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

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the “little c” arguments are based on the idea that, for the first 1000 plus years Christianity was not governed as Catholicism is now. The councils that decided huge issues like Nicaea did about Christology were actually overseen by the Emperor Constantine and a council of bishops with the Roman pope not even present but rather sending legates. The theological war against Arianism was not unilaterally papal, it included Eastern bishops and western ones. Each step of the way individuals within a united Church fought off heresy and defined christology, eschatology, soteriology, and other huge concepts for Christendom. The Orthodox and Catholics, as a united Church that existed for the first 1000 years is not the same polity and setup and church that we see in 2010. There’s no getting around that. The papal powers increased with time, the polity the Church has now was even debated at the Council of Constance. Up until that time Catholics debated between papal-heavy and conciliar models of governance. In the 1800’s there were still plenty of bishops who claimed that “papal infallibility” was a lie, a negative propaganda manipulation cooked up by Protestants! The idea of the “little c” is the catholic church that existed as a cohesive whole, united, of one mind, not merely papal and the current Catholic Church we see in the world that has evolved and developed over time. That’s my understanding of what people mean with this argument. I think one need only talk and study with Orthodox Christians to see how divergent the two ecclesiastical bodies are in theology and their approach to things.

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…

 

[crazzeto]

I think the “little c” arguments are based on the idea that, for the first 1000 plus years Christianity was not governed as Catholicism is now. The councils that decided huge issues like Nicaea did about Christology were actually overseen by the Emperor Constantine and a council of bishops with the Roman pope not even present but rather sending legates. The theological war against Arianism was not unilaterally papal, it included Eastern bishops and western ones. Each step of the way individuals within a united Church fought off heresy and defined christology, eschatology, soteriology, and other huge concepts for Christendom. The Orthodox and Catholics, as a united Church that existed for the first 1000 years is not the same polity and setup and church that we see in 2010. There’s no getting around that. The papal powers increased with time, the polity the Church has now was even debated at the Council of Constance. Up until that time Catholics debated between papal-heavy and conciliar models of governance. In the 1800’s there were still plenty of bishops who claimed that “papal infallibility” was a lie, a negative propaganda manipulation cooked up by Protestants! The idea of the “little c” is the catholic church that existed as a cohesive whole, united, of one mind, not merely papal and the current Catholic Church we see in the world that has evolved and developed over time. That’s my understanding of what people mean with this argument. I think one need only talk and study with Orthodox Christians to see how divergent the two ecclesiastical bodies are in theology and their approach to things.

that’s not quite accurate though is it? You can trace back Peter’s unique position to the very start, you can see his position of authority in the bible and you can see the continuation of that recongnition in the first centuries of the Church.

Over time, the Church has seen the need to more clearly define it than what was originally done. But then again this is only natural, when an orginazation grows organically. You have more councils when more heresy crops out, that council sees a need to proclaim doctrine in order to combat that heresy

This is the most interesting part of Orthodox v. Catholic debates. The Orthodox apologist will typically not deny the very fundamental fact that when a heresy comes up, that it is not nearly enough merely to say “well we’re not going to define what the doctrine is, we’re just gonig to say that you’re wrong”. So on the one hand they’ll acknowlege the aboslute necessity of the “development of doctrine” in the west, on the other hand they’ll tell us that it is wrong to do so.

 

[SpectatorX]

I am assuming that there is no definitive answer, because of doctrine and covenants, which are man made.

I would disagree that doctrines and covenants are man-made, of course. I doubt that comes as a surprise to you, though, given where you post. I find I can assume at least a reasonable familiarity with Catholicism here.

But you did amazingly great and you were the only one who would dare to touch this, i admire your spunk and response.

Errr… Thanks. This sort of topic is my specialty, I suppose, because it is pertinent to the reasoning that kept me Catholic to begin with in the face of a Baptist minister’s proddings to the contrary. The claim that the Early Church wasn’t Catholic is a claim I find specious enough, but the claim that they were Baptist or what-have-you is one I find quite perplexing. The Catholicity of the historic Christians is supportive of the truth of Catholicism, whereas the opinion that they were Protestant, etc. seems more an assumption based on the conclusion that one’s noncatholic beliefs are true. One of these methods of reasoning is placing the cart before the horse, but the decision regarding which is doing so seems dependent upon one’s acceptance of Sola Scriptura…

It always seems to come back to that, doesn’t it?

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.

