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

[gurneyhalleck1]

Correct. And the Giants are up 6-2 against the Dodgers 9th inning!

Obviously it didn’t make sense to eat Jesus flesh thats why most of his disciples left and Jesus didn’t bother to stop them why do you think?

We are not sacrificing Christ again all we are doing is representing the one sacrifice that happened 2,000 yrs ago in memory of what he did.

God Bless
.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Of COURSE they were catholic; they had churches, the pope the the holy sacrements, confession, nuns, priests, the holy mass every week, hymns, the pilgrimages, the holy vatican in rome, bishops, the blessed cross… everything identical to today… the ONLY difference is they weren’t yet CALLED catholic.

Cashue,

Sources, please.

Anna

Is this a sarcastic post? If not,it is rather doubtful. The Vatican was certainly not there from the beginning, that is an almost silly thing to say.

I’m still waiting for Cashue’s sources.

Anna

 

[eddy714]

Thanks, Drive by Poster (aka eddy.) You’re gettn in the groove.

Anna

Hey was up Anna don’t think I for got about you just got caught up in my daily routine .

Here is the web site of the Catholic Apologetics you might enjoy it also I have exchanged email with Dr. James he is a pretty cool guy. Any questions you have he will be glad to answer yorked.podomatic.com/

And here is another Link to the 1st Eucharistic Miracle of Luciano Italy.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Hope Crazzeto hasn’t posted this already .

God Bless
Drive By Poster :manvspc:

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .Drive By Poster

I think “Drive By Eddy” sounds cooler. Like a guy you need to be careful of.

I like it.

Drive-by Eddy,

Your “cool” stock really went up today.

:kiss4you:

Anna

 

[eddy714]

Correct. And the Giants are up 6-2 against the Dodgers 9th inning!

Lol you guys got lucky I dont mind I got timmy on my fantasy BB.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hey was up Anna don’t think I for got about you just got caught up in my daily routine .

Here is the web site of the Catholic Apologetics you might enjoy it also I have exchanged email with Dr. James he is a pretty cool guy. Any questions you have he will be glad to answer yorked.podomatic.com/

And here is another Link to the 1st Eucharistic Miracle of Luciano Italy.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Hope Crazzeto hasn’t posted this already .

God Bless
Drive By Poster :manvspc:

Drive-by Eddy,

I’ll check them out.

Thanks,

Anna

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

t doesn’t make sense to literally eat Christ’s literal flesh; for His Sacrifice, where HE SHED His OWN BLOOD, was “once for all.”

it doesn’t make sense that God became man and died. but the evidence is there and you and i believe this. what you need to do is demonstrate the early church and the bible do not tell us that Christ literally said to gnaw on his flesh and drink his blood when the pharisees walked away.

what doesn’t make sense is that you’re religion takes as a matter of fact that the bible is inspired. you use luther’s bible which was taken from the catholics. luther certainly didn’t hold to your beliefs, then why trust his bible which is missing books? if it wasn’t for the catholic church, you wouldn’t have a protestant bible to misinterpret.

 

[Cashue]

Is this a sarcastic post? If not,it is rather doubtful. The Vatican was certainly not there from the beginning, that is an almost silly thing to say.

of course it wasn’t CALLED the vatican but they had the church fathers under peter in rome _ that’s what I meant

sorry I wasn’t explaining it properly… but you see my point, just because it wasn’t called catholic that was just a detail everything was the same as it is today, just with different names .

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

sorry I wasn’t explaining it properly… but you see my point, just because it wasn’t called catholic that was just a detail everything was the same as it is today, just with different names .

It’s a mistake to classify the early Church as Catholic. There were many different sects of Christianity even then which disagreed with eachother on fundamental issues including, but not limited to, the divinity of Jesus and the debate raged for centuries after his death. The Protestant Reformation is more aptly called the Protestant Resurgence.

 

[inkaneer]

It doesn’t make sense to literally eat Christ’s literal flesh; for His Sacrifice, where HE SHED His OWN BLOOD, was “once for all.”

Actually Jesus gave an answer to this in John 6. The Jews and some of Jesus’ own disciples were shocked at Jesus’ words claiming His flesh was the bread from heaven. Especially since Jesus compared Himself with the OT ‘bread from heaven’ the manna. The Jews knew the OT manna to be real food both literally as well as materially. They therefore understood Jesus claim of His flesh as food being both literally and materially. But that is not what Jesus meant. Notice in the passage Jesus does not clarify the literal meaning of His words. In fact He reinforces their literal meaning by using very descriptive words that are translated as ‘eat.’ They really mean ‘to gnaw’ or ‘to chew’. So Jesus does not correct their literal understanding of His words. But what He does correct is their understanding that His flesh is material food. Jesus says, “My words are spirit.” He is speaking not on a material level but on a spiritual level. His flesh is spiritual food for the soul not for the body as was the manna. The Jews of the timedid not get it. The Catholics did. Same today with protestants, they don’t get it either.

