The early church

[niklindsey4]

Please correct me if I am wrong…Catholicism was the first form of Christianity? Why did other Christians stray from the original belief and are some of their arguments valid?

Thank you~Nikki

BTW: I was raised Catholic, but not practicing, now that I am married with children, we base our family on the basics of the Catholic faith. It is important for me to understand where Catholicism originated, as I have been questioned by many non-Catholics that has me puzzled and wondering the same?

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi Nik,

You’re in the right place for answers then.

The Catholic Church is indeed the original “full gospel” New Testament Church, and there are many source that speak to this issue.

One very good one supplied by Catholic Answers is Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth.

Other forms of Christianity have departed for various reasons, some like some of the Eastern Orthodox, left because of disagreements about papal authority and were further decided by the fact that errant Crusaders sacked Constantinople around 1054 AD. (

About 500 years ago, the so called “Reformation” occurred, which brought about the greatest of errant new winds of doctrines of men I think the Christian faith has ever seen. They essentially constructed a new religion around the unscriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura and nearly all the subsequent errors in doctrine have cascaded down from that fundamental error.

Here are several links to articles and a great MP3 Bible study (free) that will help you get more information on this. Please feel free to PM me if you have any questions that I can help with. The Apocalypsis blog is my own articles.
**
Sola Scriptura - The Bible Alone?**

 Does the Bible support "The Bible Alone"?

**My Reformation Theory

****Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

More good resources: **Bible Christian Society

 

[BlestOne]

Hi Nikki… There are others here that will be able to go into great detail of the pre-reformation history, but I think I can give you a brief overview.

The Catholic Church was started when Jesus started it in 33 ad. We know he came to build his church and not to just give us a Bible because he said so. There are some very important Bible verses about this…
First there is establishing the church:
Matthew 16:18* And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
*So… Jesus established the Church…
Next you will want to know about the commissioning…
Jesus told them to expect it…
*Acts 1:**8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.
*Then they did and were made apostles… which means sent forth…
*Acts 2:**1 And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: **2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. **3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: **4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. **5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
*And so the apostles were sent forth to bring the Good News to the world. You might be asking what this has to do with the Catholic Church… well everything! Let me explain… the word Catholic means universal… and the first time it was used as a descriptor or name for the church some people say is 110ad but others point to the Bible… parts of which were originally written in Greek, where the word Katholicos or Catholic comes from. There are verses which do use that word, whether or not it was meant as a title or name… it became the name to describe Christians. The apostles did teach others and passed the faith on through evangelization and the laying on of hands. After the apostles were all gone, we have the Early Church Fathers. Most of these are the men who were actually taught by the apostles. They wrote tons of stuff which is great to read. If you read them, you will find that they are pretty much describing the Catholic Church. Eventually the name stuck… but there wasn’t really a need for a name until the reformation when Luther broke away from the Church. True there was the Orthodox, but they are still in communion with the beliefs we hold, they aren’t totally separated from us… but that is a totally different story.

Over the first 10 centuries there were heresies… or incorrect teachings… this is where my knowledge is not great. Anyway, you can look some of them up.

About the time of Martin Luther, there were some local problems. Some of the priests were selling indulgences to raise money… it was never condoned by the pope or the Church as a whole. Now, the one thing you have to understand is that it isn’t like today where we have mass communications, printing presses, and all our modern conveniences… but there is another thing many people don’t take into account as well… there was disease and as a result we had lost alot of priests… and there was extreme poverty…nothing new there, but it made bibles very rare. This is why we have stained glass and many other forms of spiritual art… to tell the story we were all meant to hear. Anyway, after the plagues there were very poorly catechized priests… doing their best… but nonetheless, doing wrong… Martin started out on the right path, telling his higher ups what was going on, but unfortunately, some didn’t disagree with the corruption… in fact they profited from it. By the time the Vatican had heard of his complaints, ML had already become angry and bitter, and the bishops had kind of ruined his reputation to the Vatican.

Anyway, long story short, ML started the reformation and that is where all the Protestant churches have split from…

 

[1ke]

Please correct me if I am wrong…Catholicism was the first form of Christianity?

