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

[josie_L]

josie L,

I’ll restate to clear up any confusion about my statement.

I suppose it’s not so complicated. “. . . .Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. . . . .”

Anna

Ok, but just keep in mind what I said, i.e., the Pope is bound by the deposit of faith when he teaches, as such if he should ever deviate from it he would be excommunicated from the body of Christ.

p.s. Thus far however he has had a great track record.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, I disagree with Pope John Paul II. My sources are the Scripture passages cited by the Pope and the account of the Blessed Mother’s appearance at Fatima, which the Pope failed to mention.

His statement that hell is not a place is pure conjecture. There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.

. . . .There are few greater admirers of John Paul II than I, but my admiration falls somewhat short of adulation. He was a brilliant man but, as Supreme Pontiff, tended to lose focus. He spent a lot of time traveling and writing, involving young people in the Church and building bridges to other faith confessions, much to his credit, but he allowed the heresies of the Church in the US and Western Europe to fester and didn’t do as much as he should have done to eliminate homosexuality from the clergy. . . . .

Isn’t it hilarious how non-Catholics condemn the Church as being dictatorial and dogmatic, then condemn Catholics who express an independent opinion? If there’s a better way to exemplify anti-Catholic bigotry, I’d like to see it.

Not helpful.

I’m sure it seems that way, but it’s not. Protestant private interpretation involves a private interpreter’s right to declare dogma by virtue of his private interpretation. My disagreement with JPII involves opinion, not dogma. I do not declare myself right, as protestant private interpreters do. I merely say I disagree with another Catholic about the properties of Hell.

As I said, your problem is not me, it’s your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, the authority of the papacy and the rights of conscious as extended to all the faithful.

Again, not helpful.

No it isn’t. You’ve been told at least three times you do not understand the doctrine of infallibility. Instead of investigating what the doctrine actually teaches, you insist on forcing a definition of your own invention on us.

We’re Catholics. We understand the doctrine of infallibility. You don’t.

I haven’t given any definition re the doctrine of infallibility/non-infallibility, except the quote from Lumen Gentium from the Vatican website.
Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

. . . .From what I gather from you, you have no intention to consider Catholicism. You seem to want to prove the Church’s teachings are wrong. Good luck with that.

I’m just looking for answers. Assumptions about my intentions are not helpful.

Very funny. You asked for the Church’s teaching on hell. I directed you to the relevant section in the Catechism. Guess you missed it. Or you’re not really interested in the answers to your questions, which you indicate by asking the same questions over and over again after the answer has been given to you a dozen times.

I appreciate the CCC on Hell. I’m sorry I didn’t respond. The oversight was not intentional.

The CCC re hell does not change my position. I still agree with Pope John Paul II.

Well, at least I am in good company. According to your statement, Pope John Paul II and Pope Pope Benedict XVI missed that teaching on hell, too.

Oh really? Do you even know what it is??

I already posted (#423 & 424) HEAVEN, HELL AND PURGATORY, which is the view of Pope John Paul II. I agree with JPII–that the fire of hell is not literal.

Part 1 of 2–Response to Ferde Rombola . . . .
(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”.
Ferde Rombola;6915489:

I’m sorry, Crazzeto, she has asked how Catholics deal with fallible teaching too many times to have missed the numerous answers given to her by you and others.

What I posted to her was clear. If she missed it, she didn’t read it. f she didn’t read it, what’s the point?

How is this talk helpful?

Ferde Rombloa,

Which post of yours about fallible teachings did I miss? Any oversight was not intentional. . . . .

I didn’t post anything about fallible teachings. Crazzeto said you may have missed my reference to you about the Church’s teaching on Hell. That’s what I responded to.

Ferde,

I get it. You disagree with Pope John Paul II regarding hell and you believe “His statement that hell is not a place is pure conjecture. There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.” And, you believe Pope John Paul II “allowed the heresies of the Church in the US and Western Europe to fester and didn’t do as much as he should have done to eliminate homosexuality from the clergy.” I get that too. I don’t agree with you, but I get what you are saying.

Is there anything else you want me to know, other than your disagreement with Pope John Paul II regarding “hell”?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ok, but just keep in mind what I said, i.e., the Pope is bound by the deposit of faith when he teaches, as such if he should ever deviate from it he would be excommunicated from the body of Christ.

p.s. Thus far however he has had a great track record.

Got it.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[bluelake]

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?

Lower case (c)atholic means , universal.
The early christians were beleivers. The Bible called them Apostolic believers. They accepted the teachings of the Apostles.

bluelake

lic

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Lower case (c)atholic means , universal.
The early christians were beleivers. The Bible called them Apostolic believers. They accepted the teachings of the Apostles.

bluelake

lic

They were also united in a single body of believers.

The Church spoke with authority. Here the apostles discuss Luther:

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia and Bavaria: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Just kidding, but you see the point!

