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

[phoenixrrt62]

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

Jewish?
Jesus was a Jew, wasn’t he?

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Obviously they were ethnically Jewish and attended the Synagogue for a while before they became their own sect, a fullfillment of the Judaic prophesy. The thread is about the early church’s theology and praxis. Was it more Catholic or Protestant?

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

Jewish?
Jesus was a Jew, wasn’t he?

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html

 

[eddy714]

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…

So if they where protestant who where they protesting against? Was it Jesus?

P.s but just by your choice of team it all makes sense

 

[MariaG]

Part 3

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.

That has NEVER been presented as a possible interpretation in the Catholic Church

One has to ask the question why is it that a person cannot be just a member of the church Christ established?

One CAN be a member of the Church Christ established. It is callled the Catholic church.

Why must one also be a member of a denomination which was unheard of in Jesus’ time?

One doesn’t. Join the Catholic church which is the Church that Christ established.

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?

Nope, see the above two answers

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?

That would make you just another denomination because there IS a church that Christ established and that Church is still in existence today as per the promises in scripture that His Church will prevail against the Gates of Hell.

Scripture tells us to be one. Scripture tells us to “take it to the Chruch”. That means there has to be a visible source for one to take problems to the Church to.

If you were to ignore the Catholic Church, claiming your “New Testament” Church was following Christ’s teachings, you would first need to either show where the Catholic Church stopped being the Church Christ founded or show me where the Church Christ founded is since scripture tells us it will always be around. And then show me that your New testament church is part of that first century church otherwise you are just another man made denomination.

Some believe it would make you just another denomination.

Yes it would just make you just another denomination, see reasons above.

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?

No it is not. Again, Jesus established a Church, a visible Church with members that belonged to that Church and spread the word to other cities who became part of the One Church that Christ established.

Can the church we find in the New Testament be restored in a community today?

For you to restore it you first have to surmise that it went away in the first place. In that case Scripture is a lie, and why would you want to restore anything that is not Truth but lies?

Thankfully, scripture does not lie and the Catholic church is the Church that Christ established so there is nothing that needs to be “restored”

 

[MariaG]

Part 4 (whew that took awhile)

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)

Just because you can “replicate” something, does not make it the real thing. Ask any collector and while a replication may look to be in better shape than the original, the original is still more valuable.

As for the New Testament Church going COMPLETELY apostate, as you seem to be implying by the scripture you quote, would mean that Scripture contradicts itself from the various other amounts of scirpture that tell us the Church will never fail, to cite just 2, Matt. 16:18 Matt. 28:20.

Scripture cannot be saying that all the Church will disappear and go apostate or it contradicts itself. And if you believe that the whole Church went apostate, how does that make you different than Mormons whom also claim the same? Just another manmade denomination taking one piece of scripture and ignoring that which says otherwise including the promises that the Church will never fail.

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.

Why would we? The Church in the beginning was a small seed that the Lord planted and now it has grown to a mighty oak. Would you chop down the tree that Christ planted and plant your own because it did not grow according to YOUR vision?

As for authority not residing wholely with scripture, that is because it is UNscriptural to insist one should confine oneself to that which is written.

Scripture itself tells us this. I won’t post the MANY scriptures that say this since it would be offtopic to this thread.

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.

Again, just because you don’t see the Church Christ planted in the grown Church, does not mean it is not the original New Testament Church.

But I do agree that none of the Protestant denominations are the New Testament Church as is obvious from just historical evidence.

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.

Except the Catholic Church which celebrates the birthday of the Church, our Church every Pentecost, every year.

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.

Agreed.

If your desire is to be a part of the church Jesus built you have the original plans for it.

Yup, join the Catholic Church. Any other Church that tries to replicate the Church Christ founded is doing just that replicating it instead of just going to the original that is still around.

Fake or original? One Does have a choice since Christ’s original Church is still in existence.

You are only a denomination because you want to be one.

True.

If you have the plans for the original church Jesus built what more do you need than the will to implement them?

What more do you need? Authority from God? Truth? None of those are present for one to “restore” a Church that never failed.

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

And on that day I will say welcome home to the Catholic Church

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

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?

By the way, I am still assuming this was the question you were answering and I replied to in 4 parts.

