The historicity of the Church

[josie_L]

Well that’s good to hear, because whoever did just drove him further away. His posting history reveals a person confused, not “certain”.
Deciding who is proselytizing and what his religion should display is a moderator’s job.
Shame we have people like that here.
Thanks for clearing that up.

And thanks for implying that I was the one.

 

[spina1953]

Thanks Spina.

Edward,
As person who spent 20 years across the Tiber, don’t expect to understand everything at once, it just doesn’t work that way. My process took several years.
One of the great things about being Catholic (again), is that I am not required to “know everything”, meaning I can relax in my quest to understand everything about theology and history. It doesn’t mean I accept ignorance, it just means my approach is understanding how much I do not know, and have yet to learn. You never “arrive”.
Don’t be put off my overzealous Catholics who have “all or nothing” philosophy.
Many of us have been where you currently are my friend.

Hi Just Servant: You are welcome. I have been a Catholic all my life, however, for a good many years I did not follow my faith ; not practicing my faith as a Catholic. Yet, there came a time for me after so many years staying away from the Church ,although I studied much religious history that I came back into the Church and began once again to practice my Catholic faith. Even after studying different religions and history of the Reformation, I still do not know everything nor understand everything about being Catholic. What I came to understand is that God works in mysterious ways and it was Him who called me back.

I have to say I have always held the belief that the Catholic Church had the truth as taught to the Apostles by Jesus Himself and that the Catholic Church is the true Church Christ founded. So, in some ways I understand it is always a journey in faith and will be till the time God calls us to Him. So what you had posted makes a lot of sense.

 

[nmgauss]

I have recently read of the different approaches to Christianity.

There is Jesuism that refers to what Jesus had in mind at Pentecost, the additional ideas introduced after Pentecost, and therefore not taught by Jesus, and Paulinism that refers to what St. Paul had in mind. The teachings of Jesus appear in the Gospels all of which were written after St. Paul introduced new ideas.

So what piece of literature documents the teachings of Jesus, and his intentions for the Church at Pentecost without having been tailored by later writers?

 

[spina1953]

Hi Josie L: Your post #931: Most of what nmgauss wrote is blue that you replied to seems to me from reading early Christian history is or seems to b for the most part factual. That being said, I do agree with you that the Church started on Pentecost. I am not sure if there were other councils after the one in Jerusalem Acts:15, before all of the Apostles died, there may have been, and if there were it was not recorded.

           I would like to point out that like Jesus Himself, the Apostles taught orally and those who did write did not consider their writings to be Scripture. It was around 100 AD that the Gospels  as we know them began to be considered to be authoritative and over time that which became the NT also became authoritative in the many Churches. Now the Gospels are fragmentary, giving us certainly, the most important things to know about our Savior's earthly life, but still not telling us all we might know; as ST. John wrote  not everything Jesus said and did has been written down, and much that we do know in fact now and understand better through the teaching of the Catholic Church which has preserved traditions handed down since the time of the Apostles, from one generation to another.

The Gospels and Epistles that are now the NT were read, as they are among Catholic’s, at the gatherings of the Christians in the earliest days on Sundays; not to set forth a scheme of doctrines that they knew already, but to animate their courage, to excite their love and devotion to Jesus Christ, and impel them to imitate the example of that beloved Master, whose sayings and doings were read aloud in their ears. It was the furthest from the mind of the writers that what they wrote (Gospels Epistles) should ever be collected into one volume and made to do the duty as a complete and all sufficient statement of Christian faith and morals. So, it is by the authority of he Catholic Church that we can reply on having the truth and the teachings without alternations

 

[josie_L]

I have recently read of the different approaches to Christianity.

There is Jesuism that refers to what Jesus had in mind at Pentecost, the additional ideas introduced after Pentecost, and therefore not taught by Jesus, and Paulinism that refers to what St. Paul had in mind. The teachings of Jesus appear in the Gospels all of which were written after St. Paul introduced new ideas.

So what piece of literature documents the teachings of Jesus, and his intentions for the Church at Pentecost without having been tailored by later writers?

Even though St. Paul became an apostle he never witnessed what the original 12 did (although he was blessed to have received a vision from Christ and be in contact with those who knew Him most, i.e., his disciples/apostles). The original 12 were witnesses to Jesus’s words and actions for three years, but more importantly they were witnesses to his death and resurrection (which is at the core of our faith), and that is not something that St. Paul made up (not unless you want to believe that the other apostles and disciples were willing to go along with a lie introduced by St. Paul).

