The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[rakovsky]

Do you accept these words of Jesus to his apostles?

Luke 10:16
16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Heb 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Regardless of the verses, orthodox Christians are more fundamentally united by Christ than by the patriarchs even in 800 ad. Communion is the union in Christ's body not the popes body.

Anyway the orthodox did not have some consensus that the pope was ever their emperor, only the first among equals who ruled a different patriarchy. The orthodox consensus in the east never said that they were under the pope in Rome, and calling peter himself the rock before he became bishop in Antioch and Rome doesn't count to prove this of the Pope in 1100 ad.

 

[Thursday]

I also might add that St. Augustine, one of the most influential early church fathers, rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception and the ascension of Mary. Two dogmas that were later declared excathedra to be true by the Pope! St Augustine also believed in "predestination of the elect". Apparently it is alright for Rome to pick and choose "sacred tradition " as well as "sacred scripture".

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

This is absolutely false. St. Augustine absolutely agreed with the immaculate conception and there is no such thing as the ascension of Mary.

Around 390 AD, St. Augustine writes:

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."

Here's another quote from Augustine to clear things up:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

 

[rakovsky]

Thursday,

The earliest church is the orthodox church of Jerusalem, which is officially called the "mother of all churches".

You counterargue that this cannot be because they arent under the pope and the pope is infallible when the bishops approve his teachings. But this counterargument fails because the Roman church had recognized numerous popes as heretics, because the papacy has at times been vacant, and also because the eastern bishops did not approve of the pope's teaching and schism against them in 1054. Therefore, his schism against us is not infallible and said alleged infallibility does not serve as any evidence against us. I might as well just keep copying and pasting this post if the thread continues to reject the EO church as the early church for not being under the pope.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This is absolutely false. St. Augustine absolutely agreed with the immaculate conception and there is no such thing as the ascension of Mary.

Around 390 AD, St. Augustine writes:

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."

Here's another quote from Augustine to clear things up:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

Mary being "sinless" is not the same as "immaculate conception ".

Reference: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a28.htm

Let's take the Immaculate Conception first. As you probably know, the Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared to be a dogma of the Church in 1854. Before that time, it was merely what we call a theolegoumenon (a theological opinion). Thus, before the Church solemnly defined it in 1854, Catholics were free to either believe in the Immaculate Conception or reject it. Indeed, even some of our greatest Catholic saints, such as Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux (who had profound devotions to Our Lady) had serious problems with the idea that she was conceived without original sin (although they believed she was personally sinless). Yet, despite this, there were also others in the Church, such as St. Bonaventure and Blessed Duns Scotus who championed the Immaculate Conception. So, the Immaculate Conception was a debated question in the Church for centuries.

However, what was NOT a matter of debate was Mary's sinlessness. The universal witness of the Church, from Pentecost until today, has always professed that Mary was without sin. The only question was: "When did her sinlessness begin"? And it was from this question that we arrive at the Immaculate Conception.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

there is no such thing as the ascension of Mary.

I just couldn't pass this up. You, as a self proclaimed Catholic, think there is no such thing as the "ascension of Mary"? The dogma that was declared by the Pope in 1854 via excathedra to be true? The dogma which claims that Mary never died but rather ascended into heaven just like Enoch and Elijah?


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[tickingclocker]

The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians…and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

I always thought the first Christians were Jews, not Gentiles.

 

[rakovsky]

I just couldn't pass this up. You, as a self proclaimed Catholic, think there is no such thing as the "ascension of Mary"? The dogma that was declared by the Pope in 1854 via excathedra to be true? The dogma which claims that Mary never died but rather ascended into heaven just like Enoch and Elijah?


Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

He might mean that she was assumed not that she ascended like Jesus.

 

[rakovsky]

I always thought the first Christians were Jews, not Gentiles.

They were both, although for the first year or so they were Jews not gentiles.

 

[rakovsky]

The answer is simple – the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is very interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

This deserves it's own thread and is a compound answer. RCS made some things up and then 1500 years after the bible was written the protestants reinterpreted what it said.
Living 1500 years later with an independent mind, it's only natural that some things they got right and others wrong due to distance in time. Obviously in their own minds everything they decided was right, but the fact they got some things wrong is borne out by the interprotestant disputes.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

He might mean that she was assumed not that she ascended like Jesus.

My mistake. It is assumption of Mary not the ascension.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

My mistake. It is assumption of Mary not the ascension.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

It's ok. I know what you meant.

 

[Anguspure]

These early writings confirm the truth that Jesus started one Church and it was the Catholic Church.

The word catholic as used by the church fathers has the following meaning:
Catholic 1.including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.

Of course the Church was catholic under the headship of Christ Jesus. But then intolerent and egotistical men decided that they could do better and the body of Christ has been divided and anything other than catholic ever since.