I did not see you answer to this unless it was that the Church disappeared completely? Is that your contention?

 

[AmateurPianist]

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?

I think I know what you are saying/asking.

My suggestion would be to take it literally unless the context of other Scripture and/or common sense dictates otherwise.

Of course, the issue then becomes when do these circumstances occur on a given passage of Scripture.

This is why Christians argue Scripture over the internet.

 

[eddy714]

Obviously they were ethnically Jewish and attended the Synagogue for a while before they became their own sect, a fullfillment of the Judaic prophesy. The thread is about the early church’s theology and praxis. Was it more Catholic or Protestant?

What are your bases towards protestant? Wasn’t that established until Martin Luther?

It should be more towards if its Catholic or Orthodox, but not protestant they dont have a set doctrine and they multiply like the gremlins when you add water.

 

[Javl]

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

Len,

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

Anna

Anna:

I think you’re fairly safe with the conservative EC, and really no need to duck. If you want support then contact, via PM, padreJ. He’s an EC Bishop and a theologian. He’s also a very good friend.

As for that question, I’ve got patience. It’ll be answered someday.

God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Len

 

[Soldier_X]

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’ve always believed in the “Day-Minute” theory as taught by Dr. McCoy. “Here comes Genesis! We’ll do it for you in six minutes!”

I am persecuted for my beliefs.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Spock: Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing. Logic suggests…
McCoy: Logic? My God, the man’s talking about logic; we’re talking about universal Armageddon! You green-blooded, inhuman…

What a great flick, Wrath of Kahn. Along with Undiscovered Country those two are my favorite of the feature films. Big Nicholas Meyer fan. Great director!

I’ve always believed in the “Day-Minute” theory as taught by Dr. McCoy. “Here comes Genesis! We’ll do it for you in six minutes!”

I am persecuted for my beliefs.

 

[MarieaGrace]

This is on behalf of MariaG.This ones for you baby.

YouTube - raymond143 DEBATE 6 IGLESIA NI CRISTO church of christ …
BRO, VENTILACION APROVING THAT CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ,NOT, IN THE BIBLE ! … is all about the Church of Christ, not of Mr. Manalo but of the Chuch that …

youtube.com/watch?v=1EFpKlklG0o - 95k - Cached - Similar pages

 

[MariaG]

This is on behalf of MariaG.This ones for you baby.

YouTube - raymond143 DEBATE 6 IGLESIA NI CRISTO church of christ …
BRO, VENTILACION APROVING THAT CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ,NOT, IN THE BIBLE ! … is all about the Church of Christ, not of Mr. Manalo but of the Chuch that …

youtube.com/watch?v=1EFpKlklG0o - 95k - Cached - Similar pages

Watched the whole thing. Are you trying answer my line by line rebuttal to your post? Could you please be more specific.

 

[Javl]

This is on behalf of MariaG.This ones for you baby.

YouTube - raymond143 DEBATE 6 IGLESIA NI CRISTO church of christ …
BRO, VENTILACION APROVING THAT CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ,NOT, IN THE BIBLE ! … is all about the Church of Christ, not of Mr. Manalo but of the Chuch that …

youtube.com/watch?v=1EFpKlklG0o - 95k - Cached - Similar pages

And neither are any of the others. The early Church may not have been known as Catholic but the Catholic Church ( of today ) IS the Church instituted by Christ. The name “Catholic” was first applied to the early Church by St. Ignatius in 110 AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans ( Ch VIII ). .http://studylight.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/ignatius/view.cgi?file=anf01-21.htm. The Catholic Church consists of all the Churches of the East and West that are in communion with Rome and with each other.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

I think I know what you are saying/asking.

My suggestion would be to take it literally unless the context of other Scripture and/or common sense dictates otherwise.

Of course, the issue then becomes when do these circumstances occur on a given passage of Scripture.

This is why Christians argue Scripture over the internet.

Yep…and never shall the choochoo twain meet…

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[OldChurch40]

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?

It was the Church. That’s it. We would know it today as the Early Christian Church. There was no Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox etc. Lots of things that are seen today did not exist in the Early Church such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, Mary Veneration.