Yes, you are correct.

Why did other Christians stray from the original belief

The simple answer is that God, the Trinity, and Salvation are complex topics. Some people would try to understan various aspects of the Church’s doctrine but might get some aspects wrong.

For example, a bishop named Arius taught that Jesus was not equal with the Father. This is inaccurate. All three persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and equal. Arius taught that Jesus was “less” than the Father.

Now, when someone got a wrong idea then the Church was there to correct them. The problem came when the person refused to be corrected and instead split off and kept teaching their errors. In most cases, the person in error was eventually reconciled to the Church or else their heresy died out as people recognized it as wrong and came back to the Church. But, not always. That is why we have the various non-Catholic groups-- those in error who refused to be reconciled to the Church.

and are some of their arguments valid?

No.

BTW: I was raised Catholic, but not practicing, now that I am married with children, we base our family on the basics of the Catholic faith. It is important for me to understand where Catholicism originated, as I have been questioned by many non-Catholics that has me puzzled and wondering the same?

I encourage you to return to the Church. The Church, founded by Christ, is the means of receiving Grace through the Sacraments. What Christ himself established, we should not turn our back on and ignore.

I hope you will consider returning to the Church and raising your children in the faith.

 

[niklindsey4]

I greatly appreciate all the replies!! Very helpful and necessary to continue to strengthen my faith in the catholicsm.

You know when hubby and I first got engaged, he competely embraced the faith and dedicated everything to understanding the catholic faith and practicing to his best ability–nightly visits to the adoration chapel, constantly reading the bible and studing the faith–this is just about the time the passion was released–before he gave all of this faith to catholicism–he went Johova (he is an all or nothing–in with both feet type of person and the dedication the jahovas had appealed to him)…so through out the years he calmed a bit as his obsessions always tend to subside, but he is now very well informed and can defend the faith quite successfully…however, he is also a man who refuses to admit he was wrong. So, it was important to understand from another person who didn’t get so emotional about the subject.

We discuss, going back to church (with 2 & 3 yr old–as it became way too frustrating the past year with the kiddos and would usually result in some sort of argument) but, i am also worried he will get consumed again by the faith and refer back to his original thought that all who do not practice catholicism correctly are sinners and would be judged. He isn’t one to consider what he says before he says it either—however, He is a WONDEFRUL hubby and a very SUPPORTIVE/HARDWORKING/LOVING father!!

 

[niklindsey4]

And…as per what I have understood of the dead sea scrolls–they validated the septuigent bible, which validates the apocrypha.

Is this correct?

 

[prodromos]

Other forms of Christianity have departed for various reasons, some like some of the Eastern Orthodox, left because of disagreements about papal authority and were further decided by the fact that errant Crusaders sacked Constantinople around 1054 AD. (

One should get their facts right before attempting to speak as an authority.
1054 is the year that Cardinals Humbert and Frederick slapped their Papal Bull of excommunication down on the altar of Hagia Sophia, using a litany of false charges as the basis for excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople in response to his closing of Latin Churches under his jurisdiction. This was in response to the Normans closing Byzantine churches in southern Italy or their forcing of Latin usages on the same. In response to Humbert and Frederick’s Papal Bull, a synod of bishops in Constantinople excommunicated Cardinals Humbert and Frederick (and the other papal legate whose name escapes me). Note that Papal ‘authority’ was never mentioned as an issue throughout these unhappy events. Cardinal Humbert and Cardinal Frederick under the authority of the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who agreed with him, this resulted in the cutting off of Rome from the Churches in the East. The synod in Constantinople by contrast, only excommunicated the legates.

The infamous 4th crusade occurred in 1204 and was the result of intrigues by a deposed Greek prince making promises he couldn’t keep, the Doge of Venice who was bent on revenge against Constantinople, and the cash strapped crusaders who had no means to pay for the ships they had orded from the Venetian shipyards. The glory that is Venice today is the result of riches looted from Constantinople over the years following the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders, an act which though was condemned by the Pope, was nevertheless sanctioned by his representatives accompanying the crusaders, who gave them absolution before attacking the city.