Moreover, St. Paul was in line with the other 12, in fact, his visit to St. Peter attests that he was concerned with whether or not he was in conformity with the rest of the Church. His visit also belied that the early Church had a hierarchical structure (which utilized councils as one way to regulate irregularities in the Church) wherein St. Peter was the head (uniformity and conformity are a necessary component to a hierarchical structure).

St. Paul played a vital role in the Church because he was considered the apostle to the gentiles, but it was St. Peter’s vision from Heaven that changed the course of the Church’s direction, which allowed St. Paul to preach to them.

So in answer to your question, the Bible. Although as a Catholic Christian, Sacred Tradition as well.

 

[josie_L]

Hi Josie L: Your post #931: Most of what nmgauss wrote is blue that you replied to seems to me from reading early Christian history is or seems to b for the most part factual. That being said, I do agree with you that the Church started on Pentecost. I am not sure if there were other councils after the one in Jerusalem Acts:15, before all of the Apostles died, there may have been, and if there were it was not recorded.

Hi Spina, I believe that the Church was always in conformity and uniformity (because the apostles themselves worked as one), moreover, heresy was not tolerated in the ranks of the one true church, and as such mechanisms were needed to ensure that such heresies would not affect the Church, i.e., the hierarchical structure of the church proved helpful in this matter (keeping uniformity and conformity of beliefs and practices). Although other mechanisms were put in place as well, i.e., councils, and letters also proved helpful, i.e., St. Paul’s letters to the other churches attests to the fact that the early Church desired uniformity and conformity, i.e., it was not a loose confederation of churches and/or independent churches doing their own thing.

I would like to point out that like Jesus Himself, the Apostles taught orally and those who did write did not consider their writings to be Scripture. It was around 100 AD that the Gospels as we know them began to be considered to be authoritative and over time that which became the NT also became authoritative in the many Churches. Now the Gospels are fragmentary, giving us certainly, the most important things to know about our Savior’s earthly life, but still not telling us all we might know; as ST. John wrote not everything Jesus said and did has been written down, and much that we do know in fact now and understand better through the teaching of the Catholic Church which has preserved traditions handed down since the time of the Apostles, from one generation to another.

I am well aware of Sacred Tradition and the role of the Church in establishing and protecting truth.

So, it is by the authority of he Catholic Church that we can reply on having the truth and the teachings without alternations

Yes, and that is why I wrote to Benhur that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have recently read of the different approaches to Christianity.

There is Jesuism that refers to what Jesus had in mind at Pentecost, the additional ideas introduced after Pentecost, and therefore not taught by Jesus, and Paulinism that refers to what St. Paul had in mind. The teachings of Jesus appear in the Gospels all of which were written after St. Paul introduced new ideas.

So what piece of literature documents the teachings of Jesus, and his intentions for the Church at Pentecost without having been tailored by later writers?

[That] is something [you] need to address here since [you] are the one claiming that there were changes to Jesus’ teachings and traditions.

 

[nmgauss]

[That] is something [you] need to address here since [you] are the one claiming that there were changes to Jesus’ teachings and traditions.

If all we have to go on are the Gospels, and they were written after the influence of St. Paul who never knew Jesus, after the Council of Jerusalem, and during or after the great Jewish rebellion in AD 70, we really don’t know what Jesus had in mind. There was no organizational structure other than appointing St. Peter as the first pope that was established at Pentecost. And we have only the Gospels to go on, which were written 40 to 70 years after the death of Jesus.

Any attempt to know the nature of The True Church as envisioned by Jesus is handicapped by lack of current statements written down at the time of Pentecost. For maximum credibility, historians look for statements written at the time or shortly after the events of interest. The best the Gospels can do is rely on writers who purportedly were eye witnesses that have to recollect what they can remember 40 to 70 years after the fact.

 

[edkw55]

“Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do…one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution’”.~(Father Francis A. Sullivan, a Catholic priest and theologian)

Father Sullivan is making the same point as I which is supported by the CCC.