 

[crazzeto]

Hey Anna,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you about this, things have been crazy! And sadly I’m not sure I’m going to be writing as much as I originally intended, but I feel I’ve left Eucharistic Adoration go on far too long without writing anything at all, while at the same time I’m fairly exhausted from getting back onto my P90X workout routine (it’s been since December!!).

So how do I claim that Adoration is 100% Apostolic? Well there are two things we need to keep in mind. The first briefly you gave me an answer already, and your answer as I understood it makes it possible for me to be fairly brief on what is actually the most significant part of this posting , that is the doctrine of the real presence. Now I realize there are a number of differing understandings of this doctrine, which is why I wanted to know which one you currently ascribe to. If I understood correctly, then you 100% agree with Dr. Hahn’s theology on the subject matter? If that is the case, then you have all the grounding you should need on this matter. Simply put, the Eucharistic is neither sacramentally united with Christ, nor are the bread and wine consubstantial with the divine nature. The Eucharistic bread and wine are in fact, truly the body and blood of our Lord and Savior under the appearance of bread and wine. This is the first Apostolic teaching which we need to understand Adoration.

The second Apostolic teaching which explains how Adoration is an authentic teaching, can be found plainly stated in the scriptures:

Mat 13:31 Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.
Mat 13:32 Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.

That is, the Church herself is like a mustard seed, it began with a small seed of just a handful of Apostles in the upper room. From there it grew quickly, until today it is the “largest plant on earth” (certainly if one considers Christendom combined/united). Like any organism, it starts out small, and it has certain characteristics which will not be true of it when it grows up. Any seed is typically a single small self-contained organism, but when planted (and it “dies”) it grows roots, sprouts up out of the ground and becomes something new, but not something against its own nature.

The same is true of the Church, for it is true that one cannot absolutely validate that adoration took place prior to ~1,200 A.D, though Christian Lupus claimed that the newly baptized adored for 8 days as early as the days of Ambrose and Augustine. The first reliable record of a perpetual adoration comes from 1,226 A.D. by the order of Louis VII who had just been victorious over the Albigensians. This adoration remained uninterrupted until 1729.

So ultimately the question here is, is Eucharistic Adoration, a thing against Apostolic teaching? The answer could only be no, if indeed the Eucharist was not truly our Lord and Savior, but rather merely an objected worked of human hands. In this case it, it would outright be idolatry. But it’s not, more over it is consistent with the theology taught by the Apostles.

For more information on the subject, see these:
newadvent.org/cathen/01152a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm

 

[T_More]

It was the Church. That’s it. We would know it today as the Early Christian Church. There was no Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox etc. Lots of things that are seen today did not exist in the Early Church such as Purgatory, Papal Infallibility, Mary Veneration.

And yet these early Christians beliefs looked awfully Catholic for some reason, beliefs that are not embraced by denominations outside the Church. The Trinity or the Incarnation are not mentioned by name in scripture, yet many non Catholics believe these without question. These very things were understood and defined by the Catholic Church.

It always amazes me how some simply overlook the early Christian writings and the numerous mentions of the Catholic Church by name. Those that do acknowledge the name maintain the “little c catholic” argument and completely miss the most important thing of all, the understandings of the teachings passed along to them that look like of all things, Catholic! A rose by any other name is still a rose…

 

[OldChurch40]

And yet these early Christians beliefs looked awfully Catholic for some reason, beliefs that are not embraced by denominations outside the Church. The Trinity or the Incarnation are not mentioned by name in scripture, yet many non Catholics believe these without question. These very things were understood and defined by the Catholic Church.

It always amazes me how some simply overlook the early Christian writings and the numerous mentions of the Catholic Church by name. Those that do acknowledge the name maintain the “little c catholic” argument and completely miss the most important thing of all, the understandings of the teachings passed along to them that look like of all things, Catholic! A rose by any other name is still a rose…

I don’t think that Orthodox Christians would share your opinion here. Neither would most Anglicans and even some Lutherans. Early Church Christians were different from Roman Catholics on many fronts. Purgatory, Indulgences, Infallibilty are among a few. The Early Church did not contain any of these.

 

[Australis]

A pentecostal pastor told me the first Christians were pentecostals.

:extrahappy: