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

[Ferde_Rombola]

Very true.If one takes the time to read many of the writings of the eastern church fathers,one will easily detect how many of the heresies or doctrinal issues were brought to Rome or Rome was informed. Nonetheless,many will argue,especially Orthodoxs that bishops always consulted each other when issues arrived? True,but what makes Rome different is that those eastern bishops took or presented the issues to Rome to make the final decision on the matter. If Rome has no jurisdiction over other regions or bishops,then why even bother taking it to Rome to settle it?

Your words are not better exemplified than with the Nestorian Heresy. The principals, Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria were both Eastern bishops of an Ancient See. Both wrote to Pope Celestine asking him to support their cause. The Pope ignored Nestorius, told Cyril to act for him in condemning Nestorius and the rest is history.

There is** no question** the Eastern bishops of the first eight centuries recognized the See of Peter as having authority over the entire Church. Then the Muslims took over the East.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Maybe good research into Orthodoxy should be done. Let me know how it goes …

If you’ve followed my posts, I am aware of every single fact you lay out here, brother. And I have made the same point about the East in previous posts. However, it is unhelpful and unnecessary to point out ‘where’ the heresies sprang from as they have nothing to do with the East or West taking the blame. Donatism and Pelagianism are western heresies yet should the pope or the West be blamed for them? Arianism and Nestorianism are Eastern heresies yet should the East be held responsible? These nutty heresies were the problem of EVERYONE in the Church from east to west, north to south. And there were uncooperative bishops throughout Church history all over the place, including one idiotic heretic pope named Honorius I who advocated monothelitism and sent legates to a council to advocate that position with the other bishops. Yet I wouldn’t blame the West for monothelitism. These heresies largely occured PRIOR to the horribly sad schism of 1054 so breaking them up into eastern and western heresies isn’t helpful. They were everyone’s problem.

And your post doesn’t really address my original point. My post was trying in my own feeble way to address the idea that the idea of the Muslim conquering the Orthodox lands was somehow a punishment for their theology, etc. being ridiculous. That was my post. Your post deals more with heresies and blaming different parties. My post had nothing do with heresies and everything to do with the fact that both East and West lost land from invaders, atheists, communists, Muslims, and everything else. Some idiots might say the Catholics and Protestants have gotten what they deserve in Europe with Europe now being a socialist-style atheistic continent. I WOULDN’T make that assertion that it’s somehow the Church’s fault either way. History has a funny way of unraveling itself.

That is a very fair and even-handed assessment and I agree with it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re too kind. Thanks so much, Ferde. Blessings.

That is a very fair and even-handed assessment and I agree with it.

 

[Nicea325]

Your words are not better exemplified than with the Nestorian Heresy. The principals, Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria were both Eastern bishops of an Ancient See. Both wrote to Pope Celestine asking him to support their cause. The Pope ignored Nestorius, told Cyril to act for him in condemning Nestorius and the rest is history.

There is** no question** the Eastern bishops of the first eight centuries recognized the See of Peter as having authority over the entire Church. Then the Muslims took over the East.

Unfortunately,most modern Orthodoxs will deny it and state the eastern church fathers were misinterpretated by the RCC in order to prove papal jurisdiction.Hogwash! There is case after case where Rome was the place to settle it! It is called denials of historical facts!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Part 1 of 2–Response to Ferde Rombola

In one of her appearances at Fatima, the Blessed Virgin Mary showed the children a literal, physical burning as an eternal torment. Do I believe it? Let’s just say I’m not prepared to deny it. There are a lot of very hot spots out there in the universe and the Lord said what He said.

The Church teaches a literal hell as a place of eternal punishment for the damned. I believe it exists, whatever its form.:bigyikes:

You seem to hold an entirely different belief than Pope John Paul II? Which of the two beliefs do you think the early Church held? Please provided sources for your answer.

(Emphasis is mine.)

**HEAVEN, HELL AND PURGATORY
Pope John Paul II

Hell is the State of Those who Reject God**

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that “hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

**1. **God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. **It is not a punishment imposed externally by God **but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.

In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.
Hell is a state of eternal damnation

2. To describe this reality **Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language **which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez. 28:8; 31:14; Jb. 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb. 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.

Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk. 16:19-3 1).
The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv. 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for 'eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thes 1:9).

3. *The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. **This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

**“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. **In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

We are saved from going to hell by Jesus who conquered Satan

Continued—Next Post

 

[Anna_Scott]

**Part 2 of 2: Response to Ferde Rombola

Continued----**

(Emphasis is mine.)