I think you might be surprised regarding my opinion of the size of the “real Church.” While I believe it subsists in a visible institution, there is an undeniable spiritual component, as well. I think a Protestant who lives his faith stands a far better chance than the average pew-sitter Catholic. I should move along topically, though, because “EENS” is one which can turn nasty when a “Novus Ordo” like myself crosses paths with certain stripes of traditionalist. I was actually surprised not to see it among the banned subjects!

God Bless you! Psalms 96

And you, too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with your assessment of Orthodox reactions, definitely. And one would have to be a blind fool to ignore the huge mammoth role of popes in the wars against the various heresies. They often led the charge against heresy and led in crucial times of chaos.

I don’t think the Orthodox, at least most of the ones I know, would argue against the need for SOME development of doctrine. Obviously the councils were a development hammering out the specifics about who Christ really is and the essential nature of His being and mission and relationship to us all. They also are ok with how the councils defined polity and other issues. But I think the Orthodox are more conservative about development of doctrine. They have a less is more attitude. They feel that every single thing doesn’t need to be defined all the time in minutiae like the Catholics. That’s why we have Roman Catholics defining the exact way Christ appears in the Eucharist with Transubstantiation and the Orthodox still to this day refuse to define it leaving it to be a mysterion. The Orthodox are more into preserving what they have because they view it as the totality of God’s truth. They focus on the liturgy and the mysteries of it and, as a result, it’s untainted to this day while the Catholics have a watered-down Vatican II edition that most traditional to moderate Catholics would agree isn’t half the beauty of the pre Vatican II days. The Orthodox, from my observations, think that only the essentials, the big issues, need to be developed and really they already have so why continue to, in the Aquinas tradition, define and seek to develop one innovation after another? The Adoration of the Eucharist, Mary’s assumption, studying human sexuality in uber detail and regulating people’s marital relations in the bedroom, purgatory, treasuries of merit and indulgences, all these things never entered the Orthodox playing field. They have a higher view of a bishop’s local responsibilities to these topics than Catholics who believe one man should globally regulate it all. Different approaches.

that’s not quite accurate though is it? You can trace back Peter’s unique position to the very start, you can see his position of authority in the bible and you can see the continuation of that recongnition in the first centuries of the Church.

Over time, the Church has seen the need to more clearly define it than what was originally done. But then again this is only natural, when an orginazation grows organically. You have more councils when more heresy crops out, that council sees a need to proclaim doctrine in order to combat that heresy

This is the most interesting part of Orthodox v. Catholic debates. The Orthodox apologist will typically not deny the very fundamental fact that when a heresy comes up, that it is not nearly enough merely to say “well we’re not going to define what the doctrine is, we’re just gonig to say that you’re wrong”. So on the one hand they’ll acknowlege the aboslute necessity of the “development of doctrine” in the west, on the other hand they’ll tell us that it is wrong to do so.

 

[Javl]

I would like to say that tenets, doctrines, and dogmas are NOTman made but developments in the understanding, and the definition, of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, each of which is supported by scripture ( the Bible ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem.

 

[crazzeto]

I would argue that the Orthodox have misidentified what the faith is, as have many a ultra-traditionalist Catholic (in particular those who fall into the error of schisim). They identify the faith being made up totally of the form of worship. The Catholic would disagree by and large, while not denying that form of worship remains important none-the-less.

To the Catholic, ultimiatly what is most important is the doctrine of faith. That is, the defined truths which are consistant with the Apistolic teaching. Take adoration, which you mentioned as “being something the fathers didn’t have”, and taken by some as evidence that we Catholic maintain a teaching that is not Apistolic.

The Orthodox Apologist, might argue that because Adoration is not verifiably a form of worship used by the fathers (more over, selectivly by their own favored fathers) that is thus a heresy against Christianity… But this view would take the parable of the mustard seed, and suggest that what happens when you plant the mustard seed in the ground is that it merely gets bigger. It never changes, not in anyway at all, you just get a bigger and bigger mustard seed.

But does that truely sound consitant with the parable?

I agree with your assessment of Orthodox reactions, definitely. And one would have to be a blind fool to ignore the huge mammoth role of popes in the wars against the various heresies. They often led the charge against heresy and led in crucial times of chaos.

