Before 300: Pre-Constantinian Christianity
It is often asserted that the Catholic Church was founded by the Constantine, who was Emperor of the Roman Empire from AD 306-337. A couple of weeks ago, a lady named Monica made such an assertion and in earlier post I pointed out some of the problems with such a theory.
However, today I would like to do something a little different… In this post I would like to set forth the positive historical case for the existence of the Catholic Faith in the generations prior to Constantine. I will show how twenty-one different Catholic doctrines were taught long before Constantine rose to power:
- The Church is Catholic
- The Church has a three-fold structure of leadership
- There is unity through episcopal authority and schism is evil
- Sacred Tradition is authoritative
- Worship is liturgical
- There is Apostolic Succession
- Peter has Primacy
- The Eucharist is a Sacrifice
- Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist
- The Eucharist is taken to the sick
- Infants are to be baptized
- Baptism actually washes away sin
- Priests forgive sins
- Works are involved in salvation
- Prayers are said for the dead
- There is purgation after death
- Relics are venerated and Saints are celebrated
- Mary is the New Eve
- Mary was a perpetual virgin
- Mary is the Mother of God
- Prayers are made and songs are sung to Mary
I will demonstrate these early Christian belief by looking at primary sources alone and restricting myself to writings produced prior to AD 300.
Part #1: The Church
Let’s begin by looking at how the earliest Christians understood the nature of the Church, her identity, her leadership and her worship…
1. The Church is Catholic
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church
Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (c. AD 103)
2. The Church has a three-fold structure of leadership
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.
Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (c. AD 103)
3. There is unity through episcopal authority and schism is evil
…so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which means] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ
Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (c. AD 103)
For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop
Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians (c. AD 103)
4. Sacred Tradition is authoritative
Suppose there arises a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear regarding the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the Tradition that they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches?
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (c. AD 180)
5. Worship is liturgical
You can read some of the early liturgies of the Church in the Didache (c. AD 50-100) and in Apostolic Tradition (c. AD 215)
6. There is Apostolic Succession
42. … [The Apostles] appointed the first fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, ” will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”
Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. AD 70-96)
…
44. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
…that tradition derived from the apostles, of the…universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul… which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (c. AD 180)
…The blessed apostles… committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [of Rome]… To him succeeded Anacletus… Clement… Evaristus… Alexander… Sixtus… Telephorus… Hyginus… Anicetus… Soter…[and] Eleutherius does now…hold the inheritance of the episcopate.
… this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
7. Peter has Primacy
The Lord says to Peter: “…upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him 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. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. 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?
St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 (A.D. 251)
Part #2: Salvation & Sacraments
Next, let’s examine what the first Christians believed about salvation and the Sacraments, focussing particularly on the Eucharist and Baptism…
1. The Eucharist is a Sacrifice
On [Sunday], assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure… For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice…’
The Didache (c. AD 50-100)
2. Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist
[The Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it [would be] better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again
Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (c. AD 103)
3. The Eucharist is taken to the sick
The deacons carry a portion [of the Eucharist] to those who are absent.
Justin Martyr (c. AD 150)
4. Infants are to be baptised
The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from the family.
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. AD 215)
5. Baptism actually washes away sin
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit
Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 (c. AD 248)
6. Priests forgive sins
[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop should pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your Royal Spirit, …and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate… to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command.
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition (c. AD 215)
7. Works are involved in salvation
When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death”
Polycarp to the Philippians, quoting Tobit (c. AD 130)
Part #3: The Saints and Our Lady
Finally, how did the successors to the Apostles understand those Christians who had gone before them, marked with the sign of faith?
1. Prayers are said for the dead
The faithful widow prays for the soul of her husband, and begs for him in the interim repose, and participation in the first resurrection, and offers prayers on the anniversary of his death
Turtullian, Monogamy, (c. AD 213)
2. There is purgation after death
If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones; but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God… It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God… is called a cleansing fire. But this fire does not consume the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.
Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah (AD 185-232)
3. Relics are venerated and Saints are celebrated
[After his execution and burning], we collected Polycarp’s bones, being more precious than the most exquisite jewels and more purified than gold, we interred them in a fitting place. There the Lord will permit us, as far as possible, to assemble in rapturous joy and celebrate his martyrdom – his birthday – both in order to commemorate the heroes that have gone before, and to train the heroes yet to come…
Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. AD 155)
4. Mary is the New Eve
For just as the former [Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter [Mary], by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (c. AD 180)
Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith
5. Mary was a perpetual virgin
[The Protoevangelium of James records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end… I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 2:17 (c. AD 248)
6. Mary is the Mother of God
For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God… It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, “Hail, full of grace!”
Gregory the wonderworker, Four Homilies (AD 262)
7. Prayers are made and songs are sung to Mary
There are many others:
Beneath your compassion we take refuge, Theotokos [God bearer]!
Our prayers, do not despise our petitions in time of trouble,
but rescue us from dangers, only pure, only blessed one.
Early Christian Hymn (c. AD 250).
The Challenge
I could produce many, many more primary source extracts to further demonstrate the presence of these and other Catholic doctrines at the very dawn of Christianity. However, for sake of brevity, those given above should suffice. So, rather than giving yet more quotations, I would like to challenge Monica and the other readers:
- Can you affirm all the statements from these (pre-Constantine) Christians?
If you don’t recognize your own Faith in the words of men such as Ignatius and Justin, can you really be so sure that your faith is apostolic?
2. Is the Faith expressed in the quotations above recognizable as the Catholicism?
If not, might it be time to reconsider what you have been told about history? There is approximately a 1,400 year gap between the death of the last apostle and the beginning of the Reformation. So, if you don’t hold the same Faith as theologians such as Hippolytus and Polycarp…
3. …can you identify anyone between the Apostles and the Reformation who held the same doctrines which you yourself hold?
If not, how do you explain that your version of Christianity finds no place in antiquity? Might it be time to consider afresh the substance behind the claims of the Catholic Church?
Conclusion
I’d like to close this final post with a quotation from John Henry Newman, a former Protestant minister whose conversion was brought about in no small part by studying history and reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers:
“The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”
John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
Introduction | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
Keep up the good work. Articles like this are needed for searching souls.
Thanks Jacob, and welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
Yes Christianity was called Catholic Church, catholic means universal, but the Roman Catholic Church was started around 300AD. There is no evidence that Peter was the first pope. The book of Acts mentions him having leadership along with the other disciples. He was not a leader to the other disciples but all of them were leaders. When Jesus said in Matthew that he would build his church on the Faith Peter had shown for him, Jesus never gave the name of a specific church.
It is well known in secular history that Roman Catholicism started about 300AD
I would also suggest you visit these Christian sites
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/catholicism-sp-1104002490
http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
Most of those things you posted are not biblical things. You said that just because something (like describing how the disciples died) is not written in the bible then it means it is false, but still I would not trust something that is not written in the bible because it can be a false doctrine made up by men. There is no danger in believing a lie on how the disciples died (because this is not an essential belief for salvation) but there is a danger in believing a lie regarding to salvation. The Catholics are preaching things such as Mary saving us which is very dangerous because this is a false gospel. Sorry friend but I continue to disagree with you.
Monica, I asked two basic questions in this post and I’d appreciate it if you answered them directly:
1. Can you affirm all the statements from these (pre-Constantine) Christians?
2. Can you identify anyone [between the death of the last Apostle and the Reformation] who held the same doctrines which you yourself hold?
I recognize myself in your objections Monica. As a protestant, it’s part of our DNA. We are taught these kind of things from the very beginning.
When I took Systematic Theology in Seminary, I didn’t think it was a problem AT ALL that the books we read and the lectures we listened to started from the Reformation period. We NEVER dove into the early church and its theology. The reasons were obvious: The Catholic church was the harlot of Babylon and had corrupted the Gospel. The blessed reformers rescued it and saved the world.
It was not until, years later, I began to read the early church Fathers WITHOUT the aid of protestant commentary that I began to see how different the protestant faith was from the faith of those who were taught by the Apostles themselves.
When you do that, you realize that how the early church understood the Gospel, which had been once for all delivered to the saints, is very different than how Calvin and the rest of the reformers and by extension the Protestant church, view it.
Something has changed, Monica. The historical truth is that the Protestants have changed things. We can argue over what that means, and if the changes are right or wrong, or better or worse. But the indisputable, historical reality is that the theology of the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church resemble the early church much, much more than our Protestant theology does.
That troubles me, greatly. If you want a primer on the early church fathers that is easy to read and understand. Check out “The Apostolic Fathers” by Michael Holmes.
http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Fathers-English-Michael-Holmes/dp/0801031087
Read through this, and then come back here and tell us what you think.
Thanks for your thoughts Jim.
Yes, this post doesn’t have to prove everything about the Catholic faith, but it does demonstrate that the Faith of the earliest Christians wasn’t anything like Protestantism. In contrast, we Catholics and our Eastern Orthodox brethren could give a hearty “Amen” to all the quotations above. Contrary to Monica’s assertion, Catholicism didn’t begin in AD 300.
If either you or Monica would like to dig into the Church Fathers some more, I’d invite you to take a look at my Church Father Resource page.
How would the Marian dogma resemble what the early churches believe? Mariology is 100% heresy.
Firstly, does that mean that you would hold to all these other doctrines? Otherwise, this objection is rather meaningless. There’s no point complaining that the evidence for Doctrine X is light in the Early Church if one rejects Doctrines Y and Z when the evidence is strong.
But regarding Mary, the seeds for all future doctrine are definitely there. I’ve listed all of them ones we find explicitly in the first few hundred years. For example, we have extant proof of belief in her sinlessness within the First Century and her perpetual virginity a few decades later, and explicit prayers to her in the 200s. However, the crucial doctrine is Mary as New Eve, our earliest attestation being Irenaeus in AD ~180.
Exactly! Where are the ones who crucified Jesus because He said He forgave sins. The new danger is the Crown of England and it’s Hague U.N. World Order. Modern Mystery Babylon is Freemasonry and aligns up with Musterion Greek word for Mystery. All roads lead to Londonium, Church of England Druids and Edomite Donmeh
Sorry, but this is incomprehensible.
The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ADMITTED TO CHANGING THE BAPTISM FORMULA MATHEW 28;19 Every APOSTLE Always BAPTISED in JESUS NAME Acts2 38
Hey Timothy, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
To be baptised “in the name of Jesus” means to use the baptismal formula which He gave:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit – Matthew 28:19
I have two questions:
1. How do you explain this passage?
2. Can you name any Christians from 2nd Century onwards who baptised without reference to the Father, Son and Spirit?
…and as a bonus, how about the central point of the article? You asserted that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine in around AD 300, yet all the above primary source quotations come from years earlier and describe a Faith which is clearly recognizable as Catholicism.
3. Is it therefore safe to conclude that the Catholic Faith existed long before Constantine?
Monica,
Like myself, I would suggest that you have come to your conclusion about the historical church by believing what others have told you to believe. Often we fall into a pattern of circular logic: “What I believe about X is true because that is what I believe and I don’t believe stuff that is not true.”
I went to the two sites you listed, and they contain our protestant version of things by respected leaders. However, I don’t really care what Dr. MacArthur or Geisler think about topic of the early church. You shouldn’t either, when you can go back to the early church and read how they viewed things for yourself, unfiltered by the views of people who are trying to prove their point. Afterall, who can speak more authoritatively about what the 2nd century church believed, Justin or MacArthur? Polycarp or Geisler?
Until and unless a person reads the first and second century early church fathers for themselves, whatever conclusion one arrives at regarding the early church borders on being meaningless. Don’t you find it a little bit concerning that our side seldom challenges our side to read the early church documents? Why is that?
Read them with an open mind, let the Fathers speak to you and you may have a better idea.
Another great suggestion Jim, thanks.
In my previous post I had suggested that Monica’s “information has come from, at best, anti-Catholic historical commentary. I would suggest that she has never really encountered the Early Church Fathers, nor read much at all from the primary and secondary sources from the early centuries of Christianity”. The links she posted in her comment seem to confirm my initial suspicion.
As you say, if you want to know what the Early Church believed, read what they themselves have to say, rather than what other people say about them. Read them in unfiltered.
No Protestant would simply accept what her pastor said about the Bible without checking out the text for herself. Why shouldn’t that approach be applied with the Early Church Fathers?
I have some documents of the Early Church available here, together with audio recordings of me reading them. Hope they help.
Jim and David, it does not matter whether the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus when a church is engaging in practices that go against what the bible teaches. The word of God has more power than the words of a man.
