Was the early Church Catholic? And Authority of tradition

[theCardinalbird]

Was the early Church Catholic?

Where did the authority of tradition (not scripture) come from?

 

[MichaelP3]

The early Church was very much Catholic. Research on what the early Church believed reveals this.

No offence but care to share this?

I see this assumption a lot (together with the Catholics that wrote the Bible) yet the Early Church would look nothing like the Catholic Church today.

What I am getting to is that many start an argument like this is a fact. Yet that premise isn’t even agreed to begin with.

 

[pianistclare]

The early Church was Catholic.
it’s teaching were form Christ Himself.
It doesn’t mean that each Mass is identical down through the centuries.

 

[Kei]

In what way would you say it would look “nothing” like the Church today?
In the externals? Perhaps, as the Church was illegal and being persecuted unfairly and its members were at risk of death, and so didn’t have grand buildings everywhere.
But in terms of belief? It was universal, there was proper authority, Apostolic succession, etc. Just read St Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[MichaelP3]

I understand and respect that this is the Catholic view. It just that it can’t be assumed all hold to this premise.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Yea I have read him.

In it’s beliefs very much. You never actually hear of a non-Catholic objecting to the early Church when you think about it. Many even Profess the Nicene Creed. (I do and i know many more who do it every Sunday).

 

[stpurl]

And yet the Nicene Creed was what, circa AD 326 or so? So if you’re professing that, you’re professing from a church service from that time or later. And if you look at the Latin rite then the church service would look very distinctly Catholic in rubrics. . .the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist; the penitential rite, the Gloria, the readings from Scripture, the Creed, the bringing of gifts to the altar, the Sanctus, the consecration, the Amen, the Our Father, the communion, the going forth. . .

 

[MichaelP3]

And if you look at the Latin rite then the church service would look very distinctly Catholic in rubrics. . .the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist; the penitential rite, the Gloria, the readings from Scripture, the Creed, the bringing of gifts to the altar, the Sanctus, the consecration, the Amen, the Our Father, the communion, the going forth. . .

I get your point. Any reference it was exactly like that?

But then I never meant the service. And I actually would have no issue with that “way”. I have no issue how Catholics do it. I think it is pretty good.

 

[Kei]

I am glad that many protestants agree with the Nicene creed.
Many protestants are very similar in belief to Catholicism, especially early protestant beliefs that broke off directly from Catholicism.
Though I imagine the “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.” part may be a little awkward.

However, what do you believe to be changed in the Catholic Church from the early church? Many early writers speak to the Eucharist in a fairly literal sense, St Ignatius even uses that as an example to prove the heresy that Jesus was without body to be incorrect.
Mariology?
Beneath thy compassion, we take refuge, O Mother of God: do not despise our petitions in time of trouble, but rescue us from dangers, only pure one, only blessed one.
This prayer is found on papyrus from ~250.
Recourse to the saints?
Known AT LEAST since Gregory the Wonder Worker.
I mention these things as these are prior to the council which produced the Nicene creed.

 

[adf417]

I see this assumption a lot (together with the Catholics that wrote the Bible) yet the Early Church would look nothing like the Catholic Church today.

I agree! The early church held their first meetings in the synagogues and then in homes and now church buildings. The early church never used the word Trinity or ever used the phrase “Jesus is God” but these are not a problem with the rest of Christianity.

What I am getting to is that many start an argument like this is a fact. Yet that premise isn’t even agreed to begin with.

I hope you are not waiting on total agreement on this, it will never happen but it will within the one true church which is what matters.

Peace!!!

 

[MT1926]

Was the early Church Catholic?

According the early writings of the Church Fathers I would say yes.

If you don’t trust the Church Fathers maybe you will trust Alexa …

Where did the authority of tradition (not scripture) come from?

From Jesus to the Apostles to their successors.

Jesus never wrote anything down. It was about 20 years before the first book of the Bible was written. Another 30 years before the last book was written. And another 200 before the canon of the Scripture was closed. Add to that a 95% illiteracy rate and it does not seem logical that Jesus intended the scriptures to be our rule of faith.

I know I will get a backlash for this statement, but to me it is common sense. On their own Scripture has absolutely no authority. How can it? It is written words on a page. Now I’m not saying their is nothing authoritative in scripture. What I am saying is the only way authority can flow from scripture is when someone reads it. Which would logically tell us the one with the authority is the one doing the reading. You’ve spent plenty of time on this forum. Just look at the back and forth and the arguments we get into, over interpretation.

Wow, that last statement made me just think of this. The definition of an authority is a person or organization having the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

How does the Bible give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience?

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I see this assumption a lot (together with the Catholics that wrote the Bible) yet the Early Church would look nothing like the Catholic Church today.

I was just curious if you could point me to some sources of what the early Church did look like?

Also, does the early Church have to be absolutely identical to the Church of today? or Would it have had room to grow and flourish through the years?

 

[po18guy]

Read Paul: “What I have received form the Lord, I hand on to you” - the very definition of tradition.

Tradition. Came before the bible. The bible is one method of handing that tradition on, but far from all of it.