 

[inkaneer]

Is this a sarcastic post? If not,it is rather doubtful. The Vatican was certainly not there from the beginning, that is an almost silly thing to say.

Actually the Vatican was there. The name comes from the Roman name of a low hill present there called [drum roll please…] Vatican hill. This was outside the walls of Rome and not one of the ‘seven hills’ of ancient Rome. In addition Vatican Hill was situated on the opposite bank of the Tiber River from the seven hills of Rome. Peter was martyred and buried there and early christians marked his grave as Pappias accounts. Later when Christianity was recognized as a religion a church was built on the site. That church was destroyed * and the present St, Peter’s Basilica was built over it. Excavations under the main altar have located Peter’s grave.

Now Paul was martyred across the Tiber river along the Appian way. He was also martyred outside the walls of Rome and a church was built over his tomb also. It is called St. Paul’s Basilica or more commonly ‘St. Paul’s outside the walls’.*

 

[eddy714]

It’s a mistake to classify the early Church as Catholic. There were many different sects of Christianity even then which disagreed with eachother on fundamental issues including, but not limited to, the divinity of Jesus and the debate raged for centuries after his death. The Protestant Reformation is more aptly called the Protestant Resurgence.

Good Morning

It wasn’t sects it was people with different believes other then what the early church was teaching or contrary to what they where saying that where labeled as heresies.

Also remember that it was Luthers intent to reform the Catholic Church not to start a new sort of believe which that is what happened that triggered a domino effect to bring up different believes from the shadows.

God Bless

 

[inkaneer]

It’s a mistake to classify the early Church as Catholic. There were many different sects of Christianity even then which disagreed with eachother on fundamental issues including, but not limited to, the divinity of Jesus and the debate raged for centuries after his death. The Protestant Reformation is more aptly called the Protestant Resurgence.

There were Catholics and there were heretical sects. But there was only one Gospel which Jesus said His Church would preach until He returned. Those heretical sects died out. The Catholic Church is still here and will be until the end of the age. As for the ‘protestant reformation’ it is more aptly called the ‘protestant rebellion’ as it reformed nothing. I guess ‘reformers’ sounds better than ‘heretics’.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"The early church was indeed Catholic. The church got its name ‘Catholic’ from the Book of Acts in which the term "ecclesia kata holis’’ was used by Luke. Later Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch, would use the term and he is the first that we today know definitely who did. However, the way in which he uses it seems to indicate the term was already in use. That early church was a heirarchial church with bishops, priests and deacons just as the Catholic Church today. That church was led by a universal bishop as evidenced by the church at Corinth in 80 AD writing to Rome for guidance and Pope Clement responding to their request. That early church had seven sacraments administered by the bishop or priests. There was no sola scriptura in the early church and there would not be any sola scriptura until it was invented in the 16th century. The early church was a church with authority to define doctrine and to define what constituted scripture. No protestant sect comes close to what the early church was.

Denying the Catholicity of the early church one is left with claims like those of some Baptists who attempt to trace their way back to Jesus and the Apostles by claiming as their ancestors every heretical group that ever existed as in The Trail of Blood account of William Carroll. It didn’t matter if they were dualists and believed in two gods or preached suicide as a noble act. What mattered was they were not Catholic. That is why to be protestant one must be able to leap over 1500 years of Catholic Christianity and start with what they mistakenly call a ‘Reformation’.

As for the Orthodox who left us after the first millenium may I say that early church history shows that every heresy in the early church originated in the eastern church. In fact some of your Patriarchs, such as Nestorius, were heretics. Constantine, although he did not know it, did the Catholic Church a favor when he moved the capitol of the empire to Byzantium. That way he and his succeeding emperors could corrupt the eastern church, which they did. And where were you when the Barbarians threatened Rome? Where were you when the Dark Ages fell on Western Europe? You offered no assistence. You deny the universality of the pope yet you were not above begging for his assistence when threatened by Moslem forces. Even then when help did arrive in the form of the Crusades you not only failed to provide the support you promised but you conspired with the Moslems to kill the Crusaders who were fellow Christians. Its no wonder the fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople. And lastly, did you ever think that losing Constantinople and the Church of the Holy Spirit [the Haggia Sophia] to the Moslems might possibly be God’s punishment for your schism? Well, maybe you should. "

Wow. You sound scary. :bigyikes:

Anna

Sometimes the truth can be scary. I’m sure the Jews and some of Jesus disciples upon hearing Jesus give the Eucharistic discourse in John chapter 6 thought Jesus sounded scary too.

 

[SpectatorX]

It’s a mistake to classify the early Church as Catholic. There were many different sects of Christianity even then which disagreed with eachother on fundamental issues including, but not limited to, the divinity of Jesus and the debate raged for centuries after his death. The Protestant Reformation is more aptly called the Protestant Resurgence.