I don’t think the Orthodox, at least most of the ones I know, would argue against the need for SOME development of doctrine. Obviously the councils were a development hammering out the specifics about who Christ really is and the essential nature of His being and mission and relationship to us all. They also are ok with how the councils defined polity and other issues. But I think the Orthodox are more conservative about development of doctrine. They have a less is more attitude. They feel that every single thing doesn’t need to be defined all the time in minutiae like the Catholics. That’s why we have Roman Catholics defining the exact way Christ appears in the Eucharist with Transubstantiation and the Orthodox still to this day refuse to define it leaving it to be a mysterion. The Orthodox are more into preserving what they have because they view it as the totality of God’s truth. They focus on the liturgy and the mysteries of it and, as a result, it’s untainted to this day while the Catholics have a watered-down Vatican II edition that most traditional to moderate Catholics would agree isn’t half the beauty of the pre Vatican II days. The Orthodox, from my observations, think that only the essentials, the big issues, need to be developed and really they already have so why continue to, in the Aquinas tradition, define and seek to develop one innovation after another? The Adoration of the Eucharist, Mary’s assumption, studying human sexuality in uber detail and regulating people’s marital relations in the bedroom, purgatory, treasuries of merit and indulgences, all these things never entered the Orthodox playing field. They have a higher view of a bishop’s local responsibilities to these topics than Catholics who believe one man should globally regulate it all. Different approaches.

 

[Javl]

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**.

Don’t be too sure. Read some of the letters of the early Church Fathers. Besides, Purgatory is a Christian expansion of the “Holding Place” of Judaism. Read “The Writings of Josephus” and Pliny the Younger.

 

[crazzeto]

Don’t be too sure. Read some of the letters of the early Church Fathers. Besides, Purgatory is a Christian expansion of the “Holding Place” of Judaism. Read “The Writings of Josephus” and Pliny the Younger.

The Orothodox apologist will claim that their faith tradition rejects the doctrine of purgatory, but it only does so in name only which is true of almost every single doctrine they claim to reject. They don’t reject the doctrine of purgatory, that is that there is a state a soul [or place] a state can be in, which is not heaven durring which they are purged of sins [through a painful process, perhaps as through fire] (latinizations in brackets). Rather, what the Orthodox reject is only the very idea that one can declare such a doctrine.

This gets at the subject matter I posted about earlier to gurney.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Orothodox apologist will claim that their faith tradition rejects the doctrine of purgatory, but it only does so in name only which is true of almost every single doctrine they claim to reject. They don’t reject the doctrine of purgatory, that is that there is a state a soul [or place] a state can be in, which is not heaven durring which they are purged of sins [through a painful process, perhaps as through fire] (latinizations in brackets). Rather, what the Orthodox reject is only the very idea that one can declare such a doctrine.

This gets at the subject matter I posted about earlier to gurney.

For Catholics, the doctrine of purgatory includes temporal punishment for sins, which the Orthodox strongly object to.

 

[crazzeto]

For Catholics, the doctrine of purgatory includes temporal punishment for sins, which the Orthodox strongly object to.

No, actually that is very much a part of their tradition if you research it. They do claim to object that fire is the cause of said pains and punishments… But that is not actually a part of doctrine… In fact, I would challenge you to read florance & trent, and come up with anything which offends Eastern doctrine. You can’t do it…

Ultimitaly what the argument boils down to then is, you made it doctrinal and we say you can’t do that. But then (again), that gets back to what I posted to gurney. Heretics came along and objected to said (at the time undefined) doctrine, thus there was a need to come to council and put to rest any question regarding the ancient teaching.

Until purgatory was challenged by heresy, there was no need for it to be defined in the West. Then it was challenged, and there was cause to define the doctrine. Thus the Church didn’t merely tell the heretics of the day that they were wrong and leave it at that, rather they defined the right teaching based upon scriptures and Apostolic tradition.

 

[Nicea325]

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!

Yes,but Jesus did not say: MY Flesh is of no consequence. He said THE Flesh. Of course “I am the vine” is symbolic. Jesus also said “I am the Door/Gate” but no one literally believed He meant to be an actual door/gate. Difference is that Jesus placed the bread in His hand and said: This IS my Body. He does not place His hands on a door or vine and say: This IS my Body.

It does not go both ways,that is the Protestant belief: either/or. That is where the human element comes into the mix.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldChurch40
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.

Exactly…opinions! Opinions mean diddly to God. The early Christians were different from early Roman Catholic Christians? In what ways? They had Mass already and it is even written by some church fathers. The early Christians certainly were not Protestants,if they were,tell me what denominations they attended?

BTW: I can also use the argument the early Christians had no Bible studies…did they? They also did not take their bible-in-hand to Sunday services…did they? The early Christians also did not have the core doctrines(Trinity,Incarnation,canon of scripture) all nicely defined and official like we do today…did they?

 

[AmateurPianist]

A pentecostal pastor told me the first Christians were pentecostals.

:extrahappy:

And this would be because the first Christians spoke in tongues and exercised the gifts of the Holy Spirit of course.