Please get your facts straight.

John

 

[JRKH]

I greatly appreciate all the replies!! Very helpful and necessary to continue to strengthen my faith in the catholicsm.

You know when hubby and I first got engaged, he competely embraced the faith and dedicated everything to understanding the catholic faith and practicing to his best ability–nightly visits to the adoration chapel, constantly reading the bible and studing the faith–this is just about the time the passion was released–before he gave all of this faith to catholicism–he went Johova (he is an all or nothing–in with both feet type of person and the dedication the jahovas had appealed to him)…so through out the years he calmed a bit as his obsessions always tend to subside, but he is now very well informed and can defend the faith quite successfully…however, he is also a man who refuses to admit he was wrong. So, it was important to understand from another person who didn’t get so emotional about the subject.

We discuss, going back to church (with 2 & 3 yr old–as it became way too frustrating the past year with the kiddos and would usually result in some sort of argument) but, i am also worried he will get consumed again by the faith and refer back to his original thought that all who do not practice catholicism correctly are sinners and would be judged. He isn’t one to consider what he says before he says it either—however, He is a WONDEFRUL hubby and a very SUPPORTIVE/HARDWORKING/LOVING father!!

I just had a thought about your dear hubby and his penchant for “going great guns” (or maybe “hell bent for leather” is better) when he gets involved in something. I sympathize because I have the same penchant myself.
Introduce him to these forums. He can learn a great deal, discuss and argue to his hearts content and hopefully grow deeper and calmer in his faith by this “anonymous” venue.

Just a thought.

Peace
James

 

[Church_Militant]

One should get their facts right before attempting to speak as an authority.
1054 is the year that Cardinals Humbert and Frederick slapped their Papal Bull of excommunication down on the altar of Hagia Sophia, using a litany of false charges as the basis for excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople in response to his closing of Latin Churches under his jurisdiction. This was in response to the Normans closing Byzantine churches in southern Italy or their forcing of Latin usages on the same. In response to Humbert and Frederick’s Papal Bull, a synod of bishops in Constantinople excommunicated Cardinals Humbert and Frederick (and the other papal legate whose name escapes me). Note that Papal ‘authority’ was never mentioned as an issue throughout these unhappy events. Cardinal Humbert and Cardinal Frederick under the authority of the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who agreed with him, this resulted in the cutting off of Rome from the Churches in the East. The synod in Constantinople by contrast, only excommunicated the legates.

The infamous 4th crusade occurred in 1204 and was the result of intrigues by a deposed Greek prince making promises he couldn’t keep, the Doge of Venice who was bent on revenge against Constantinople, and the cash strapped crusaders who had no means to pay for the ships they had orded from the Venetian shipyards. The glory that is Venice today is the result of riches looted from Constantinople over the years following the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders, an act which though was condemned by the Pope, was nevertheless sanctioned by his representatives accompanying the crusaders, who gave them absolution before attacking the city.

Please get your facts straight.

John

I said it was one of the factors, not the only one. In fact, I think that is what I referred to when I said, “some like some of the Eastern Orthodox, left because of disagreements about papal authority”.

Get your charity straight before speaking to any discussion. That attitude is one of the reasons that I rarely interact with Orthodox. If you can’t come to the discussion without it, then most people will simply walk away, and that is the person’s fault…not God’s.

One would not want to have to account to Our Blessed Lord for the souls that might reject His love and Gospel and so be thrown into Hell because our presentation or demeanor was offensive when they might otherwise have listened and been converted.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

 

[BrianH]

Telling someone to get their facts straight does not strike me as a lack of charity…unless one realizes they did not get their facts straight and got called on it…IMO

 

[leopolis1]

Catholicism is Christianity. Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus. Protestants are those who left it, are outside the Body of Christ and unfortunately preach many errors.

 

[mardukm]

One should get their facts right before attempting to speak as an authority.
Cardinal Humbert and Cardinal Frederick under the authority of the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and all who agreed with him, this resulted in the cutting off of Rome from the Churches in the East.

