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

[Anna_Scott]

I’m not attempting to define the word “literal” in the framework of scholarly exegesis. I used the word “literal” to mean “literal physical burning hell.” That’s very clear in my posts both to you & to Ferde Rombola.

You’ve “cherry picked” the article.

Evidently it is a misrepresentation; because, as the article said, "Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in “straightfoward” language ‘like a parish priest’. He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a ‘state of eternal separation from God’, to be understood ‘symbolically rather than physically’. . . . ."

You also failed to comment on the other article, entitled, What the Pope really said about Hell."

Again, my issue is not the definition of “literal.” My issue is that I do not believe that hell is a literal burning. It’s not a physical place.

This tangent isn’t helping the issue. I’m not debating the space time continuum. I agree that hell, whatever that may be, is not in “space and time” as we know it.

To clarify. I don’t believe “the fires of hell” mentioned in the N.T refer to a literal-physical-burning hell. I’m not claiming that the fires of hell don’t exist. I think “fire” is used symbolically rather than physically, and do not refer to the fire that we know in our physical space and time.

Since we don’t seem to be on the same page regarding the actual topic of our conversation, just tell me why you challenged my statement regarding Catholics not believing in a literal burning hell. You did say that apostates would burn in hell. Did you mean what you said?

Since we are making a scholarly exegesis of the NT as well as the Papal statements, don’t you think that might be an appropriate beginning?

Yes. This is why I said your premise is flawed. That which literally exists is not necessarily physical.

 

[guanophore]

I think the various opposing opinions about so many things from what is ex cathedra to what is infallible to disagreements about the papacy and current Catholic Church being there like this day one versus development theory, and moral disagreements in here all reflect reality--Catholicism is as full of disagreement and chaos as many other denominations.

I suppose that, if Catholicism were defined by the misunderstandings among the laity, this would be true. This is not the case, however. There is ONe Teaching, and though there may be as many misunderstandings of it as there are belly buttons, it is not the misunderstandings that create the unity of the faith.

The One Faith is not defined by those who are in disagreement with it.

      Anglicanism is a disaster. Anyone who says otherwise is using meth.  Anglicanism is a total mess. The difference between the two is one is very, very centrally-controlled and has a brilliant publicity and power structure that is very adept at putting out fires and keeping things up.  The other has a weak central power structure with a goofball at the helm and no PR whatsoever.  And the freedom within Anglicanism can act as a noose around its neck.

Have you ever considered that there might be supernatural factors involved?

But Anglicanism is not pretentious and doesn’t seek to tell you they have all the answers or have perfect unity. Catholicism is very much centered on the idea. And I think they don’t always deliver though most of the time they do.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the Teachings of Catholhicism. no one in the Catholic faith has claimed to have “all the answers”. Where do you get these ideas?!

Nor has there been any claim of perfect unity within the laity. The unity is found in the doctrine of the Faith. As Jesus taught unity exists because of adherance to Truth. Whenever a person strays from the Truth, they are no longer in unity with the One Faith.

Like you I respect Catholicism a GREAT deal as well. And I'm still very, very open to coming back to her.  Some days I actually start to consider it and think of going to confession. Quite frankly some of the posters' comments in here and the triumphalist, uncharitable, strange stuff keeps me from doing so LOL

I understand this. I allowed the shortcomings of others to keep me away for a long time.

Maybe in the end I should just use the horror movie approach. I mean, who do they call in to exorcize the possessed girl or kill the vampires or take care of business? It sure ain't the Baptists! :p:cool:

I think it is not right to try to force submission upon a rebellious heart. You are not ready to be in unity with the Catholic Church. Perhaps when you have forgiven the many Catholics that have let you down, and have betrayed the faith of Christ that you clearly cherish, you will be able to consider it?

 

[guanophore]

Ay yay yay, guano. Why are you quizzing me as to how spiritual I am and assuming I'm not?  I'm not going to answer this.  Geez.

I don’t mean to come across that way. The questions were, of course, only rhetorical.

This is getting into a works-based lens that I don’t want to look through.

How are spiritial disciplines “works based”? Do you not find the admonition in the NT to fast and pray? Did not Jesus say that the most difficult demons only come out through fasting and prayer?