 

[former_Catholic]

The earliest church were Essenes and Coptics, who fled to the desert to escape the Romans and the fate of James.
Constantinian founded the Roman Universal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, as the official state church of Rome, organizing it according to Roman law and custom, all the way down to the Roman custom of candlelit statues of the gods in the temples. The early church operated under Jewish law and made no graven images.

 

[guanophore]

You missed the “protestant verses” of John 6!

The verses were written by, for, and about Catholics. It is only your perception of them that is “Protestant”. We read the verses through different lenses. Catholics use the lenses of Apostolic Teaching found in the Sacred Tradition deposited “once for all” to the church. You read them through the lenses of modern innovations that have been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500 + years.

 

[guanophore]

So, if anyone rejects the Immaculate Conception of Mary, they will burn in hell?

I think you did not understand what I wrote.

I didn’t even think Catholics believed in a literal burning in hell.

Anna

Catholics wrote the NT. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. What part of the NT gave you the impression that hell was not “literal”?

I really miss your posts. Lots of people are posting, but without sources. You gave sources for Catholic beliefs in the early Church, and I felt like I had something to work with.

Anna

Indeed you will be limited if you do not recognize that the NT is a “Catholic source”. It is clear in the NT that the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thanks, gurney.

I’ll add them to my list. I agree that it is important to study different vantage points.

You may be the only one who is still talking to me.

Anna

I went to the library and studied everything they had.

Save some $$$.

 

[EddieMc]

It strikes me as funny how Protestants do not even know themselves. The root word for Protestant is to Protest. In order to be a Protestant (a Non Catholic Christian) you must be Protesting something. So what are they Protesting if not the Catholic Church and therefore the Catholic Church had to come before them.

EddieMc

 

[crazzeto]

CHESTERTONRULES,

Glad to know you’ll talk to me. shaw:

I do understand that the Truth of the Catholic Church is not confirmed or negated by individual Catholics. This thread did help drive that home.

Thanks so much,
Anna

Hey, I talk to you too! =) More over I’d love to state here that I think you’ve been a terrific blessing for this forum, certainly for me. Your threads have always been lively and fully of good through provoking postings.

Just one suggestion moving forward, in the myriad of books recommended, don’t forget to pick up a few good ones on the Catholic side. You’ve read Dr. Hahn already, I’d suggest more over some books that may not seem terribly directly related, but probably will end up helping quite a bit.

For instance Pope Benedict XVI - Jesus of Nazereth.

After all, that’s ultimatly what this is all about anyway right?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The earliest church were Essenes and Coptics, who fled to the desert to escape the Romans and the fate of James.
Constantinian founded the Roman Universal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, as the official state church of Rome, organizing it according to Roman law and custom, all the way down to the Roman custom of candlelit statues of the gods in the temples. The early church operated under Jewish law and made no graven images.

That’s not true.

Here’s the earliest Church:

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[crazzeto]

The earliest church were Essenes and Coptics, who fled to the desert to escape the Romans and the fate of James.
Constantinian founded the Roman Universal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, as the official state church of Rome, organizing it according to Roman law and custom, all the way down to the Roman custom of candlelit statues of the gods in the temples. The early church operated under Jewish law and made no graven images.

A careful reading of Romans 14 & 15 will disprove this. The entire point of this discourse is to discuss that, while it is good for Jewish Christians to observe the old customs, they should not be wraped up in them so much that they adomoish the gentile Christians. Likewise, the gentile Christians should not, for instance, eat pork infront of the jewish Christans in respect.

Rom 14:10 But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? Or thou, why dost thou despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 Therefore every one of us shall render account to God for himself.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother’s way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then our good be evil spoken of.
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink: but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
…
Rom 15:1 Now, we that are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves.
Rom 15:2 Let every one of you Please his neighbour unto good, to edification.
Rom 15:3 For Christ did not please himself: but, as it is written: The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me.
Rom 15:4 For what things soever were written were written for our learning: that, through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope.
Rom 15:5 Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind, one towards another, according to Jesus Christ:
Rom 15:6 That with one mind and with one mouth you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hey, I talk to you too! =) More over I’d love to state here that I think you’ve been a terrific blessing for this forum, certainly for me. Your threads have always been lively and fully of good through provoking postings.

Just one suggestion moving forward, in the myriad of books recommended, don’t forget to pick up a few good ones on the Catholic side. You’ve read Dr. Hahn already, I’d suggest more over some books that may not seem terribly directly related, but probably will end up helping quite a bit.

For instance Pope Benedict XVI - Jesus of Nazereth.

After all, that’s ultimatly what this is all about anyway right?

Crazzeto,

I’m glad you’ll still talk to me. We’ve participated on a number of threads together, and I always appreciate your contributions and your willingness to discuss the issues and answer questions in such a respectful way.