By the way, Jesus neither the apostles never gave the name of a church in specific so you can not argue it was the roman catholic church the one they were referring to. The apostles mentioned Catholic Church but NOT Roman Catholic Church, catholic is just a name for universal, universal salvation but it was not referring to the Roman Catholic Church in specific.
Why would Jesus found his church in Rome? So far I know it was Israel the land God chose to evangelize the world and not Rome. Rome has no role in the play here. The most obvious reason to why it is called Roman Catholic Church is because it was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Jesus would never have established his church in a pagan nation. There is only one nation chosen by God and that is ISRAEL.
Monica, I’m afraid you still haven’t answered the questions. Please attempt to answer them – they’re just yes/no questions, with perhaps a sentence of explanation.
Monica, you seem unaware of the fact that the term “Roman Catholic Church” was invented by Anglicans in England in the 17th century, as a deliberate insult to Catholics who to this day find it either offensive or puzzling why protestants would call them by such an inappropriate name. The term “Roman Catholic” is never used by the Catholic Church and is totally unheard of outside of English-speaking countries.
My understanding is that it wasn’t so much an insult, but rather as a support for “branch theory”:
That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic
– Source
Nobody here seems to ask about the Christian experience of slaves and little nobodies who had no time of money to participate in these rituals.
Yet the early days were full of such people. The forums of the empire were places where slaves on errands would hear the Word in little store front gathering places.
The inner life of early Christians, especially people “in Caesar’s household” or slaves in the families of the well to do, for whom spending hours in preparation for Baptism or long ceremonies was completely impossible, is at least a bit interesting, don’t you think?
Doesn’t anybody care about the underdogs who heard of Jesus? This obsession with kings and Patricians must bore others besides myself!!
Timothy ran out on his dull, mediocre post and got himself martyred on purpose…now there’s a story of pre-300s Christianity. Ephesus was already suffering from the God;s Frozen People syndrome.
Is the inner life of no interest???
> Nobody here seems to ask about the Christian experience of slaves and little nobodies who had no time of money to participate in these rituals
Liturgy was usually before sunrise and participating required no money.
> The inner life of early Christians, especially people “in Caesar’s household” or slaves in the families of the well to do, for whom spending hours in preparation for Baptism or long ceremonies was completely impossible, is at least a bit interesting, don’t you think?
What makes you think that spending time in catechesis wasn’t possible?
> This obsession with kings and Patricians must bore others besides myself!!
What obsession? The only reference to aristocracy in this article is a mention of Constantine, because there is the common false assertion that Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy began with his rise to power.
> Timothy ran out on his dull, mediocre post and got himself martyred on purpose…now there’s a story of pre-300s Christianity
To what are you referring here? “dull, mediocre post”? He was stoned for opposing a pagan procession.
> Ephesus was already suffering from the God;s Frozen People syndrome.
I’m also not sure what you’re referring to here. Ephesus was a vibrant Christian centre in the Early Church.
> Is the inner life of no interest???
Again, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
I was trying to stir the pot away from sectarian tedium everyone has heard a million, zillion times.
Timothy was very old and knew perfectly well he would die. Why had he never gone after that yearly procession before? It’s not hard to figure out…Jesus was taking His time.
Please define “lively” in reference to Ephesus. All I have heard was about architecture and ceremonies in the churches. What was the inner life, the life of the personal ethics and love?
> I was trying to stir the pot away from sectarian tedium everyone has heard a million, zillion times
I’d hardly call it “sectarian tedium”. The claim was made that the Catholic Faith did not exist prior to constantine, so I assembled a selection of evidence of rather Catholic-sounding doctrine years before the rise of Constantine.
> Timothy was very old and knew perfectly well he would die. Why had he never gone after that yearly procession before? It’s not hard to figure out…Jesus was taking His time
We don’t know whether or not he had gone out the year before. Maybe he had done it every year and this was the year the pagans had finally had enough? Who knows?
But still, I still don’t see what relevance this has to the blog post, or what you mean by “Jesus was taking His time”. I wonder if you’re reading into the fact that Timothy had a long period of ministry? If so, what should we conclude from the rather short ministry of James the Greater?
> Please define “lively” in reference to Ephesus. All I have heard was about architecture and ceremonies in the churches. What was the inner life, the life of the personal ethics and love?
