Early Christians Appear to be Catholic, Not Protestant

DeepWater · Jul 26, 2016

The Apostle Paul wasn't a Catholic, and he told you to "follow me as i follow Christ".
Paul was the "gentile apostle"...Peter was not.

Cappadocious · Jul 26, 2016

mark46 said:
Love causes that purgation in the RCC also. Purgatory is only for those saved by God.

With regard to the Orthodox, as in Catholicism, there is controversy, but for many, there are the toll houses.

Toll houses is a monastic metaphor largely adopted from the tradition of actual toll houses held by gnostics like the Archontics, Paulicians and Bogomils. Aside from this, modern toll house models are anachronistically read back on to vague early references to aerial powers attacking upon death.

So to summarize: Toll houses as metaphor for judgment: OK.

"Literal" toll houses as described in the vision of Theodora and its gnostic antecedents: Not ok.

No meaningful controversy really exists imo.

Philip_B · Jul 26, 2016

DeepWater said:
The Apostle Paul wasn't a Catholic, and he told you to "follow me as i follow Christ".
Paul was the "gentile apostle"...Peter was not.

Both Peter and Paul lived in a time before the word Catholic was used. At the Council referred to in Acts chapter 15 Paul and Peter represented different sides of a discussion, and James was the leader of the Synod. The main business was to discern the will of God on the matter of circumcision. Clearly in the wake of the success of the mission to Antioch (where the believers were first called christian) the matter of circumcision had arisen, and seems to have been a difficulty in promoting the faith (one but speculates that adult males had some reservation about the practice). The council discussed and came to a common mind and James ruled that circumcision was not required. This was a very important step in the Church becoming less closely associated with the Judaism which had cradled its birth.

Whilst the term had not been adopted, Catholic means 'according to the whole' and is a reminder of the unity that Jesus prayed for us, so whilst Paul describes himself as the 'Apostle to the Gentiles', and Simon was named Peter (meaning rock) by Jesus, they both understood themselves to be part of the whole body, and implicitly therefore Catholic.

Of course they could not understand themselves to be Protestants at that stage as there was nothing to Protest against.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jul 27, 2016

Philip_B said:
Both Peter and Paul lived in a time before the word Catholic was used. At the Council referred to in Acts chapter 15 Paul and Peter represented different sides of a discussion, and James was the leader of the Synod. The main business was to discern the will of God on the matter of circumcision. Clearly in the wake of the success of the mission to Antioch (where the believers were first called christian) the matter of circumcision had arisen, and seems to have been a difficulty in promoting the faith (one but speculates that adult males had some reservation about the practice). The council discussed and came to a common mind and James ruled that circumcision was not required. This was a very important step in the Church becoming less closely associated with the Judaism which had cradled its birth.

Whilst the term had not been adopted, Catholic means 'according to the whole' and is a reminder of the unity that Jesus prayed for us, so whilst Paul describes himself as the 'Apostle to the Gentiles', and Simon was named Peter (meaning rock) by Jesus, they both understood themselves to be part of the whole body, and implicitly therefore Catholic.

Of course they could not understand themselves to be Protestants at that stage as there was nothing to Protest against.

Which is why we sometimes call this the 1 st. Ecumenical council. We have Bishops, meeting under a "presiding" Bishop, discussing matters of theology and practice, being guided by the Holy Spirit; this is indeed the beginnings of the Church catholic.

FaithfulPilgrim · Aug 22, 2016

Quid est Veritas? said:
I don't think the Protestants are necessarily so unaware of Church Fathers. I am not American and belong to a Reformed Church, but I have heard sermons referencing Church Fathers as well since my youth. Mostly Augustine, Jerome and Athanasius. Usually of course in a very subsidiary role mind you. I mean we hold to Sola Scriptura, but without the Church Fathers, how are you supposed to know what is Scripture? Perhaps it is just American Protestantism?

My Church tends not to say the early Church resembled our worship at all, however they do defend the idea that its understanding was much simpler than Roman Catholicism and more faith and Grace based. So they would say doctrinally we are akin to them even with the acruel of saints etc. that they practised later. Of course, we also reject Episcopacy on lack of clear references in the NT (I know some infer it from passages in Acts, Titus and Timothy) and historical interpretations of Presbyters originally ruling the Rome and Jerusalem Churches. But these latter points are of course debatable, as many Episcopalian denominations can point out.

I myself do not consider the early Church as anything other than the Church. Only later did it break into Eastern and Western Christianity; which subsequently broke into Roman Catholicism and the various Protestant sects. While the early Church outwardly probably more closely resembled Orthodoxy or Catholicism, all Christians are the descendants of the teachings of the Apostles, only emphasising different areas of their teaching, so I consider this a fairly moot point.

I agree.