**HEAVEN, HELL AND PURGATORY
Pope John Paul II

Hell is the State of Those who Reject God**

***At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that “hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

---

**4. **Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God.

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the, Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family … save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.”

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com​

Respectfully,
Anna

 

[Javl]

An excellent post Anna. A BIG THANK YOU!

Might I also remind all that the ideas of Purgatory and Hell are original Judaic concepts ( read all of the Old Testament for references ). Since Christianity is a fulfillment ( Completion ) of Judism, it was only natural that the Church would carry over these concepts and expand on them. If you believe that the complete Bible is the Word of God, then believe that Purgatory and Hell are real and do exist.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Javl,

First of all, please don’t think I’m doubting you. But what I would like are some citations or references, links, etc. to Judaic thinking on purgatory, etc. Thanks, brother

gurney

An excellent post Anna. A BIG THANK YOU!

Might I also remind all that the ideas of Purgatory and Hell are original Judaic concepts ( read all of the Old Testament for references ). Since Christianity is a fulfillment ( Completion ) of Judism, it was only natural that the Church would carry over these concepts and expand on them. If you believe that the complete Bible is the Word of God, then believe that Purgatory and Hell are real and do exist.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Hi Javl,

First of all, please don’t think I’m doubting you. But what I would like are some citations or references, links, etc. to Judaic thinking on purgatory, etc. Thanks, brother

gurney

I only know from some of the teachings of the Hasidic Jews, and I do not have the Tanakh or Torah at hand. The only references I can give are the writings of Flavius Josephus, Clio, Pliny the Younger, etc. Also, besides the New Testament, there are mentions throughout the Old Testament…

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Protestant101]

An excellent post Anna. A BIG THANK YOU!

Might I also remind all that the ideas of Purgatory and Hell are original Judaic concepts ( read all of the Old Testament for references ). Since Christianity is a fulfillment ( Completion ) of Judism, it was only natural that the Church would carry over these concepts and expand on them. If you believe that the complete Bible is the Word of God, then believe that Purgatory and Hell are real and do exist.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Why then won’t you come home and “carry over” that seventh-day Sabbath you love to argue about then?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Because the Law of Moses is not the core of Christianity and the Sabbath was indeed tied to that. What Javl is saying is that some aspects of the SPIRITUALITY of the Jewish people carried over into Catholicism, some liturgical practices as well. They didn’t completely throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just a curious question as I’m by no means an SDA expert, why do you guys think it so important to avoid pork and obey the sabbath and act like Jews when Paul is so blatantly telling us in the NT that the Jewish Law no longer binds us and the early Christians jettisoned the Jewish knit-picking laws and prohibitions? SDA sounds like the Judaizers that Paul was trying to fight off and that Peter admitted were a dead-end road? And the Lord Himself said the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath and obviously took it less seriously than SDA do? Seems very innovative and not at all in line with the early fathers, the early church or 2000 years of Christianity and not even close to Protestant thinking?

Why then won’t you come home and “carry over” that seventh-day Sabbath you love to argue about then?

 

[Protestant101]

Because the Law of Moses is not the core of Christianity and the Sabbath was indeed tied to that. What Javl is saying is that some aspects of the SPIRITUALITY of the Jewish people carried over into Catholicism, some liturgical practices as well. They didn’t completely throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just a curious question as I’m by no means an SDA expert, why do you guys think it so important to avoid pork and obey the sabbath and act like Jews when Paul is so blatantly telling us in the NT that the Jewish Law no longer binds us and the early Christians jettisoned the Jewish knit-picking laws and prohibitions? SDA sounds like the Judaizers that Paul was trying to fight off and that Peter admitted were a dead-end road? And the Lord Himself said the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath and obviously took it less seriously than SDA do? Seems very innovative and not at all in line with the early fathers, the early church or 2000 years of Christianity and not even close to Protestant thinking?

Well; show me one text in the Bible that calls the Sabbath “Jewish.” It is not “the law of Moses;” or the “Jewish Sabbath.” The Bible calls it “the sabbath OF THE LORD THY GOD.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, first of all, may God protect you in Iraq. Blessings. Secondly, there’s no need to sell me on the Real Presence with these HUGE posts, brother. I was already sold back in 1991 when I came to the Church. I still believe in the real presence, always have, and would never change my view.

It begs the question why you question the Catholic belief on John 6 on the Bread Discourse.