Sources, please.

:dancing:

I’m not just being ironic, though. You’ve just asserted the very assertion I was calling out when I made the opening post. When disagreements popped up, they were settled at councils. The stubborn people who still dissented formed their own heretical sects, sure, but none of them were “Protestants” in any modern sense of the word, and none of them survive to this day. As such, your “Protestant Resurgence” thinger gave me a chuckle. It assumes a Trail of Blood-esque historical view, which is a particularly silly one. Furthermore, not that you asserted otherwise, to say that the Catholic Church of today isn’t the Church of “then” (or at least that it isn’t a product of the evolution thereof, for good or ill - which is the most convincing stance I can yet imagine my opposition taking even given my incredulous stance toward Great Apostasy talk) is something of a stretch.

Color me unconvinced.

 

[SpectatorX]

Sometimes the truth can be scary. I’m sure the Jews and some of Jesus disciples upon hearing Jesus give the Eucharistic discourse in John chapter 6 thought Jesus sounded scary too.

Put me in for a scary vote, too. While I was unaware of an Orthodox betrayal during the Crusades (Darn it, Jim, I’m a chemist, not a historian!) - and I do find that interesting - I have to wonder where the conta-Orthodox argument came from. Were you intending to reply to someone else, or did you just go off on a tangent?

Either way, I can relate all too well. Especially the tangent part. I think there are five or six in the OP alone. The Spectator loves him a good tangent.

:salivate:

mmm… tangent…

Anyway, now I’m interested. How did the Eastern guys sell us out during the Crusades? I’m a little confused now given that “us” Westerners went to liberate the Eastern kingdoms from Islamic rule in the first place.

Or perhaps I assume too much when I say liberate…?

It’s so hard to know what “facts” I’ve been taught by the public school system are true when I know the whole package they sold me was skewed to make the whole mess look like a case of evil, backward, superstitious Christians lashing out against the peaceful, sophisticated, secular-humanist Moslems.

 

[josie_L]

Actually the Vatican was there. The name comes from the Roman name of a low hill present there called [drum roll please…] Vatican hill. This was outside the walls of Rome and not one of the ‘seven hills’ of ancient Rome. In addition Vatican Hill was situated on the opposite bank of the Tiber River from the seven hills of Rome. Peter was martyred and buried there and early christians marked his grave as Pappias accounts. Later when Christianity was recognized as a religion a church was built on the site. That church was destroyed * and the present St, Peter’s Basilica was built over it. Excavations under the main altar have located Peter’s grave.

Now Paul was martyred across the Tiber river along the Appian way. He was also martyred outside the walls of Rome and a church was built over his tomb also. It is called St. Paul’s Basilica or more commonly ‘St. Paul’s outside the walls’.*

I believe that Matthew in Chapter 5 verse 14 “You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden.” is referring to the Vatican.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is warped logic. The Roman Church lost so much ground in North Africa to Islam as well. Was that punishment from God? Was the Reformation punishment from God? Were the millions of Catholics who converted to Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, and every other denomination over the last few hundred years punishment laid out upon Catholicism for its sins? I don’t think so…This post is excessively harsh, outlandish?

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
And lastly, did you ever think that losing Constantinople and the Church of the Holy Spirit [the Haggia Sophia] to the Moslems might possibly be God’s punishment for your schism? Well, maybe you should. "

Sometimes the truth can be scary. I’m sure the Jews and some of Jesus disciples upon hearing Jesus give the Eucharistic discourse in John chapter 6 thought Jesus sounded scary too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Funny. I went through the same public education system K-12 all the way. I never heard that wacky version of history? Sounds Glen Beckian to me. I was always taught that the Crusades were a series of wars between Islam and Christianity. We were given the facts, the battles, the results, and left to draw our own conclusions.

It’s so hard to know what “facts” I’ve been taught by the public school system are true when I know the whole package they sold me was skewed to make the whole mess look like a case of evil, backward, superstitious Christians lashing out against the peaceful, sophisticated, secular-humanist Moslems.

 

[josie_L]

Put me in for a scary vote, too. While I was unaware of an Orthodox betrayal during the Crusades (Darn it, Jim, I’m a chemist, not a historian!) - and I do find that interesting - I have to wonder where the conta-Orthodox argument came from. Were you intending to reply to someone else, or did you just go off on a tangent?

Either way, I can relate all too well. Especially the tangent part. I think there are five or six in the OP alone. The Spectator loves him a good tangent.

:salivate:

mmm… tangent…

Anyway, now I’m interested. How did the Eastern guys sell us out during the Crusades? I’m a little confused now given that “us” Westerners went to liberate the Eastern kingdoms from Islamic rule in the first place.

You will find this in Warren Carroll’s (historian and convert to the Church) Christendom series, and this website as well:

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/crusade_sacking_constantinopole.htm