the theology of the early Church that would point to Eucharistic Adoration.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Which one is that?

Len

Len, I’ve been attending a conservative Episcopal Church since the end of January. With all the controversy going on in TEC right now; I feel the need to duck every time say that. lol

One question that I have never heard a satifactory answer to: Why is it the when scripture is to be taken literally, Protestants say that it’s only symbolic, and when scripture is symbolic it is taken literally?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Len,

I’ve asked that same question. I still don’t understand the rules.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

To play devil’s advocate, the same thing can be said of Catholics. A Protestant can’t figure out why Catholics take John 6 literally when Jesus says that his words are “spirit and life” and that the flesh is of no consequence? Yet they believe “I am the vine” to be symbolic. It goes both ways. Sorting out metaphor from reality in Scripture is a full-time job!

One question that I have never heard a satifactory answer to: Why is it the when scripture is to be taken literally, Protestants say that it’s only symbolic, and when scripture is symbolic it is taken literally?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[MariaG]

Hi,
Respectfully, I think you are a bit premature in saying no one will touch this. Many do not post on the weekends. It is when I usually do the majority of my posting for in depth responses since during the week, it is mostly through my smart phone and it is very difficult to give lenthy replies especially with references.

But yeah weekends. Here I am so here I go

Wisdomseeker and MarieaG, i have my answer for you;

I assume you meant me even though mine is MariaG not MarieaG?

And I assume it was to this question below that you have an answer for?

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?

Which Denomination Did Jesus Build?
.

Jesus did not build a denomination, He built a Church.

Why is it no single congregation will admit to being the one church Jesus built? Does something smell bad here? I am afraid so.

Not sure what you mean here since the Catholic Church completely “admits” and claims to be the ONE Church that Christ established.

Nice tract here from Catholic Answers that has it spelled out nicely.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

So again, not sure exactly what you mean by this unless possibly you somehow equate One Church to One building rather that One Church that is made up of many different congregations. Just because there is more than one group, in various cities around the world, does not mean they are not all ONE Church.

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?

Again, Jesus did not build a denomination, He built a Church.

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.

This shows an incomplete understanding of who and what makes up the Church. You seem to think that one has to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church or my Church, which claims to be the Church Christ founded, thinks you are going to hell?

This is what we believe and why we believe it.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

870 “The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”(*LG *8).

For a more detailed answer I would go to this tract at Catholic Answers No Salvation Outsid the Church by Ray Ryland

Part one

 

[MariaG]

part 2 (more to come when I get to YOUR part two)

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.

Clearly since we DO claim to the the Church built, this argument starts on a false premise as applys to the Catholic Church.

And again, read the above article on No salvation outside the Church for a true understanding of what that actually means.

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?

That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches.

Again, read the article No salvation outside the Church for a better understanding.

Clearly, the Catholic Church does not teach nor tell people that doctrine and truth do not matter, in fact quite the opposite. And yet we still claim to be the Church that Christ founded.

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 completely disagree. Whether Protestant or Catholic, most Christians I know do believe doctrine matters.

While many Protestants “agree to disagree” that does not mean they neccessarily believe the other is right or even that the other will get to heaven. It just a nice way to not declare the others nonChristians without getting into it.

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

I would have to agree with you, many do not understand the teachings of Christ.

And no disrepect, especially since it was not entirely clear which question you were answering, but in this half, I did not see the answer. Maybe the second half?

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]

To play devil’s advocate, the same thing can be said of Catholics. A Protestant can’t figure out why Catholics take John 6 literally when Jesus says that his words are “spirit and life” and that the flesh is of no consequence? Yet they believe “I am the vine” to be symbolic. It goes both ways. Sorting out metaphor from reality in Scripture is a full-time job!

I haven’t figured out the rules for either side. I remember getting in trouble, when I was still in the Baptist Church, because I didn’t interpret the Genesis creation account as 6 literal days. Yet, the same Baptists think the Catholics are wrong for taking John Chapter 6 literally when it comes to consuming the Body and Blood of Christ. Like I said, I don’t understand the rules. I suppose that’s where tradition comes in. I hope I don’t regret saying that. Though, Anglicans do look to tradition in the interpretation of Scripture.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why should you feel guilty? Even Aquinas, St. Bernard and the modern Catholic Church don’t agree on the Immaculate status of Mary! The early fathers didn’t always agree. Heck, show me a time when the church agreed on much of anything. There’s always a variety of opinions. Believing in evolution, I don’t subscribe to the six day thing myself.

I haven’t figured out the rules for either side. I remember getting in trouble, when I was still in the Baptist Church, because I didn’t interpret the Genesis creation account as 6 literal days. Yet, the same Baptists think the Catholics are wrong for taking John Chapter 6 literally when it comes to consuming the Body and Blood of Christ. Like I said, I don’t understand the rules. I suppose that’s where tradition comes in. I hope I don’t regret saying that.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

You and I are just mutual sorters! LOL

All I’m doing right now is caring for this little stray 3-week-old kitten I found at the park dumped, and digging through Catholic-Protestant theology…a day in the life LOL

“Mutual sorters.” Hmmm. I can see that. Though, Gurney, I’m having one of those days (more like one of those years,) when it seems like I’m in trouble with everybody. So, I’ll take “sorter.” That’s certainly the nicest thing I’ve been called lately. lol

Anna

P.S. Maybe the kitten will keep you sane, as you’re “sorting” through Catholic-Protestant theology. I’ve got to get off this forum and get some things done in “real” life. Will be back later.