 

[rakovsky]

Jason,

It's kind of off topic, but I can see how the Christian community developed in stages. I have a hypothesis that the early church of 30 to 200 ad was like modern charismatics with their signs and gifts plus believing in supernatural things like holy oil. Then the orthodox church was the next step that dropped the Charismaticism because they seemed too flighty and wild and not realistic, but kept the holy oil. Next the RC church developed new teachings like purgatory that they added to the original ideas like holy oil.
After that, the hard core Reformed Protestants came along like a skeptic naturalistic version of Christians and they stopped believing in RC things like purgatory and also stopped believing in original things from the 1st century like holy oil, claiming and imagining that the bible never taught holy oil for the future in the first place. Reformed will fight hard to say that the Bible didn't teach some of the things it does that don't match their mentality 1500 years later.
The next step is where more modern thinkers like Thomas Jefferson or Bart Ehrman claim that Jesus didn't teach supernatural things ascribed to him, like being God.

So you can see a progression where the 1st century Christians believed lots of supernatural things that over the centuries major sections of Christians stopped believing.

 

[rakovsky]

Jason,

It's kind of off topic, but I can see how the Christian community developed in stages. I have a hypothesis that the early church of 30 to 200 ad was like modern charismatics with their signs and gifts plus believing in supernatural things like holy oil. Then the orthodox church was the next step that dropped the Charismaticism because they seemed too flighty and wild and not realistic, but kept the holy oil. Next the RC church developed new teachings like purgatory that they added to the original ideas like holy oil.
After that, the hard core Reformed Protestants came along like a skeptic naturalistic version of Christians and they stopped believing in RC things like purgatory and also stopped believing in original things from the 1st century like holy oil, claiming and imagining that the bible never taught holy oil for the future in the first place. Reformed will fight hard to say that the Bible didn't teach some of the things it does that don't match their mentality 1500 years later.
The next step is where more modern thinkers like Thomas Jefferson or Bart Ehrman claim that Jesus didn't teach supernatural things ascribed to him, like being God.

So you can see a progression where the 1st century Christians believed lots of supernatural things that over the centuries major sections of Christians stopped believing.

Jason,

What I have just said could be reasonably proven, but I think it's hard to persuade people if they are set in a certain mindset. For example, I can show that the 1st century Christians taught miracle tongues, but maybe 95% of Christians today will distance themselves from that, saying that the time for miracle tongues is generally over.

Based on this hypothesis, the closest thing could be Orthodox charismatics, but they are rare.

 

[samir]

No other Church can legitimately make this claim.

These early writings confirm the truth that Jesus started one Church and it was the Catholic Church.

First up, this is taken from the letter of Pope Clement, the fourth pope, written to the Corinthians in about 90 AD. I've highlighted some key quotes that demonstrate the authority of the Church and the pope.

First Epistle to the Church at Corinth,
by His Holiness Pope St. Clement I

Chapter 41

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

You said this epistle was written by Pope Clement in AD 90 yet Clement refers to daily sacrifices in Jerusalem. These sacrifices stopped after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 which suggests Clement wrote this letter prior to that date, long before he became the bishop of Rome so it doesn't demonstrate the pope having any authority.

 

[rakovsky]

You said this epistle was written by Pope Clement in AD 90 yet Clement refers to daily sacrifices in Jerusalem. These sacrifices stopped after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 which suggests Clement wrote this letter prior to that date, long before he became the bishop of Rome so it doesn't demonstrate the pope having any authority.

Sure Clement said the pope had authority but not that he was infallible.
[/End thread]

 

[Anguspure]

No other Church can legitimately make this claim.

Another thought:
There is no other church.
There is only THE Church and it is under the headship of Christ Jesus who was crucified for us all.

"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

And this Church, the one true Ecclesia, the people of God; how will they be known?

I cannot find anywhere in scripture that says anything along the lines of: “they shall be known by their organisation and by their apostolic succession.”

Scripture does however make clear in plain language how the body of Christ will be known:

“by their fruit they shall be known.” and, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

"He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”"

"Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."


As for issues of Papal primacy and the apostle Peter:

"An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest (an argument that continues to this day).
Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”
“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”"

Paul wrote: "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God."

 

[Anguspure]

How can the Orthodox Church, which split from the Catholic Church, be the Church Christ founded when it doesn't even have as a member the successor of Peter?

Because they, along with all other parts of the body, are part of the body of Christ.

Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God."

 

[keltoi]

Luther built his own stew and came to regret it. There were plenty of reformers who worked within the Church, which is what Luther intended.(Erasmus and Catherine of Siena come to mind)

Pride led him to error and despair.

You don't think the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor threatening his life was a problem?

 

[keltoi]

Is God a person?

Yes, he is my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Want me to introduce you to him?