I am going to read more Catholic authors. I’m trying to do a balanced study from different perspectives. So, I appreciate the suggestions. And yes, ultimately that is what it’s all about.

In considering the forums, the positives still out weigh the negatives. As you know, I’ve worked out many changes in my beliefs right here on the forums.

Still working out my salvation in fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[guanophore]

A direct quotation of the KJV:

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?

No, Protestatant 101 is correct on this point, the Sabbath preceeded the Law of Moses. It also cannot be shown that Sunday was ever called the “sabbath” by the early church. The Lord’s Day (8th day) was celebrated by the early church along with the Sabbath (7th day). It was not until the gospel went to the Gentiles that the Church decided not to hold the Gentiles to the observance of the Law of Moses, which contained a great many.regulations about it’s observance.

The early Church, as is clear in the book of Hebrews, considered Christ, not the 8th day, the fulfillment of the Sabbath. He is our Sabbath rest. The Church chose the 8th day to keep holy and to focus on entering into His rest.

It is beyond the purview of the Church to change the Laws of God, so the Sabbath cannot be changed by man, even though it was made for him.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I disagree with Pope John Paul II. My sources are the Scripture passages cited by the Pope and the account of the Blessed Mother’s appearance at Fatima, which the Pope failed to mention.

His statement that hell is not a place is pure conjecture. There isn’t a word in Scripture to support it.

No, it is not conjecture at all. Jesus taught that hell exists outside of our space/time continuum, so it is more appropriately referred to as a “state” than a “place”. Our minds, being largely confined to the place-time continuum, tend to materialze eternal realities, but heaven, hell, and purgatory are not confined to our physical existence. I think part of the problem we have in these types of discussions is the erroneous thinking that "literal’ is equivalent to tangible reality, where as the vast majority of what is “real” is not within our tangible reality.

 

[crazzeto]

No, Protestatant 101 is correct on this point, the Sabbath preceeded the Law of Moses. It also cannot be shown that Sunday was ever called the “sabbath” by the early church. The Lord’s Day (8th day) was celebrated by the early church along with the Sabbath (7th day). It was not until the gospel went to the Gentiles that the Church decided not to hold the Gentiles to the observance of the Law of Moses, which contained a great many.regulations about it’s observance.

The early Church, as is clear in the book of Hebrews, considered Christ, not the 8th day, the fulfillment of the Sabbath. He is our Sabbath rest. The Church chose the 8th day to keep holy and to focus on entering into His rest.

It is beyond the purview of the Church to change the Laws of God, so the Sabbath cannot be changed by man, even though it was made for him.

Except that by rising from the dead on the 8th day, God created a new sabbath on that day, the day of the new creation. Yes for a time both were celebrated, because for a time Christianity was fully of Jews… Just like Peter and the whole of Christendom originally abstained from unclean food.

However the Jews would turn on the Christians, and kick them out of the temple. Worship is now on Sunday, and Sunday is the sabbath due to the new creation.

If you have any questions, check out the CCC

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a3.htm#2168

See fulfillment of the sabbath paragraph 2175

 

[GKC]

No, it is not conjecture at all. Jesus taught that hell exists outside of our space/time continuum, so it is more appropriately referred to as a “state” than a “place”. Our minds, being largely confined to the place-time continuum, tend to materialze eternal realities, but heaven, hell, and purgatory are not confined to our physical existence. I think part of the problem we have in these types of discussions is the erroneous thinking that "literal’ is equivalent to tangible reality, where as the vast majority of what is “real” is not within our tangible reality.

I agree.

GKC

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No, it is not conjecture at all. Jesus taught that hell exists outside of our space/time continuum, so it is more appropriately referred to as a “state” than a “place”. Our minds, being largely confined to the place-time continuum, tend to materialze eternal realities, but heaven, hell, and purgatory are not confined to our physical existence. I think part of the problem we have in these types of discussions is the erroneous thinking that "literal’ is equivalent to tangible reality, where as the vast majority of what is “real” is not within our tangible reality.

Okay, I’m willing to be persuaded. Book, chapter and verse where Jesus taught that hell exists outside our space/time continuum.

CCC 632 teaches that Christ “joined the others in the realm of the dead.” A ‘realm’ is a place, not a state of being.

CCC 633 calls hell an ‘abode.’ An abode is a place, specifically a place of residence…a place where one abides and is located. Further, “…[Christ] descended into hell.” ‘Descend’ implies direction. One doesn’t descent to a state, one descends to a place. As I understand English, anyway.

‘Gehenna’ is a place. Why are the allusions to ‘fiery torment’ which Jesus mentions more than once, necessary if hell is a state of being? ‘Fiery torment’ is physical. If you and JPII are right, the Lord deliberately caused confusion. I don’t think so.

I’d also like to know what support you have for what you allege in your last sentence above beginning, “I think part of the problem we have…”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As do I, old boy (British accent), quite…

I agree.

GKC