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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpectatorX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
I’ve been a civilian since just before Christmas - a bit of a weird feeling. I decided to do something wild to mark the occasion, so I think I am going to get a nose piercing. I considered dying my hair blue, but I don’t have the time to fiddle with my hair these days, the new baby is still keeping me busy. His 7 month birthday is today.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your service to our country.

May I suggest rethinking the nose plug? Just an aesthetic thing.

GKC, old fuddy-duddy.
 
Isn’t there a “Back Fence” subforum for the thread drift?

The Early Church was Catholic - no ifs, ands or buts.
 
But very popular among Hindus! 😛 Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma would be thrilled! 😛
GKC said:
Thank you for your service to our country.

May I suggest rethinking the nose plug? Just an aesthetic thing.

GKC, old fuddy-duddy.
Click to expand...
 
KathleenGee said:
The Orthodox have issues with the Filoque, do not believe Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven,
Click to expand...
I just read a post on here from an orthodox who said he celebrated the Assumption at Divine Liturgy today!
KathleenGee said:
but call her Mary, Theotokis, Mother of God, which the Catholic church will not…but we have her icon of Theotokis in our churches, mine included…
Click to expand...
I think you may be mistaken, Kathleen. Although the term “theotokos” is Greek, not Latin, it is still used by Catholics, and the term “Mother of God” is also used.
KathleenGee said:
and the Orthodox will not forgive the Latin church for what the Normans did to the Greeks,
Click to expand...
One would think an apology would help!
KathleenGee said:
Code: 
and the RC condemned the practice of Orthodox priests for wearing beards and so on....it is like clan rivalry to me....
Click to expand...
I think the vast majority of the schism was cultural and linguistic in cause. Intolerance, and forgetting that the Church is univerasl, and must honor the language and culture of everyone.
KathleenGee said:
There are other points as well, and the Orthodox consider us the schismatics. Latin Catholics are called to reach out beyond their ethnic groups to identify with Christ’s humanity in all people, and so we do not have such beautiful and profound ethnic liturgies the Orthodox have…
Click to expand...
I think you do find these in the Eastern Catholic Rites. Have you ever been to a Divine Liturgy?

I think the solemn Latin Litury can also be beautiful and profound. I think we tend to have a “fast food” mentality.
KathleenGee said:
Bishop said the more a Christian community drops the sacraments, the farther it is away from us. He ranked first the Catholic Church, and then our separate Orthodox…then the next in rank as maintaining the designation of ‘church’ are the Anglicans. The problem is essentially not accepting the pope. (I do not like that English word because it sounds derisive…Holy Father is better…or ‘Papa’ among the Latin…)
Click to expand...
They accept that he is the successor of Peter and Bishop of Rome. They just don’t accept the universal powers that belong to the office. He was always considered “first among equals”, having primacy, just as Peter was head of the Apostles.
KathleenGee said:
He instructed that the Anglicans are a church because they have a bishop…but the apostolic line of succession has been broken…and the papacy represents the union of all of us believers. There are other issues that have come up – women’s ordination as one, that are setting back progress. There are Anglican married priests who are leaving to come to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Actually, Apostasy can also increase progress. As more Episcopalians and Anglicans have become aware of these aberrances, they are coming home.
 
SpectatorX said:
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?
Click to expand...
They were christians. They were first called christians at Antioch. Acts 11:26
Lower case 'c’atholic refers to universial.

God bless,
bluelake
 
**Off topic and over the 1,000 post limit **
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top