The First 1500 Years Of Christianity Were Catholic

[OneTrueCathApos]

This thread is really aimed at the Protestant Religion. You, as a Protestant, must come to a realization that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, they were Catholic in belief. Do you ever once realize because this is so in which we have the historical evidence as well as Scripture, that Christ did in fact establish the Catholic faith? There were no Protestants around to see the light of day. I mean, seriously, don’t you feel that the Catholic church which goes back to the first century was truly the church of Christ?
Then tell me, how is it that one day, 1500 years later someone, ONE MAN, can suddenly say something is wrong and all of a sudden the true church splits and becomes P-r-o-t-e-s-t-ant. Don’t you see that Luther and the others were the ones who decided to change the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic church Christ founded? Makes sense to me even if I wasn’t a Catholic. How can you be so blind?

 

[Contarini]

This thread is really aimed at the Protestant Religion. You, as a Protestant, must come to a realization that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, they were Catholic in belief.

Not in the sense of believing and doing everything that modern members of the Roman Communion believe and do.

Edwin

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Father Michael John Witt-professor of Church History at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis.

The First Twelve Generations of Christianity:
michaeljohnwitt.com/

Click on the icon on the upper left.

Up to 43 one-hour shows all on mp3.

 

[Monkey1976]

Not in the sense of believing and doing everything that modern members of the Roman Communion believe and do.

Edwin

Can you give an example of this?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Not in the sense of believing and doing everything that modern members of the Roman Communion believe and do.

Edwin

This begs the question…

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think you already stated the problem OTCA. The Catholic Church drifted frombeing Catholic. Too bad that some Church leaders decided to be politicians instead of churchmen. I hate that it happened.

 

[Monkey1976]

I think you already stated the problem OTCA. The Catholic Church drifted frombeing Catholic. Too bad that some Church leaders decided to be politicians instead of churchmen. I hate that it happened.

Can you show exactly when, how, and under what leader the Catholic Church became heretical?

 

[jenlovesyu]

I’d be careful if I were you OneTrueCathApos, because technically there were other people throughout those 1500 years who tried to pass off other faiths as the one Jesus instituted. They may not have been protestant but they surely were not Catholic. For example, you have the Great Schism occurring in 1054 between Catholics and the Orthodox. But I definitely agree, that the idea of a man coming around 1500 years after the fact proclaiming that his personal beliefs are exactly what Christ wanted us to believe is, completely erroneous. The Holy Spirit has only been guiding ONE institution all these years because the Holy Spirit does not divide. To say otherwise is to say that the Holy Spirit is flawed…or perhaps the evil one.

However Protestants really need to think about this: If there was no Catholic Church, would all 30,000 of these Protestant faiths exist at all? How would you have known which NT books are inspired?

You can’t say it the other way around. If protestant churches did not exist, the Catholic Church would still be here. Her existence is not dependable upon anyone but God.

 

[chris_molter]

I’m just waiting on the Orthodox here… … … . …

 

[Among_Strangers]

Can you give an example of this?

Just a quick one is what was the date that the Whole Catholic Church celebrated Easter? There’s an easy one to look at to that the Whole Catholic Church was indeed not one or unified at all.

 

[Contarini]

Can you give an example of this?

Of what? Of things that now characterize the Catholic Church which didn’t characterize it in the first 1500 years? There are so many categories it’s hard to know where to start (and of course on all of them the Catholic apologists can point out continuities). But one standard place to start would be papal infallibility. To be Catholic now means you have to accept it. To be Catholic as late as the early 19th century didn’t.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think you already stated the problem OTCA. The Catholic Church drifted frombeing Catholic. Too bad that some Church leaders decided to be politicians instead of churchmen.

What do you mean and when did this happen? And how exactly were Church leaders from Constantine to the modern era supposed to have avoided either becoming “politicians” or becoming civil servants? (In other words, church and state have a relationship, and if that relationship is not to be one of the state telling the Church what to do, the leaders of the Church must find ways of being active partners.) I suppose they could have simply refused all connection with the state. I don’t see this as an impossible option, but I’m also slow to say categorically that they ought to have taken it. That’s not to say that there weren’t a lot of sins and errors committed by church leaders, just that I’m unwilling to subscribe to your sweeping claim.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This begs the question…

How? What assumption that I make are you challenging?

It is the original post that begs the question, quite blatantly. I am simply pointing out that if you take identity in its most literal form, the original post is clearly wrong. The Church of the first 1500 years was not absolutely identical with what the OP would call the “Catholic Church” today. Therefore, the OP must do the hard work of defining what it means for the first 1500 years to be Catholic before he can use this in an argument.

I on the other hand have no such responsibility. If the OP chooses not to define his terms or argue for them, I am not obliged to do his work for him.

Ediwn

 

[Monkey1976]

Of what? Of things that now characterize the Catholic Church which didn’t characterize it in the first 1500 years? There are so many categories it’s hard to know where to start (and of course on all of them the Catholic apologists can point out continuities). But one standard place to start would be papal infallibility. To be Catholic now means you have to accept it. To be Catholic as late as the early 19th century didn’t.

Edwin

The point of a dogma being solemnly proclaimed isn’t that it’s something new, it’s to reaffirm something that has been held since the beginning. The Trinity wasn’t proclaimed as dogma until AD325. Would you claim that until then, Arius and his followers were preaching the Catholic faith?