They weren't Protestant because there was nothing to protest against except maybe the Roman Empire and worldliness.

However, I noticed some of their beliefs seem Catholic, some Orthodox, and some Protestant.

It wasn't perfect, as it had good aspects and bad aspects just like it has always had.

FaithfulPilgrim · Aug 22, 2016

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I agree.

They weren't Protestant because there was nothing to protest against except maybe the Roman Empire and worldliness.

However, I noticed some of their beliefs seem Catholic, some Orthodox, and some Protestant.

It wasn't perfect, as it had good aspects and bad aspects just like it has always had.

Whoops! Double quoted

thecolorsblend · Aug 27, 2016

-- Mary: Ever Virgin
"If they [Our Lord's supposed brothers] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, 'Woman, behold your son,' and to John, 'Behold your mother' [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate."
- Hilary of Poitiers (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354])

Catholics have been saying the same thing as the above for years. Because it's true.

-- Apostolic Succession
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about."
- Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189])

Irenaeus never even tries to mention Sacred Scripture in his rebuttal; he points to the broader sweep of Sacred Tradition instead.

-- The Real Presence in the Eucharist
"[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes."
- Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

This should speak for itself.

-- Sacred Tradition
"At that time [eg, circa A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition."
- Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History [A.D. 312])

All in all, looks pretty Catholic to me.

thecolorsblend · Aug 27, 2016

A classic...

This-is-sort-of-like-my-body-Things-Jesus-never-said.jpg

All4Christ · Aug 29, 2016

thecolorsblend said:
-- Mary: Ever Virgin
"If they [Our Lord's supposed brothers] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, 'Woman, behold your son,' and to John, 'Behold your mother' [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate."
- Hilary of Poitiers (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354])

Catholics have been saying the same thing as the above for years. Because it's true.

-- Apostolic Succession
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about."
- Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189])

Irenaeus never even tries to mention Sacred Scripture in his rebuttal; he points to the broader sweep of Sacred Tradition instead.

-- The Real Presence in the Eucharist
"[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes."
- Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

This should speak for itself.

-- Sacred Tradition
"At that time [eg, circa A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition."
- Eusebius of Caesarea (Church History [A.D. 312])

All in all, looks pretty Catholic to me.

Sounds pretty Orthodox to me as well

(not trying to get into a Catholic vs Orthodox debate though...just my thoughts!)

~Anastasia~ · Aug 29, 2016

All4Christ said:
Sounds pretty Orthodox to me as well (not trying to get into a Catholic vs Orthodox debate though...just my thoughts!)

Yes.

I haven't really wanted to get into this thread. From the title ....

There is no sense of it in the case of "Catholic vs. Protestant" because the Church was ... The Church. Anyone who "protested" or testified against the Church was a heretic. (Teaching against the divinity of Christ, the incarnation, and so on)

Of course the Church back then was "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic". Even most Protestant denominations retain the Nicene Creed. In that sense, it truly WAS catholic, and there are no other options. (Except the heretics who separated themselves.)

The only real debate to come up is Catholic vs. Orthodox, since that was the first major schism (not including Chalcedon, which for many reasons is best not part of this debate). And of course as Orthodox I have my view (which is largely WHY I am Orthodox), and I don't doubt a Catholic would generally say the same from their own point of view. And I don't want to get into that (there are plenty of threads already on that topic).

But Catholic vs. Protestant ought not even be a real question.

Unless one looks at things like sacramentalism, ecclesiology, etc. ... and I don't really want to get into that debate either (again there are plenty). But we have early writings that explain the Scriptures, making sense of things that are either difficult to reconcile or simply escape notice as too brief a mention before one studies it out. And even then it is not really "catholic vs. Protestant" because many Protestants hold the same or very similar beliefs.

It is better described as those who hold to Tradition compared to those today who toss it all out. And of course, this is not the place to debate that.

But I think the original title creates unnecessary disagreements.

All4Christ · Aug 29, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Yes.

I haven't really wanted to get into this thread. From the title ....

There is no sense of it in the case of "Catholic vs. Protestant" because the Church was ... The Church. Anyone who "protested" or testified against the Church was a heretic. (Teaching against the divinity of Christ, the incarnation, and so on)

Of course the Church back then was "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic". Even most Protestant denominations retain the Nicene Creed. In that sense, it truly WAS catholic, and there are no other options. (Except the heretics who separated themselves.)

The only real debate to come up is Catholic vs. Orthodox, since that was the first major schism (not including Chalcedon, which for many reasons is best not part of this debate). And of course as Orthodox I have my view (which is largely WHY I am Orthodox), and I don't doubt a Catholic would generally say the same from their own point of view. And I don't want to get into that (there are plenty of threads already on that topic).

But Catholic vs. Protestant ought not even be a real question.

