The historicity of the Church

[edkw55]

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

Hi Patrick,
I agree. Asking questions and discussing issues is always good no matter what the differences. I was just pointing out an issue that complicates the matter a great deal. Nevertheless, keep the dialogue going for sure.

God bless you as well.

Ed

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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,

It’s important to keep our understanding in order as well.
This isn’t addressed to you, josie, but rather to nmgauss.

The disciples would NEVER, EVER have trusted St. Paul’s version of things unless and until they were confirmed by the Apostles themselves, or at least the Chief Apostle. After all, Saul was the biggest enemy that the Christians had!! He was killing 'em for their belief in Christ.

Looking backwards in history it’s a facile argument to make that St. Paul’s teachings influenced the Early Church, but you can’t imagine the distrust that there’d be if they didn’t have a common foundation.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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?

[sarcasm]
Yes, and then they invented a time machine, and went back and inserted all the distinctive Catholic beliefs into the writings of the first through fifth centuries to trick us.

[/sarcasm]

 

[edkw55]

[sarcasm]
Yes, and then they invented a time machine, and went back and inserted all the distinctive Catholic beliefs into the writings of the first through fifth centuries to trick us.

[/sarcasm]

“When can we say that the Catholic Church as we know it today was established?”~(Originally Posted by spina1953)

Were “all the distinctive Catholic beliefs” “as we know it today” present in the writings of the first through fifth centuries?

Ed

 

[edkw55]

Were “all the distinctive Catholic beliefs” “as we know it today” present in the writings of the first through fifth centuries?

Ed

In my earlier post I was suggesting the possibility of the middle ages, not the fifth century.

 

[edkw55]

John Henry Newman’s “An Essay On Development Of Christian Doctrine” made sense to me in many way but as an Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism His starting point was a belief in the doctrine of Apostolic Succession(my Big Stumbling Block).

Ed

 

[Isaiah45_9]

John Henry Newman’s “An Essay On Development Of Christian Doctrine” made sense to me in many way but as an Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism His starting point was a belief in the doctrine of Apostolic Succession(my Big Stumbling Block).

Ed

I offered you the list of Popes and you ignored it.

[If] there is no apostolic succession, then there was no Church at that point in time.

So it is easier for you to believe that the Church was absent, the body of Christ abandoned on the earth without any successors… Than it is to believe that there is…

Could you please elaborate?

 

[benhur]

I offered you the list of Popes and you ignored it.

[If] there is no apostolic succession, then there was no Church at that point in time.

So it is easier for you to believe that the Church was absent, the body of Christ abandoned on the earth without any successors… Than it is to believe that there is…

Could you please elaborate?

It is the old orphan story. My way the only way. No popes no church…no apostolic succession as defined by cc or no church at all. …everyone knows the apostles appointed elders wherever they went. Not sure they only appointed only one person to replace themselves,but many and in many places…so nobody is abandoned and what is the Holy Spirit but Christ in the midst of us. It would be like if the apostles lost peter during the 3 years The Lord was with them and cried out to Jesus,“oh no ,we are orphaned, no peter”. Would not The Lord say but wait a minute, am I not with you ? The Orthodox Church shows,along withe the early patriarchs that there are alternatives to CC paradigms of leadership.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is the old orphan story. My way the only way. No popes no church…no apostolic succession as defined by cc or no church at all. …everyone knows the apostles appointed elders wherever they went. Not sure they only appointed only one person to replace themselves,but many and in many places…so nobody is abandoned and what is the Holy Spirit but Christ in the midst of us. It would be like if the apostles lost peter during the 3 years The Lord was with them and cried out to Jesus,“oh no ,we are orphaned, no peter”. Would not The Lord say but wait a minute, am I not with you ? The Orthodox Church shows,along withe the early patriarchs that there are alternatives to CC paradigms of leadership.

You don’t get to be double minded.

Either there is Apostolic Succession or there isn’t. The Orthodox and Catholic share in it. You can’t speak of one and ignore the other.

If there has always been a Church, then there has always been succession.

Which is it?

 

[benhur]

You don’t get to be double minded.

Either there is Apostolic Succession or there isn’t. The Orthodox and Catholic share in it. You can’t speak of one and ignore the other.

If there has always been a Church, then there has always been succession.

Which is it?

I was not double minded. But you perceive correctly in admission to succession, leadership but failed to see the inference to a type of succession and leadership,one that is partly contrary to CC definition and implication.

 

[edkw55]

The One True Church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.

True or False?

Let’s play make believe here, total fantasy land you must be crazy kinda stuff and, just for the sake of argument, say that the response to the above statement is “false” while still insisting that the Church truly did begin on the day of Pentecost and continues to exist to this very day. Any thoughts???

Ed

 

[edkw55]

Remember, this would necessarily imply that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession is “false” as well.

 

[edkw55]

Remember, this would necessarily imply that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession is “false” as well.

Ok, I did a great job of blotching this up.

Let me rephrase the above.

Let’s also assume, for the sake of argument, that the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession is also false.

 

[nmgauss]

Ok, I did a great job of blotching this up.

Let me rephrase the above.

Let’s also assume, for the sake of argument, that the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession is also false.

Who established the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, and was this doctrine established at Pentecost?

 

[edkw55]

Who established the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, and was this doctrine established at Pentecost?

I know what you are getting at. As a Protestant seriously considering the Catholic Church I am a long way from accepting the answer you are looking for.

Ed

 

[PJM]

=edkw55;12051887]“When can we say that the Catholic Church as we know it today was established?”~(Originally Posted by spina1953)

Were “all the distinctive Catholic beliefs” “as we know it today” present in the writings of the first through fifth centuries?

Ed

The First Pentecost

It’s grown some sense then, BUT it IS still the same Church:thumbsup:

God Bless you Ed,
Patrick

 

[edkw55]

The First Pentecost

It’s grown some sense then, BUT it IS still the same Church:thumbsup:

God Bless you Ed,
Patrick

Hi Patrick,
From the Catholic take on things that’s an excellent answer.

God bless you…ed

 

[josie_L]

Hi Patrick,
From the Catholic take on things that’s an excellent answer.

God bless you…ed

Hi Ed,

Have you ever read any books from Thomas Howard, because I would like to recommend two of his books, i.e., “Becoming Catholic” and “Evangelical Is Not Enough”. Here are some of the reviews for his books:

amazon.com/On-Being-Catholic-Thomas-Howard/dp/0898706084

amazon.com/Evangelical-Not-Enough-Worship-Sacrament/dp/0898702216/ref=pd_sim_b_2/178-5585476-9654469?ie=UTF8&refRID=1M3TJBSEBBMYS8PZ3Z5E

 

[nmgauss]

The First Pentecost

It’s grown some sense then, BUT it IS still the same Church:thumbsup:

God Bless you Ed,
Patrick

That’s like saying that Yahweh as defined in the Old Testament is the same as the God portrayed in the New Testament. If that is so, and God never changes, how can a cruel, spiteful God who kills people because they do not obey be reconciled with a kind merciful God? Maybe Marcion was right after all.

If burning at the stake was perpetrated during the Inquisition, but it is not practiced now, how can one say that it’s the same church? If the brutal Crusades were sponsored by Pope Urban II, and the church is the same as the one established at Pentecost, why has the church presented itself as against wars? It’s the same church! If the church cannot extol its accomplishments during the Crusades, then it is a different church.

 

[spina1953]

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

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

Hi Josie L: I agree with you that the Church was and is always in conformity and uniformity because the Apostles worked as one. My post was in a round about way trying to make that point you so well put. I knew you were aware of Sacred Tradition and the Church’s role, didn’t mean to suggest you did not know.