 

[edkw55]

I am a Protestant who has felt drawn to the Roman Catholic Church for several years. About 2 years ago a started digging deeply into history and the wrings of the Fathers. To my frustration I came to realize that no matter how hard I tried I could not prove to myself, through history and cold hard facts, the truth of things like Apostolic Succession, the Papacy, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, the Sacred of Holy Orders, the One True Church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman catholic Church…all that Roman Catholic Authority stuff. I figured out by my own dumb self that, ultimately, I must accept these things by faith, just like the CCC says. As a Protestant accepting this Roman Catholic Authority thing by faith is a Huge Stumbling Block for me. We have a very strange situation here ya all…a protestant who has fallen madly in love with the Roman Catholic Mass(and so many other things Roman Catholic). I may never get past this stumbling block. Maybe Divine Providence is protecting me from entering what is a heretical church? On the other hand maybe He us drawing me to what truly is the One True Church. Someone posted earlier, maybe one of the moderators, that I am “confused,not certain”…he was sure right about that!

With all sincerity.

Ed

 

[benhur]

Some clairification seems necessary here.

1. We are speaking of the method GOD choose to pass on His only desired, wnated and taught faith beliefs. Certainly God is going to do as he promised:

John 16:13 “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you”

Matthew 28: 16-20 “And the eleven disciples [READ as Apostles Mt. 10:1-3] went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: “commanded here means: mandated, Ordained, taught & commanded] and behold** I am with you all days,** even to the consummation of the world.”

When Christ freely Choose to give Peter [and through Him; todays Catholic Church ALL of the key’s to heaven; He Christ obligated Himself to also give them the Power and authority they necessarily would need to actually grow the church [singular], and fulfill all that Chirst entrusted to them. Thus all salvation must, and does flow, mysteriously at times; through the CC.

God Bless you,
Patrick

Yes, that is one part of the Bride’s explanation for her uniqueness. The entire Bride believes at least that the twelve apostles are indeed part of our foundation, as attested by Revelations say so. Also that the oral tradition existed first and alone (except for OT scripture) and lasted at least 25 years when NT “scripture” began to be given to the “ecclesia” for solidifying the oral tradition of the good news.

 

[josie_L]

I am a Protestant who has felt drawn to the Roman Catholic Church for several years. About 2 years ago a started digging deeply into history and the wrings of the Fathers. To my frustration I came to realize that no matter how hard I tried I could not prove to myself, through history and cold hard facts, the truth of things like Apostolic Succession, the Papacy, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, the Sacred of Holy Orders, the One True Church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman catholic Church…all that Roman Catholic Authority stuff. I figured out by my own dumb self that, ultimately, I must accept these things by faith, just like the CCC says. As a Protestant accepting this Roman Catholic Authority thing by faith is a Huge Stumbling Block for me. We have a very strange situation here ya all…a protestant who has fallen madly in love with the Roman Catholic Mass(and so many other things Roman Catholic). I may never get past this stumbling block. Maybe Divine Providence is protecting me from entering what is a heretical church? On the other hand maybe He us drawing me to what truly is the One True Church. Someone posted earlier, maybe one of the moderators, that I am “confused,not certain”…he was sure right about that!

With all sincerity.

Ed

Hi Ed, I think what you need to do is pray, i.e., God will grant you the wisdom to see the truth, just give it time.

 

[edkw55]

The big thing that makes it difficult for Protestants and Roman Catholics to debate issues is that most Roman Catholics have a poor understanding of what Protestants really believe and most Protestants have a poor understanding of what Roman Catholics really believe.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

Hi Ed, I think what you need to do is pray, i.e., God will grant you the wisdom to see the truth, just give it time.

I agree. Thanks.

 

[josie_L]

If all we have to go on are the Gospels, and they were written after the influence of St. Paul who never knew Jesus, after the Council of Jerusalem, and during or after the great Jewish rebellion in AD 70, we really don’t know what Jesus had in mind. There was no organizational structure other than appointing St. Peter as the first pope that was established at Pentecost. And we have only the Gospels to go on, which were written 40 to 70 years after the death of Jesus.

Any attempt to know the nature of The True Church as envisioned by Jesus is handicapped by lack of current statements written down at the time of Pentecost. For maximum credibility, historians look for statements written at the time or shortly after the events of interest. The best the Gospels can do is rely on writers who purportedly were eye witnesses that have to recollect what they can remember 40 to 70 years after the fact.

No, St. Paul knew who Jesus was (his vision), moreover, St. Paul was not some rogue Christian doing his own thing, i.e., he was in contact, but more importantly a member of the early Church composed of the apostles and disciples who were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as such, he was aware of their beliefs and practices, which were passed down not only by means of the written word but orally as well. It was this oral tradition which we Catholics refer to as sacred Tradition (kept alive by the apostles and their successors), which we rely on to understand the nature of Christ’s mission for his followers and his Church, along with sacred Scripture that compliments and completes our deposit of faith passed down and promulgated by the authority of the hierarchical church composed of those who knew Christ best.