Again, I’m not really seeing the relevance of the question. Nowhere in this post have I mentioned “architecture”. I haven’t spoken about “ceremonies” either. The closest thing I’ve come to it has been talking about early Christian beliefs in the Eucharist and Baptism…and neither time have I spoken about liturgy.
Now, to your question about the “inner life” of Ephesus… How would you expect such a question to even be answered? If I asked you to tell me about the “inner life” of Kansas City, how would you try and answer?
What do we know about Ephesus? Well, we know Timothy was bishop there. We know John and Mary also probably spent some time there. We therefore can’t help but imagine that the cit benefitted from the sanctifying presence of those Saints.
I suppose the next source of information is Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and then Jesus’ assessment of that Church in the Book of Revelation:
“I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false; I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicola′itans, which I also hate”
There are some warnings there, but some good praise too. Next we could look at the words of Ignatius of Antioch who seemed to have found the Church alive and well:
“…deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory”
Finally, the fact that several councils of the Fifth Century were held there does seem to suggest that something had to be going on in the hearts of the Ephesian Christians.
This blog has turned into arguments. I came here to be inspired.
Sorry, Monica…go peddle your Church passion to others.
My idea of Christianity is much simpler and about ethics and duty.
Pilgrim, that EWTN document is obviously trying very hard to be kind to our separated brethren, to such an extent that it has fudged the historical facts. The term “Roman Catholic” was deliberately intended, and universally understood, as meaning that Catholics are both renegades from the “true Catholic” (i.e. ANGLICAN) Church, and also traitors to their secular ruler having pledged allegiance to a “foreign prince”. The term “Roman Catholicism” was not even invented until the 19th century. It wasn’t until later in the 19th century that a few Anglicans and other protestants were willing to concede that the Catyholic Church is at least a “branch” of the true church intended by Christ, and this theory did not become at all popular among protestants until the late 20th century. The classic protestant view, still held by many protestanbts to this day, is that the Catholic Church is the work of Satan, the “Whore of Babylon” prophesied in Scripture, and by no means any part or anything to do with Christ’s true Church, but the enemy of it.
> The term “Roman Catholicism” was not even invented until the 19th century
From Wikipedia:
The terms “Romish Catholic” and “Roman Catholic”, along with “Popish Catholic”, were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification.
The reign of Elizabeth I of England at the end of the 16th century was marked by conflicts in Ireland. Those opposed to English rule forged alliances with those against the Protestant reformation, making the term Roman Catholic almost synonymous with being Irish during that period, although that usage changed significantly over time.
Like the term Anglican, the term Roman Catholic came into widespread use in the English language only in the 17th century. The terms “Romish Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” were both in use in the 17th century and “Roman Catholic” was used in some official documents, such as those relating to the Spanish Match in the 1620s. There was, however, significant tension between Anglicans and Roman Catholics at the time (as reflected in the Test Act for public office). Even today, the Act of Settlement 1701 still prohibits Roman Catholics from becoming English monarchs.
Yes, as I said, the term “Roman Catholic” was invented by 17th century Anglicans, and the noun “Roman CatholicISM” to describe a religion, was invented by 19th century Anglicans.
I think you are misinterpreting those statements made by the people you are talking about. Anyways, how do you know those statements made by those people are coming from the Roman Catholic Church specifically? I never read these people mentioning “Roman Catholic Church” in specific.
The apostles did mention catholic but I responded to you that Catholic is not the same as Roman Catholic.
Anyways, most likely there were already many false teachings before Constantine legalized Christianity and established the Roman Catholic Church. These teachings you posted sound to me absolutely anti-biblical and it does not matter when they were established, they are still antibiblical. Let me give you an example, Jesus said about communion “do this in REMEMBRANCE” of me, Luke 22:18-20. He never said that we would literally eat him and drink him. What the RCC is teaching about the Eucharist is anti biblical.
You are teaching that Jesus re-sacrifices over and over again but the bible says He sacrificed himself only once Hebrews 7:27.
The reasons why what the protestant church teaches did not exist before was because the Roman Catholic Church did not allow the common people to read the bible, anyone who was found reading a bible was burned to death. It was until people began reading the bible when they noticed the false teachings.
Have I finally answered your questions?