1. Cardinals Humbert and Frederick were under the authority of the Pope to negotiate with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They were NOT under his authority to excommunicate him (the Pope was already dead).
2. Not all the Patriarchs of the East agreed with the Patriarch of Constantinople (and neither did the Eastern Emperor), so it is erroneous to say that Rome had cut herself off from the Churches of the East.

The infamous 4th crusade occurred in 1204 and was the result of intrigues by a deposed Greek prince making promises he couldn’t keep, the Doge of Venice who was bent on revenge against Constantinople, and the cash strapped crusaders who had no means to pay for the ships they had orded from the Venetian shipyards. The glory that is Venice today is the result of riches looted from Constantinople over the years following the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders, an act which though was condemned by the Pope, was nevertheless sanctioned by his representatives accompanying the crusaders, who gave them absolution before attacking the city.

This is a good relation of the facts. I would only caution readers with the last line, “who gave them absolution before attacking the city.” This is technically correct. However, it should also be noted that this is the NORMATIVE practice for Christian soldiers going into ANY battle. Though this is certainly not the intention of our Orthodox brother John, I know some anti-Catholics have used this fact to claim that the priests SANCTIONED the sack of Constantinople.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Church_Militant]

Telling someone to get their facts straight does not strike me as a lack of charity…unless one realizes they did not get their facts straight and got called on it…IMO

Yeah you’d know about charity and the lack thereof wouldn’t ya Rightly Divide?

Did you really think that those of us who have been on here for a while didn’t recognize the identical posting style and topics of interest?

 

[joshua_b]

C’mon guys…can we please keepthe bickering to a minimum? Let’s please try to stay on topic. To the OP…

Yes, the Catholic Church IS the Church founded by Jesus. There is never a point in Christian history where you will not find Catholic doctrine. There are those who try to minimize this fact, or distort it in an effort to validate themselves or their faith tradition as “true Christianity”, but my opinion is that true Christianity is the Christianity that was practiced by the Apostles. There is no faith tradition today (with the exception of the Orthodox) that can trace their doctine back to the Apostolic age. Others may try, but I have never seen anyone outside of the Catholic/Orthodox faith be able to trace their beliefs back to the first century without inevitably mentioning themselves as tracing back to a heretical sect.

Most of the “valid arguments” given against the Catholic Church are made on faulty presuppositions, mental gymnastics with scripture, and a lack of proper history. Arguments against the priesthood, the Eucharist, and sacramental theology require serious efforts to circumvent scripturally, and simply do not agree with the simple record of history as it relates to Apostolic Christianity. Arguments based on Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) are likewise not Scriptural and not in accord with historic Christian doctrine.

Stick around the forum for more than 2 weeks and I can guarantee that you will see these topics debated ad nauseum.

Welcome to the forums, and may God bless you and the Holy Spirit guide you back to His Church, which contains the fullness of revealed Truth.

 

[Teflon93]

Others fell away as expected because Christ promised there would be branches which bore no fruit. They cherished the easy path of schism over the difficult one of unity. From the beginning, overweening pride and a lack of obedience have been the downfall of Man.

The Bride of Christ is always under attack, for Holy Mother Church is not of this world.

Christ took his Bride in 33 A.D. and abides with her still. Indeed, to be familiar with history is to understand how impossible it was that she should have survived at all from that day to this, given the complete absence of temporal power she has been able to call upon since the sack of Rome in the 5th century. It is her enemies who yoke themselves to temporal princes to ensure their survival. The Catholic Church is sustained by the Bridegroom alone.

 

[Deconi]

Others fell away as expected because Christ promised there would be branches which bore no fruit. They cherished the easy path of schism over the difficult one of unity. From the beginning, overweening pride and a lack of obedience have been the downfall of Man.

The Bride of Christ is always under attack, for Holy Mother Church is not of this world.

Christ took his Bride in 33 A.D. and abides with her still. Indeed, to be familiar with history is to understand how impossible it was that she should have survived at all from that day to this, given the complete absence of temporal power she has been able to call upon since the sack of Rome in the 5th century. It is her enemies who yoke themselves to temporal princes to ensure their survival. The Catholic Church is sustained by the Bridegroom alone.