Moreover, most of the gospels were written prior to 70 A.D. (won’t write C.E), with the exception of the Gospel of John, which is purported to have been written around 90 A.D.

 

[spina1953]

A question that has been on my mind is exactly when was the Catholic Church officially established. Some people say that Jesus established it before his crucifixion. Others say that the church was established at Pentecost. Still others bring up that St. Peter did not build his church on the rock in Rome until AD 45, some 12-13 years after the crucifixion.

Even so, nobody knew for sure what to teach.
At first, Christians continued to worship alongside Jewish believers, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity, but within twenty years of Jesus’s death, Sunday was being regarded as the primary day of worship.[16] As preachers such as Paul of Tarsus began converting Gentiles, Christianity began growing away from Jewish practices[11] to establish itself as a separate religion,[17] though the issue of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still debated today. To resolve doctrinal differences among the competing factions within the Church, in or around the year 50, the apostles convened the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. This council affirmed that Gentiles could become Christians without adopting all of the Mosaic Law.[18] Growing tensions soon led to a starker separation that was virtually complete by the time Christians refused to join in the Bar Khokba Jewish revolt of 132,[19] however some groups of Christians retained elements of Jewish practice.[20]

The early Christian Church was very loosely organized, resulting in diverse interpretations of Christian beliefs.[21] In part to ensure a greater consistency in their teachings, by the end of the 2nd century Christian communities had evolved a more structured hierarchy, with a central bishop having authority over the clergy in his city,[22] leading to the development of the Metropolitan bishop. The organization of the Church began to mimic that of the Empire; bishops in politically important cities exerted greater authority over bishops in nearby cities.[23] The churches in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome held the highest positions.[24] Beginning in the 2nd century, bishops often congregated in regional synods to resolve doctrinal and policy issues.[18] Duffy claims that by the 3rd century, the bishop of Rome began to act as a court of appeals for problems that other bishops could not resolve.[25]

Doctrine was further refined by a series of influential theologians and teachers, known collectively as the Church Fathers.[26] From the year 100 onward, proto-orthodox teachers like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus defined Catholic teaching in stark opposition to other things, such as Gnosticism.[27] In the first few centuries of its existence, the Church formed its teachings and traditions into a systematic whole under the influence of theological apologists such as Pope Clement I, Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo

Thus when the church first started out, the apostles spread the word but it was not uniform. Then St. Paul began writing his famous epistles that began to change Catholic doctrine. Then when the Council of Jerusalem established the Apostolic Creed, there was more uniformity introduced. By the time Augustine of Hippo came along, the church had changed considerably from its beginnings.

So when can we say that the Catholic Church as we know it today was established?

Hi nmgauss: I beg to disagree with your last statement that the Apostles in spreading the Word was not uniform and it was Paul who changed the Catholic doctrine. From all the early history of Christianity, all of the Apostles taught the same thing and preached in their own words what Christ Himself taught and preached. The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles in understanding what they were taught but did not understand as Jesus Himself said that the Holy Spirit would remind them of all that He taught them. Paul like the rest of the Apostles first went to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. Paul taught what the rest of the Apostles were teaching, explaining to Gentiles Jesus’s Good News. It seems that Paul was the first to write letters to the different communities where he established Churches when he could not be there in person. There was no Apostolic Creed at the council of Jerusalem That came with the council of Nicea in 325AD. the Church developed slowly over time and by at least 107 AD as St. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to use the expression “the Catholic Church”.

 

[edkw55]

So when can we say that the Catholic Church as we know it today was established?

Possibly the Catholic Church as we know it today substantially began to take root in a significant way after the final fall of the Western Roman Empire in the late fifth century and well into the middle ages? I say this realizing that there were already contributing factors and events at play in the past several preceding centuries.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

My apologies to spina1953 and nmgauss for crediting the quote in my above post to the wrong person. Credit should have given to nmgauss.

Ed

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Coming up to that magic 1000 mark folks.

 

[PJM]

=edkw55;12046827]The big thing that makes it difficult for Protestants and Roman Catholics to debate issues is that most Roman Catholics have a poor understanding of what Protestants really believe and most Protestants have a poor understanding of what Roman Catholics really believe.

Ed

So Ed, how does that work? Can’t questions be asked or the difference so profound as to not be disscussable?

God bless you Ed,

Patrick