I think the bishops who hid the pedophiles and covered up for them moving them from diocese to diocese didn’t do so because they “weren’t getting enough support from the flock?” Why can’t we just admit that sometimes priests and bishops can be bad people like the rest of us…

I don’t know them well enought to judge the condition of their hearts. Clearly, if they took this approach, they were uneducated about the risks, and the fact that it was not goign to work. You are right, they may be wolves among the sheep, or just sleepy self centered shepherds, I don’t know. What I do know is that fasting and prayer is good medicine for all these ills.

What makes you think that the personal piety of the flock cannot remedy the ills?

 

[guanophore]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Anna! Don’t hurt your head!

It is just a semantics problem. You are using “literal” to mean physical, and the Popes and I do not.

You are also interpreting “symbolic” as though it is not also literal (real) when I hold the opposite. For example, when we are symbolically buried with Christ in the waters of baptism, I believe that we have really died with Him, and are joined with Him in His resurecction. This is a literal (real) spiritual event.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m not attempting to define the word “literal” in the framework of scholarly exegesis. I used the word “literal” to mean “literal physical burning hell.” That’s very clear in my posts both to you & to Ferde Rombola.

. . . . .You’ve “cherry picked” the article.

. . . .Evidently it is a misrepresentation; because, as the article said, "Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in “straightfoward” language ‘like a parish priest’. He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a ‘state of eternal separation from God’, to be understood ‘symbolically rather than physically’. . . . ."

You also failed to comment on the other article, entitled, What the Pope really said about Hell." . . .

. . . .Again, my issue is not the definition of “literal.” My issue is that I do not believe that hell is a literal burning. It’s not a physical place.

. . . .This tangent isn’t helping the issue. I’m not debating the space time continuum. I agree that hell, whatever that may be, is not in “space and time” as we know it.

To clarify. I don’t believe “the fires of hell” mentioned in the N.T refer to a literal-physical-burning hell. I’m not claiming that the fires of hell don’t exist. I think “fire” is used symbolically rather than physically, and do not refer to the fire that we know in our physical space and time.

Since we don’t seem to be on the same page regarding the actual topic of our conversation, just tell me why you challenged my statement regarding Catholics not believing in a literal burning hell. You did say that apostates would burn in hell. Did you mean what you said?

Anna! Don’t hurt your head!

It is just a semantics problem. You are using “literal” to mean physical, and the Popes and I do not.

You are also interpreting “symbolic” as though it is not also literal (real) when I hold the opposite. For example, when we are symbolically buried with Christ in the waters of baptism, I believe that we have really died with Him, and are joined with Him in His resurecction. This is a literal (real) spiritual event.

guanophore,

Actually, you don’t understand what I’m even talking about. I give up.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

(Emphasis with bold type is mine.)

. . . .I agree with you that individual holiness and prayer and all the things you say are crucial. But just burying our heads in the sand, praying, and being personally holy is not enough when bishops are hiding pedophiles and covering them up as scandals brew into full-on Strombolian eruptions. And you and I can pray our rosaries and go to confession and be good folks but we also need bishops and cardinals to stand up and loudly encourage the priests and deacons to preach the WORD and preach it loud! . . . .

. . . .How do you know that? Have you been perfecting your holiness, fasting, and praying for those priests and their bishops? I contend that one of the reasons such scandals occur is because the clergy are not getting the support they need from the flock. I know I have never visited them, or prayed with them. I did not start fasting and praying until after the trouble became obvious, not before, as the members of the Body should do… . . .

guanophore,

You can’t be serious. When Catholics blame “scandals,” such as bishops hiding pedophiles, on lack of support from the flock, by not praying enough or visiting them enough—that makes me want to run from the Catholic Church as fast as I can go.

guanophore, I think we need to stop talking, before you completely destroy my interest in the Catholic Church.

I’m leaving this thread. No more comments.

Anna

 

[guanophore]

guanophore,

Actually, you don’t understand what I’m even talking about. I give up.

Anna

Actually, I do. I am just being contentious.

(Emphasis with bold type is mine.)

guanophore,

You can’t be serious. When Catholics blame “scandals,” such as bishops hiding pedophiles, on lack of support from the flock, by not praying enough or visiting them enough—that makes me want to run from the Catholic Church as fast as I can go.

guanophore, I think we need to stop talking, before you completely destroy my interest in the Catholic Church.

I’m leaving this thread. No more comments.

Anna

I phrased it too strongly. Of course the fault of their sin is there own, but I am looking at the problem from a systemic point of view when I say that all of our actions influence one another. If a priest (or anyone else for that matter) has made up their mind to sin, no one will be able to stop them. However, we have a responsibility to one another to snatch our brethren out of the fire. The point I am trying to make is, let us look at ourselves first, and what we can, and ought to do differently or better.