Unless one looks at things like sacramentalism, ecclesiology, etc. ... and I don't really want to get into that debate either (again there are plenty). But we have early writings that explain the Scriptures, making sense of things that are either difficult to reconcile or simply escape notice as too brief a mention before one studies it out. And even then it is not really "catholic vs. Protestant" because many Protestants hold the same or very similar beliefs.

It is better described as those who hold to Tradition compared to those today who toss it all out. And of course, this is not the place to debate that.

But I think the original title creates unnecessary disagreements.

Agreed. Christian Churches have a wide range of beliefs on the matter - from very Traditional to very non-Tradition-related faith systems. Protestants can be found on both ends of the spectrum, though many generally considered to be highly Traditional Protestants do not consider themselves to be Protestant in the first place.

~Anastasia~ · Aug 29, 2016

All4Christ said:
Agreed. Christian Churches have a wide range of beliefs on the matter - from very Traditional to very non-Tradition-related faith systems. Protestants can be found on both ends of the spectrum, though many generally considered to be highly Traditional Protestants do not consider themselves to be Protestant in the first place.

It begins to become confusing to apply labels then, doesn't it?

All4Christ · Aug 29, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
It begins to become confusing to apply labels then, doesn't it?

Very much so!

All4Christ · Aug 29, 2016

I find that some cradle Orthodox think all Protestants believe pretty much the same thing (out of ignorance - and that often is the older generation). I always try to stress that the beliefs one group of Protestants have probably aren't the same as another group. We can't generalize accurately. That's the same thing as people thinking all Orthodox are Greek

only cultural rather than beliefs. In the Catholic Church, it would be similar to thinking all were Roman Catholic, rather than having multiple rites. Granted - the range of Protestant beliefs is greater in my opinion...Evangelical Charismatic is very different from Continuing Anglican or confessional Lutherans for example.

ETA: one of the most funny misconceptions is when people think I'm Jewish

just because we share the first part of the name "Orthodox"

~Anastasia~ · Aug 29, 2016

All4Christ said:
I find that some cradle Orthodox think all Protestants believe pretty much the same thing (out of ignorance - and that often is the older generation). I always try to stress that the beliefs one group of Protestants have probably aren't the same as another group. We can't generalize accurately. That's the same thing as people thinking all Orthodox are Greek only cultural rather than beliefs. In the Catholic Church, it would be similar to thinking all were Roman Catholic, rather than having multiple rites. Granted - the range of Protestant beliefs is greater in my opinion...Evangelical Charismatic is very different from Continuing Anglican or LCMS for example.

ETA: one of the most funny misconceptions is when people think I'm Jewish just because we share the first part of the name "Orthodox"

Lol yes I've gotten the confusion with being Jewish. And I've also been asked why I'd go to an Orthodox Church when I'm not ethnically Greek.

There are a lot of misconceptions.

One that did surprise me though is that it seems the majority of the Orthodox immigrants don't realize that there is any difference in belief between various denominations. They seem to think it's all about language and culture and practices, so they are mystified when someone who isn't Greek would want to come to their Church. I'm afraid I've scandalized a few of them by pointing out some of the more extreme differences in doctrine.

MarkRohfrietsch · Aug 29, 2016

All4Christ said:
Agreed. Christian Churches have a wide range of beliefs on the matter - from very Traditional to very non-Tradition-related faith systems. Protestants can be found on both ends of the spectrum, though many generally considered to be highly Traditional Protestants do not consider themselves to be Protestant in the first place.

I would fall into the later category, as would most confessional Lutherans and many of the more traditional Anglicans.

All4Christ said:
I find that some cradle Orthodox think all Protestants believe pretty much the same thing (out of ignorance - and that often is the older generation). I always try to stress that the beliefs one group of Protestants have probably aren't the same as another group. We can't generalize accurately. That's the same thing as people thinking all Orthodox are Greek only cultural rather than beliefs. In the Catholic Church, it would be similar to thinking all were Roman Catholic, rather than having multiple rites. Granted - the range of Protestant beliefs is greater in my opinion...Evangelical Charismatic is very different from Continuing Anglican or LCMS for example.

ETA: one of the most funny misconceptions is when people think I'm Jewish just because we share the first part of the name "Orthodox"

So do some Cradle Catholics, particularly those who live in or are 1st. generation from Catholic countries. Historically, what we would call "radical reformers" that actively and often violently rebelled against Rome caused all of us to be tarred and feathered with the same brush.

FireDragon76 · Sep 1, 2016

"Protestant" is no longer a helpful label, and it's always had more of a negative meaning- not Roman Catholic. At one time the US government even considered Orthodox Christians to be "Protestant" (the US military, for instance), and that did not change until a few decades ago. It's one of the reasons many Orthodox churches used to be affiliated with the National Council of Churches.