 

[crazzeto]

Well; show me one text in the Bible that calls the Sabbath “Jewish.” It is not “the law of Moses;” or the “Jewish Sabbath.” The Bible calls it “the sabbath OF THE LORD THY GOD.”

God rested on the 7th day when he finished creation, Jesus rose from the dead on the 8th day, the day of the new creation. Christians, from the days of the Apostles them selves, always broke bread on the 8th day, and called it Sabbath. The original Jewish Christians, also maintained their spiritual practices for as long as they could, that is, until the Jews kicked them out of the temple.

 

[crazzeto]

It begs the question why you question the Catholic belief on John 6 on the Bread Discourse.

Manny, I really don’t know what to say about your post… He does not deny Christ’s presense in the Eucharist. You are in error by making this assumption.

 

[SpectatorX]

It really depends on where you go to school. A lot of folks like to paint the public system with a broad brush and demonize it as reverse-prosletyzing the new world order of atheist socialism with no soul. I think that’s pretty true in many of the universities/colleges. Maybe that’s the way it is in the Bay Area or L.A. Hard telling because I don’t live there. But in the California “curriculum” which you can view online if you’re interested, it’s pretty broad and fair IMO. In sixth grade I am required to teach “early man” which presents the different theories of evolution, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity (which includes Polycarp, Paul, the Pope, Catholicism, etc.), polytheism in the ancient world vs. monotheism, etc. We study religion and our book is VERY friendly and optimistic about each religion and view. The book we use, harcourt brace, is neutral and just tells what each religion believed/believes and how it impacted history. We even do our district writing assessment at sixth grade on “The Prodigal Son” and the kids write about Christ and the impact of his parable on people. Most folks on CAF think we’re all out to suck the soul out of kids in the public system and we’re hostile to religion. Poppycock. Maybe somewhere in this country, but not in my district. And in our state these religions MUST be taught as per standards.

The crusades are taught in high school. So I can’t speak to what they say about them NOW but when I was a kid it was pretty cut and dry…

In my area there is a lot of the opposite of what you might expect. It’s largely GOP here and you’ll never hear a teacher around here sucking up to Obama and his posse trust me!

Hah! Yet in rural Missouri, no child is safe from the great humanist machine.

That’s so surprisingly and hilariously backward. I love it.

 

[crazzeto]

:blink:

Surely you can’t be suggesting any place in this country understands freedom of religion, as opposed to freedom from religion.

It really depends on where you go to school. A lot of folks like to paint the public system with a broad brush and demonize it as reverse-prosletyzing the new world order of atheist socialism with no soul. I think that’s pretty true in many of the universities/colleges. Maybe that’s the way it is in the Bay Area or L.A. Hard telling because I don’t live there. But in the California “curriculum” which you can view online if you’re interested, it’s pretty broad and fair IMO. In sixth grade I am required to teach “early man” which presents the different theories of evolution, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity (which includes Polycarp, Paul, the Pope, Catholicism, etc.), polytheism in the ancient world vs. monotheism, etc. We study religion and our book is VERY friendly and optimistic about each religion and view. The book we use, harcourt brace, is neutral and just tells what each religion believed/believes and how it impacted history. We even do our district writing assessment at sixth grade on “The Prodigal Son” and the kids write about Christ and the impact of his parable on people. Most folks on CAF think we’re all out to suck the soul out of kids in the public system and we’re hostile to religion. Poppycock. Maybe somewhere in this country, but not in my district. And in our state these religions MUST be taught as per standards.

The crusades are taught in high school. So I can’t speak to what they say about them NOW but when I was a kid it was pretty cut and dry…

In my area there is a lot of the opposite of what you might expect. It’s largely GOP here and you’ll never hear a teacher around here sucking up to Obama and his posse trust me!

 

[Protestant101]

God rested on the 7th day when he finished creation, Jesus rose from the dead on the 8th day, the day of the new creation. Christians, from the days of the Apostles them selves, always broke bread on the 8th day, and called it Sabbath. The original Jewish Christians, also maintained their spiritual practices for as long as they could, that is, until the Jews kicked them out of the temple.

But the Bible clearly calls it “Sabbath of the Lord thy God…”

 

[crazzeto]

But the Bible clearly calls it “Sabbath of the Lord thy God…”

A direct quotation of the KJV:

Mar 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
**Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: **
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

It was the Apostles who taught that Jesus rose on the 8th day, the new sabbath. Are you charging that Christ’s Apostles were wrong?

 

[Araninski]

Hope this can help.

Colossians 2:16-17

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”

God bless!