I think that looking for solutions is better than fixing blame.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

So you can blame all the people, which you should, but you must also blame the priests and bishops and cardinals for a failure to preach, teach, condemn, and rail against these modern sins.

Absolutely right! And not just the Philipines. It’s across the board in the US and Western Europe, too.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Right, Ferde,
The reason I point out the Philippines is because, unlike the U.S., it was and is an overwhelmingly Catholic nation that has always been very faithful to the Church. Their morality is going down into an abyss. The U.S. and Europe have had a libertine and secular hedonistic sexual ethic for decades! The Church has more power to make a difference, sway people, and change minds as well as exercise their teaching authority in a country like the Philippines. The Church is VERY pro-life there (thankfully!) and they have constantly put pressure on the government to keep it that way. I’ve followed it for some time now. The government has tried planned parenthood type stuff there and the Church shoots it down like a clay pigeon. Why they don’t, at a national and local level, fight the other sexual sins, especially homosexuality, cohabitation, unofficial remarriage, etc. is beyond me?

Absolutely right! And not just the Philipines. It’s across the board in the US and Western Europe, too.

 

[Cranmer2010]

Right, Ferde,
The reason I point out the Philippines is because, unlike the U.S., it was and is an overwhelmingly Catholic nation that has always been very faithful to the Church. Their morality is going down into an abyss. The U.S. and Europe have had a libertine and secular hedonistic sexual ethic for decades! The Church has more power to make a difference, sway people, and change minds as well as exercise their teaching authority in a country like the Philippines. The Church is VERY pro-life there (thankfully!) and they have constantly put pressure on the government to keep it that way. I’ve followed it for some time now. The government has tried planned parenthood type stuff there and the Church shoots it down like a clay pigeon. Why they don’t, at a national and local level, fight the other sexual sins, especially homosexuality, cohabitation, unofficial remarriage, etc. is beyond me?

I think that it is very clear that Christianity has obviously made it way to the global south. With 10 million Anglicans in church on Sunday morning in Uganda and 20 million in Nigeria, it seems to me that whoever claims to be what the Early Church was, God is moving in ways that have been really oblivious to most until now.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Why they don’t, at a national and local level, fight the other sexual sins, especially homosexuality, cohabitation, unofficial remarriage, etc. is beyond me?

Sex is Satan’ weapon of mass destruction. You can look it up.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What’s your point? Why do I need to look sex up? I’m familiar with it, thanks LOL

Sex is Satan’ weapon of mass destruction. You can look it up.

 

[guanophore]

What’s your point? Why do I need to look sex up? I’m familiar with it, thanks LOL

I think she meant how it is used by Satan for mass destruction of souls. Your point is equally well made, when Satan strikes at the shepherds, the flock is scattered. All that evil requires is that those who believe in the good do nothing. The Church, at all levels, needs to stand up against these things.

Have you considered that you might be being called to preach in the Phillipines?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I got back from the Philippines only six weeks ago. I got Typhoid Fever while I was there, had a pretty lousy time with the inlaws, had the biggest culture shock I’ve ever had (and this was my fourth time there) in that country, hate the weather, hate the traffic, just isn’t my thing.

Call me to preach in the Bay Area so I can enjoy the weather and hold Giants season tickets!

I think she meant how it is used by Satan for mass destruction of souls. Your point is equally well made, when Satan strikes at the shepherds, the flock is scattered. All that evil requires is that those who believe in the good do nothing. The Church, at all levels, needs to stand up against these things.

Have you considered that you might be being called to preach in the Phillipines?

 

[guanophore]

I got back from the Philippines only six weeks ago. I got Typhoid Fever while I was there, had a pretty lousy time with the inlaws, had the biggest culture shock I’ve ever had (and this was my fourth time there) in that country, hate the weather, hate the traffic, just isn’t my thing.

Call me to preach in the Bay Area so I can enjoy the weather and hold Giants season tickets!

You shoulda stuck with the beer and stayed away from that water!

As to where you are called…

Shall the clay say unto the Potter, why hast thou made me thus?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I didn’t drink ONE drop of their water. Trust me man! I’ve been sick EVERY time I’ve gone there. And I did have a few San Miguels (beer), just the lite beer but it’s good stuff. I’m not a beer drinker. Hate Bud and Coors, etc. San Miguel is one thing the filipinos definitely got right…along with mangoes and lumpia

I got Typhoid (as did my daughter) from the food. Only heaven knows where. We ate so many places…

You shoulda stuck with the beer and stayed away from that water!