Well this example is as good as any to illustrate why all “the early church was us” arguments are fallacious.

Who decides what the metrics are and what are the relative importance of these metrics? Of course the answer is “we” who are making the claim of equivalency are the ones who select the metrics. And of course “we” will select the metrics most to our advantage. Hmmm…something seems wrong with this picture.

Maybe if we all can agree what the metrics are and their relative importance, a neutral party can do an assessment on who the first Christians most resembled. Other than that, this whole topic is just more internet arguing.

 

[crazzeto]

And this would be because the first Christians spoke in tongues and exercised the gifts of the Holy Spirit of course.

Well this example is as good as any to illustrate why all “the early church was us” arguments are fallacious.

Who decides what the metrics are and what are the relative importance of these metrics? Of course the answer is “we” who are making the claim of equivalency are the ones who select the metrics. And of course “we” will select the metrics most to our advantage. Hmmm…something seems wrong with this picture.

Maybe if we all can agree what the metrics are and their relative importance, a neutral party can do an assessment on who the first Christians most resembled. Other than that, this whole topic is just more internet arguing.

The early church was a lot of things including speaking in tounges… The genuine church should have room for all that the early Church was, and should only have developed in a trajectory which can be said to be “organic” from that first mustard seed that was planted.

Which church do you suppose that is?

 

[Nicea325]

And this would be because the first Christians spoke in tongues and exercised the gifts of the Holy Spirit of course.

Well this example is as good as any to illustrate why all “the early church was us” arguments are fallacious.

Who decides what the metrics are and what are the relative importance of these metrics? Of course the answer is “we” who are making the claim of equivalency are the ones who select the metrics. And of course “we” will select the metrics most to our advantage. Hmmm…something seems wrong with this picture.

Maybe if we all can agree what the metrics are and their relative importance, a neutral party can do an assessment on who the first Christians most resembled. Other than that, this whole topic is just more internet arguing.

I agree to a point. However, the some arguments fall on of the lines of:

The first Americans were not really Americans,because they did not pay the same amount taxes,they had no Social Security,IRA Roth/Traditional,FBI,ATF,DEA,etc,etc.

The above are mere developments and the early church also developed over time and that does not negate the church now.

 

[AmateurPianist]

The early church was a lot of things including speaking in tounges… The genuine church should have room for all that the early Church was, and should only have developed in a trajectory which can be said to be “organic” from that first mustard seed that was planted.

Which church do you suppose that is?

I have no idea what the second sentence means.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I agree to a point. However, the some arguments fall on of the lines of:

The first Americans were not really Americans,because they did not pay the same amount taxes,they had no Social Security,IRA Roth/Traditional,FBI,ATF,DEA,etc,etc.

The above are mere developments and the early church also developed over time and that does not negate the church now.

And I have no idea what you are saying either to be honest.

 

[Nicea325]

And I have no idea what you are saying either to be honest.

It is very simple. Many non-Catholics all so prone to pin-point to certain Catholic practices and say: The early Christians did not do those things.

Answer: The church is organic meaning what? It grew and with growth comes development. Jesus did not say His church must remain stagnant. If He said “Go and to preach to ALL nations” it is evident He wanted His church to be vast/universal.

I do not recall the early Christians going to Bible Study or carrying bibles in their hands. Does it make it wrong? No! Many additions have been added,but that does not equate into the notion it is not the same church in belief.

That is the point.

 

[crazzeto]

I have no idea what the second sentence means.

Organic growth referes to growth (i.e. development or change) which is natural to the original church. for an example see my posting regarding adoration.

 

[AmateurPianist]

It is very simple. Many non-Catholics all so prone to pin-point to certain Catholic practices and say: The early Christians did not do those things.

Answer: The church is organic meaning what? It grew and with growth comes development. Jesus did not say His church must remain stagnant. If He said “Go and to preach to ALL nations” it is evident He wanted His church to be vast/universal.

I do not recall the early Christians going to Bible Study or carrying bibles in their hands. Does it make it wrong? No! Many additions have been added,but that does not equate into the notion it is not the same church in belief.

That is the point.

Oh…

Well I was not thinking about cherry picking metrics to use against the other guy.

Although as I think about it, that too would be fallacious also…particularly metrics of the form “the early church did not do what you guys do (nah, nah, nah)”

I think we all (if we wanted to) could cherry pick our own selected metrics against the other guy that “the early church did not do”. If you wanted to, you could say against us “the early church did not have guitars in church (nah, nah, nah)”.

Wait a minute. The Church of Christ does exactly that.