The popularity of the term owes a lot to the Black Legend, Dutch/English propaganda and the consequent anti-Catholicism present in many Northern European and American contexts.

thecolorsblend · Sep 3, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
"Protestant" is no longer a helpful label, and it's always had more of a negative meaning- not Roman Catholic.

I find and have found that truism to be rather telling. Many "reformers" initially started off on a similar path with one another but their disagreements came more frequently and over more issues. Their modern day heirs are so far apart that any mode of unity apart from a simple "solidarity" with one another is practically impossible.

As to the Roman Catholic thing, I kind of bristle at that for the same reason others do. Yes, I'm a Roman Catholic but there IS an Eastern Church and one can be, say, a Byzantine Catholic. Then again, 9 times out of 10 people don't mean any offense by it so I guess it's not such a big thing.

Paul Yohannan · Sep 9, 2016

thecolorsblend said:
I find and have found that truism to be rather telling. Many "reformers" initially started off on a similar path with one another but their disagreements came more frequently and over more issues. Their modern day heirs are so far apart that any mode of unity apart from a simple "solidarity" with one another is practically impossible.

As to the Roman Catholic thing, I kind of bristle at that for the same reason others do. Yes, I'm a Roman Catholic but there IS an Eastern Church and one can be, say, a Byzantine Catholic. Then again, 9 times out of 10 people don't mean any offense by it so I guess it's not such a big thing.

The Orthodox Church refers to itself as The Catholic Church or as the Apostolic Church in different situations or jurisdictions.

I think the reason why "Orthodox" became such a common name for Eastern Catholics not in communion with Rome is because most of them are Russian, a substantial minority are Greek, where the creed says "Catholic" the diptychs say "Orthodox" or "Pravoslavie" and the "Pravoslavie" term derives from the 190 million or so Russian Orthodox.

However, most Eastern Catholics also until recently considered themselves "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." There was very little Latinization until the turn of the 20th century in any of the Greek Catholic churches, when major Latinizations, since largely reversed, occurred in the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church (the Carpatho-Rusyns) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

From the start however there was massive latinization in the Maronite church so that post Vatican II they wound up effectively replacing their Latinized West Syriac liturgy with a sort of watered down form of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy. But this is at least much easier to read. The best part of the Latin Rite is its organization into a Missal and Breviary, vs. the gazillion obscure service books it takes to celebrate the Syriac or Byzantine Rite liturgy.

Uber Genius · Sep 21, 2016

Thursday said:
Imagine any protestant saying these things today:

St. Augustine
"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.

"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of GOD is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church."
Christian Combat 31,33, 396 A.D.

St. Cyprian Of Carthage
"On him (Peter) He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair (cathedra), and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity....If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" ("On the Unity of the Catholic Church," 251 A.D.)

"The blessed Apostles, then, founded and built up the church in Rome.They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus.Of this, Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.To him succeeded Anacletus.After him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop."St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)

St. Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and Martyr; Letter to the Smyrneans § 8)

The early church rejects the apocrapha as scripture, the authority of popes being equal to scripture, he authority of church tradition being equal, works-based salvation is also rejected. Mary's role as cometrix is rejected etc.

So cherry-picking will not work to establish Catholic supremacy.

Secondly the Reformation had in mind a return to right doctrine after three centuries of schisms, a multiplicity of claims to be pope, contradictions between popes (incoherent theology). The goal wasn't to split but rather reform.

That said, after the Council at Trent Catholicism changed to react against the reforms (that were argued to be the position of the early church by reformers).

We need to make proper distinctions between Catholic pre-Trent and post.

We need to avoid cherry-picking.

We need to recognize some significant exegetical limitations such as reading narratives in a allegorical fashion that weren't allegories (which was popular in the 3rd -5th centuries and beyond).

I can take early Popes and completely eviscerate the counter-reformation propositions coming out the various councils from 1545-1563 that made up Trent.

I don't think there are many Catholics that want to defend indulgences for instance.

A more important method would avoid am attempt at an argument from authority (even properly conceived). But instead look at the various differences in doctrine we have and determine which inference (Protestant or Catholic) best explains the scriptural data. It is not at all clear for instance that Baptism is ordinal from the scriptural data. Also, if one doesn't study the context of James and particularly chapter 2, it will not be clear that works are not required in some fashion on order to be saved.

Of course my approach is a horrible approach if one is general lazy and opinionated. Too much work and not enough rhetorical flourish and manipulation.

Early Christians Appear to be Catholic, Not Protestant

Just The Truth

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Unapologetic Apologist

Eternally Seeking

Eternally Seeking

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

† Handmaid of God †

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

† Handmaid of God †

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

† Handmaid of God †

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Well-Known Member

"Super Genius"

Similar threads