As to where you are called…

Shall the clay say unto the Potter, why hast thou made me thus?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What’s your point? Why do I need to look sex up? I’m familiar with it, thanks LOL

I wasn’t sure. (That’s a joke, too.)

 

[mflorence]

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?

This is a very interesting question. My reply is from an historical perspective, which may be at odds with the thinking of this church or that, but that is a matter of tradition vs history. For the most part the early Christians saw themselves as as Jewish sect. There were a number of factions in the Jewish culture, so that was nothing new really. They remained with that identity until about the year 88 CE. These “revisionist” Jews, as they were commonly thought of, became less tolerated by the orthodox Jews as time passed for a number of social and political reasons. They were eventually excommunicated from the synagogue. One of the primary reasons is that their teachings were more and more seen as a challenge to the completeness of the Torah, but there were a number of other practical reasons. The gospels written after that point (such as John) start to take on a flavor that was more challenging and confrontational in it’s language and traditions in regards to the orthodox Jewish sect. The evolution in the four gospels in relation to the portrayal of the character whose name meant “Jew” as the betrayer of the Lord is an example. He grew in stature from hardly any mention in the first gospel written, culminating as a full blown demon by the time the last gospel (John) was written. By the time John was written the tensions between these revisionist Jews and the orthodox were so pronounced that even the account of his death changed from remorsefully hanging himself to running off with the money he earned by his betrayal only to have his guts split open. This along with some of the other inconsistencies between the gospels as the story of Jesus evolved in these writings as they were being developed are products of the social and political circumstances that were taking place at the time. There are many other examples, but the point is that the Christian identity was anything but settled during the time of the early Christians. It was very much in an evolutionary stage, perhaps even more so than it is today.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

This is a very interesting question. My reply is from an historical perspective, which may be at odds with the thinking of this church or that, but that is a matter of tradition vs history. For the most part the early Christians saw themselves as as Jewish sect. There were a number of factions in the Jewish culture, so that was nothing new really. They remained with that identity until about the year 88 CE. These “revisionist” Jews, as they were commonly thought of, became less tolerated by the orthodox Jews as time passed for a number of social and political reasons. They were eventually excommunicated from the synagogue. One of the primary reasons is that their teachings were more and more seen as a challenge to the completeness of the Torah, but there were a number of other practical reasons. The gospels written after that point (such as John) start to take on a flavor that was more challenging and confrontational in it’s language and traditions in regards to the orthodox Jewish sect. The evolution in the four gospels in relation to the portrayal of the character whose name meant “Jew” as the betrayer of the Lord is an example. He grew in stature from hardly any mention in the first gospel written, culminating as a full blown demon by the time the last gospel (John) was written. By the time John was written the tensions between these revisionist Jews and the orthodox were so pronounced that even the account of his death changed from remorsefully hanging himself to running off with the money he earned by his betrayal only to have his guts split open. This along with some of the other inconsistencies between the gospels as the story of Jesus evolved in these writings as they were being developed are products of the social and political circumstances that were taking place at the time. There are many other examples, but the point is that the Christian identity was anything but settled during the time of the early Christians. It was very much in an evolutionary stage, perhaps even more so than it is today.

Interesting story. Have you applied for a copyright?

 

[mflorence]

Interesting story. Have you applied for a copyright?

Hi Ferde: Unfortunately, I can’t copyright history. If you like you may check it all out for yourself . One thing you can do is to ask your local bishop for the name of a well respected priest in your area with credentials in that area of study and see what he says. What harm could it do? Then if you would, drop me a line and let me know. Truth is that early Christians didn’t even agree or claim to have a firm grasp initially on exactly what Jesus was. Ask about that too if you would. The need for certainty in that regard was as unsettling to many of them as well, so they started developing creeds, the first of which was only three words. That left too much uncertainty, so an expanded version that filled in the gaps called the Apostles Creed was developed (not written by the Apostles by the way). With much uncertainty and debate still in play, a third and even longer Nicene Creed was developed much later, which settled some of these disputes and gave better uniformity in beliefs. That creed was completed only after much debate. But go ask about it - please don’t just take my word for it, but nor should you deny it without looking into it. Go ask the chef about what’s in the sauce. By the way, the sauce is still good. Thanks.