Ha ha ha…hmmmppprrffff*

Mister, you’re sharp!

I’d shake your hand but I might cut myself!

 

[joshua_b]

The Bride of Christ is always under attack, for Holy Mother Church is not of this world.

I pulled this out just to share a personal thought I have had for a long time. Satan’s “top target” would most certainly have to be the Church. It is only logical that the one who seeks to separate us from God would attack the only means we have been given for salvation. When I think about that, I can’t help but find it more than a coincidence that the Catholic Church is attacked the way it is, from all sides, including within. Even the Orthodox, who’s beliefs are almost completely paralell to Catholocism, and the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, who are fully Catholic in every sense of the word, are not attacked the way the Latin Rite (under the chair of Peter) is attacked and denied.

Granted, that is not “proof” of anything at all, but I have a hard time believing that this is just a mere coincidence.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And…as per what I have understood of the dead sea scrolls–they validated the septuigent bible, which validates the apocrypha.

Is this correct?

The Septuagint is validated not just by the Dead Sea Scrolls, but even from the Gospels themselves. On a number of occasions, the Greek NT quotes the Septuagint instead of the earlier Hebrew (see link here).

Many opponents of the Deuterocanon (known among Protestants and some Jews as the Apocrypha) argued against the books because they were not written in Hebrew. However, language is neither here nor there when it comes to divine inspiration. In fact, after Alexander the Great conquered the region, any Scripture written afterward would understandably be in Greek. Thus, also the need for the Greek Septuagint translation of what had already been written.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls had a Hebrew version of Sirach, Judith, and 1 Maccabbees. But again, the divine inspiration of these books is not dependent on that discovery. They are recognized as divinely inspired by the authority of the Catholic Church, which operates in His name.

 

[prodromos]

I said it was one of the factors, not the only one. In fact, I think that is what I referred to when I said, “some like some of the Eastern Orthodox, left because of disagreements about papal authority”.

You said nothing of the sort. what you said wasOther forms of Christianity have departed for various reasons, some like some of the Eastern Orthodox, left because of disagreements about papal authority and were further decided by the fact that errant Crusaders sacked Constantinople around 1054 AD
Now the only two reasons you give are “disagreements about papal authority” and “Crusaders sacked Constantinople around 1054 AD” both of which are false. There was no mention whatsoever of “Papal authority” as an issue around the time of the schism and the sack of Constantinople occurred in 1204.

Get your charity straight before speaking to any discussion. That attitude is one of the reasons that I rarely interact with Orthodox. If you can’t come to the discussion without it, then most people will simply walk away, and that is the person’s fault…not God’s

How charitable is the posting of false information about another’s church on a public forum? How charitable is refusing to apologise when the the latter is demonstrated.

John

 

[Teflon93]

How charitable is the posting of false information about another’s church on a public forum? How charitable is refusing to apologise when the the latter is demonstrated.

John

Not charitable at all, but I expect I’ll be an old man indeed before our Orthodox brethren on this forum apologize to a Catholic.

You should apply the standard to yourself before seeking to apply it to others, and probably ought to note (if you’re not simply seeking to derail the thread) that East and West quite nearly reconciled in the 13th century.

Just as 1054 wasn’t the last straw; neither was the sack of Constantinople. CM’s guilty only of getting his dates crossed up.
Given the wounds inflicted by the latter day Orthodox in their efforts to demean the office of the papacy and the Catholic Church, one shouldn’t confound felony and misdemeanor.

I wonder if the Orthodox muster as much high dudgeon against the Turks who threw them out of the Hagia Sophia and transformed it into a mosque as they do against the Catholics.

In any case, it is an odd thing to see someone nurse historical grievances their coreligionists didn’t nurture so well much closer to the events in question.

I’ve seen and will continue to see many Catholic acts of contrition for the sack of Constantinople and perhaps one day will live to see the Orthodox apologize for something.

History cuts both ways, you know.