OK, once more for those inquiring minds out there:

 

[MichaelP3]

On their own Scripture has absolutely no authority. How can it? It is written words on a page.

This is a fair point, but what is the alternative? Oral tradition? Take 20 people today with the words and play the telephone (maybe called something else in English) game? With something stupid as “the guy tied his shoe and went walking” and see how that comes out? Or… that could have been written down from the start and no issues?

Take Irenaeus. That was so little years of oral tradition and still Jesus was said to have died in His 50s?

Regards

 

[jas84173]

The early Church didn’t even have scripture as we know it. In fact many writings not considered inspired now were at one time.
The final Canon wasn’t decided on until 393 A.D. by the second Council of Hyppo. Mainly to combat heresies. Believe it or not most early Christian’s didn’t want a " New Testament " but thought the Church should be the only interpreter. The notion of sola scriptura would have been completely foreign to the ante Nicene Church Fathers.

 

[MT1926]

This is a fair point, but what is the alternative? Oral tradition? Take 20 people today with the words and play the telephone (maybe called something else in English) game? With something stupid as “the guy tied his shoe and went walking” and see how that comes out? Or… that could have been written down from the start and no issues?

A few things to point out with your premise.

First, was everything written down from the start? As I already pointed out it took years.

Second, how can you claim “no issues” in the same paragraph you just admitted “This is a fair point”? As I already pointed out the one that is doing the interpreting is the one with the authority. Do you agree with this premise?

Third your example only works because like you said “TODAY”. Yes I totally agree take 20 people today. However, it wasn’t this way back then. Heck it wasn’t this way 30 years ago. I can remember at the age of ten walking up to the good ole rotary phone and dialing any one of a hundred phone numbers I knew by memory. Had no choice, didn’t own an iPhone back then. How many “NEW” phone numbers do I have memorized today. Maybe 10.

Back then Oral tradition was life. That’s how you handed down your family tree. Heck people had the Psalms and the OT scriptures memorized. They didn’t unroll their scrolls every time they wanted to pray the psalms, they just said them.

 

[MT1926]

Take Irenaeus. That was so little years of oral tradition and still Jesus was said to have died in His 50s?

I’m no expert on Irenaeus but I think you might be misinterpreting what he is saying.

I’m guessing you are referencing Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22)

From my reading of the Chapter it seems that the Heresy he is writing against is against…

Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

It seems they were trying to say Jesus was Baptized before the age of 30 and only preached one year being crucified before the age of 31. Trying to prove that Jesus was not a true teacher because he had not yet entered the years of 31 to 50, being the next stage of life.

He seems to make it pretty clear that Jesus was about 33…

Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized,

And that he preached for 3 years.

Now, that these three occasions of the passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge.

Now I will admit what he says here is confusing and does bring the 50 years old into question…

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.

However, it seems he isn’t trying to prove 50, instead he is trying to prove older than 30. He already proved to us Jesus 30 year old Baptism and 3 year ministry. 30 (not 50) being the context of this Chapter. Because a 30 year old is still in the first stage of life and has not yet reached the age of Master/Teacher (older than 30).

It seems the whole point of Irenaus here is to prove that Jesus was older than 30, not that he was 50. He even tells us this here…

He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year,

Irenaus doesn’t really give us an exact age. It seems all he was trying to prove was that Jesus was older than 30 and was in the stage of life between 31 and 50, which extends into “old age”. In this, Jesus was qualified to be a teacher; since a Jewish rabbi had to be a “elder” in order to be a true teacher.

 

[RandomAlias]

This is a fair point, but what is the alternative? Oral tradition? Take 20 people today with the words and play the telephone (maybe called something else in English) game?

In ancient times, oral tradition was much more reliable than the telephone game. The listener had many opportunities to listen, recite, be corrected, and repeat until he got it straight, and he wasn’t the only one hearing and reciting it.

 

[BlackFriar]

Not to begin with.
You wont find any Church was named as “The Catholic Church of xxxx.”

Was the same Church to be found everywhere?
Not to begin with.
In fact the first communities operated from Synagogues and private homes.
Only with the fall of the Temple did they start dispersing into widespread and significant communities. Probably still operating out of the large homes of wealthy members.
Even then its not clear how unified these disparate Communities actually were.
Some went off the rails or remained partisan.
There is a small religion today that originates from John the Baptist. It was one of a number of partisan Christian communities in the very early Church along with Corinthians , Ephesians etc etc. Some stayed within the Christian umbrella, some didn’t.
Likewise with the community under James in Jerusalem at first I believe.
Others were unified in a sort of way by the same itinerant preachers or distinguished “apostles”.

Was the early Church Catholic in the sense of open to all peoples?
Not at the very beginning. You had to become a Jew or at least adopt Jewish observances to some extant. That was a big fight and eventually the Christian sects separated from Judaism.

So the answer to your question pretty much depends on exactly what the word “catholic” means to us now and back then. And even back then it changed its meaning in the first few 100 years and meant different things to different people.

The expression was apparently only first used around 100AD.

 

[almost2]

Well it is interesting to c what people here believe to be their truth of history