 

[chris_molter]

To be Catholic now means you have to accept it. To be Catholic as late as the early 19th century didn’t.

Edwin

Could we not say the same for the divinity of Jesus and Nicea? Or the persons/nature of Christ and Chalcedon?

(edit: heh… looks like me and the Monkey were thinking similarly…)

 

[Contarini]

The point of a dogma being solemnly proclaimed isn’t that it’s something new, it’s to reaffirm something that has been held since the beginning. The Trinity wasn’t proclaimed as dogma until AD325. Would you claim that until then, Arius and his followers were preaching the Catholic faith?

Of course not. But before then, what they were preaching was not clearly incompatible with the Catholic faith. Lots of people at Nicea were confused precisely because “homoousios” was a fairly new term that had previously been used solely by heretics, and because so much of the language of the Arians sounded traditional.

Before 325 the dogma that Christ was “homoousios” with the Father was not characteristic of “Catholicism.” That’s the counterpart to what I am saying.

Edwin

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

How? What assumption that I make are you challenging?

It is the original post that begs the question, quite blatantly. I am simply pointing out that if you take identity in its most literal form, the original post is clearly wrong. The Church of the first 1500 years was not absolutely identical with what the OP would call the “Catholic Church” today. Therefore, the OP must do the hard work of defining what it means for the first 1500 years to be Catholic before he can use this in an argument.

I on the other hand have no such responsibility. If the OP chooses not to define his terms or argue for them, I am not obliged to do his work for him.

Ediwn

So when Irenaeus in the 2nd century said, “he who does not hold to the See of Peter, can He really believe that he is in the Church?” what, IYO, did he mean?

When Polycarp of Smyrna in the early 2nd century went to Rome to speak with the Bishop of Rome over the Easter controversy, what was he doing? If the Bishop of Rome had no greater influence other than his own assembly, why did Polycarp travel so far for nothing?

Do I need to recite Justin’s description of the Mass to the Roman emperor Titus that clearly outlines the very same Mass that Catholics and Orthodox celebrate around the world?

 

[Contarini]

Could we not say the same for the divinity of Jesus and Nicea? Or the persons/nature of Christ and Chalcedon?

Certainly. I would never dream of claiming that the Trinitarian and Christological beliefs Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox share today are simply identical to those of the first three centuries. And if anyone were to try to combat JWs or Mormons or Unitarians by making such an argument, they’d go down in flames very quickly against a reasonably skilled and knowledgeable opponent.

Edwin

 

[Dan-Man916]

This thread is really aimed at the Protestant Religion. You, as a Protestant, must come to a realization that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, they were Catholic in belief. Do you ever once realize because this is so in which we have the historical evidence as well as Scripture, that Christ did in fact establish the Catholic faith? There were no Protestants around to see the light of day. I mean, seriously, don’t you feel that the Catholic church which goes back to the first century was truly the church of Christ?
Then tell me, how is it that one day, 1500 years later someone, ONE MAN, can suddenly say something is wrong and all of a sudden the true church splits and becomes P-r-o-t-e-s-t-ant. Don’t you see that Luther and the others were the ones who decided to change the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic church Christ founded? Makes sense to me even if I wasn’t a Catholic. How can you be so blind?

Perhaps you need to read a little history. The Church has been splintered many times for many reasons.
The Assyrian Church of the East split in the 5th century.
The Oriental Orthodox split in the 5th century.
The Eastern Orthodox split in the 11th century.

Schism within Christianity is nothing new.
In fact, every Christological heresy in the first centuries were splits over doctrinal issues. The Protestant reformation is nothing new in this regard.

 

[Radical]

How can you be so blind?

perhaps b/c I haven’t, as yet, enjoyed the benefit of your insight.

You, as a Protestant, must come to a realization that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, they were Catholic in belief.

Could you please delineate these specific beliefs so that one can see if your claim is accurate? Perhaps you should limit yourself to those beliefs that would make one Catholic as opposed to protestant.

Do you ever once realize because this is so in which we have the historical evidence…

would you also be so kind as to provide some of this historical evidence….specifically I would be interested in seeing the earliest historical evidence for each of the (distinctly Catholic) beliefs that you delineated so that one can see (from history) that the belief goes back the full 1500 years

…. as well as Scripture, that Christ did in fact establish the Catholic faith?

] would you also be so kind as to provide some of this scriptural evidence….specifically I would be interested in seeing the (distinctly Catholic) beliefs that you delineated spelt out plainly and clearly in scripture so that one can see (from scripture) that each belief originated with Christ.

…. don’t you feel that the Catholic church which goes back to the first century was truly the church of Christ?

Nope, but I would be interested in seeing your historical and scriptural evidence that proves that it is.

Then tell me, how is it that one day, 1500 years later someone, ONE MAN, can suddenly say something is wrong and all of a sudden the true church splits and becomes P-r-o-t-e-s-t-ant.

It wasn’t the claim of merely ONE MAN, otherwise the reform would have died with him….it was evident to almost everyone that something was wrong, it was rather a question of how much and how to fix it.

Don’t you see that Luther and the others were the ones who decided to change the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic church Christ founded?

…so one must ask whether the change took the believers (that adhered to the change) away from correct belief or back toward correct belief or a bit of both.