I’m afraid you haven’t. Please list 1, 2, 3 with either a “Yes” or “No” next to them and a sentence briefly explaining why you picked that answer.
> I think you are misinterpreting those statements made by the people you are talking about.
Really? What makes you say that? Have you ever read any of them before? Do you know who these people are and the historical context in which they write?
> Anyways, how do you know those statements made by those people are coming from the Roman Catholic Church specifically?
Are you denying that all these statements are identifiably Catholic?
> Anyways, most likely there were already many false teachings before Constantine legalized Christianity and established the Roman Catholic Church
So you’re willing to reject Ignatius, Polycarp etc? Who then can we look to in these early centuries as “real” Christians?
> He never said that we would literally eat him and drink him
“My flesh is real food…my blood is real drink”
> You are teaching that Jesus re-sacrifices over and over again
That is incorrect and I corrected Gabriela about this in the initial post.
> The reasons why what the protestant church teaches did not exist before was because the Roman Catholic Church did not allow the common people to read the bible, anyone who was found reading a bible was burned to death
This is demonstrably false, I’m afraid. But you’re also missing the point – was the Church an evil, powerful organization in the Second Century? No! So where were the “real” Christians’ writings? Where are their objections to Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus?
> It was until people began reading the bible when they noticed the false teachings
…and came up with hundreds of conflicting interpretations and thousands of denominations, increasing every year. Which one got it right?
> It was until people began reading the bible when they noticed the false teachings
…and came up with hundreds of conflicting interpretations and thousands of denominations, increasing every year. Which one got it right?
Ouch!
The people who get it right are those who humbly walk with God in tenderness and justice. Jesus came to prove the Father’s love and so beget a new man, a new woman.
As for churches…by their fruits you can tell. Are the people gentle and kind? Do they live just lives…with their investments, their lifestyles, their time? Do they stand up for underdogs? Do they accept insults and criticism with humility? Are they touchy and sensitive or lighthearted about being human?
Although I’m Catholic, I don’t believe any church saves anyone…only God, who is wild and free.
> …and came up with hundreds of conflicting interpretations and thousands of denominations, increasing every year. Which one got it right?
Perfectly united in the agreement that, even though they don’t agree with each other’s interpretation, the historic Christian interpretation was definitely wrong! :-/
> The people who get it right are those who humbly walk with God in tenderness and justice. Jesus came to prove the Father’s love and so beget a new man, a new woman.
Okay…what’s your point?
> As for churches…by their fruits you can tell. Are the people gentle and kind? Do they live just lives…with their investments, their lifestyles, their time? Do they stand up for underdogs? Do they accept insults and criticism with humility? Are they touchy and sensitive or lighthearted about being human?
Okay….what’s your point?
> Although I’m Catholic, I don’t believe any church saves anyone…only God, who is wild and free
You’re presenting a false dichotomy. It’s not a case of either God or the Church. It is God through the Church.
Would you mind answering a few questions so I can better understand your position? Yes/No will do…
1. Do you believe in the authority of Scripture?
2. Do you believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
3. Do you believe that Jesus gave authority to His Church to bind and loose?
4. Do you believe that the sacraments are means of grace?
(Also, I’m little confused – you earlier identified yourself as “orthodox”, which I took to mean Eastern Orthodox. However, here you say that you are “Catholic”. With which see are you in communion?)
“Afterall, who can speak more authoritatively about what the 2nd century church believed, Justin or MacArthur? Polycarp or Geisler?”
Go back to the Bible if you want authority. Not what man says. It should be what God says.
This doesn’t actually answer the question as to who can speak more authoritative about what the 2nd Century Church believed. Do we go to the people to whom the Apostles handed over leadership of the Church, or people 1,500-2000 years later?
Your appeal to the Bible though is problematic because there was no defined canon of Scripture during this area. In fact, the people quoted here were involved in the discernment of the very Bible you have today. So, on what basis would you accept their decision on this (as well as their development of Trinitarian theology), but not all their other beliefs?
It also seems to suggest that the only authority is the Bible…something which the Early Church didn’t believe.
Thank you Monica for standing firm in what you believe. I agree 100% with you that Catholicism based too much in human invented dogmas and most are just unbiblical.
The idea that any clown can pick up a Bible and start his own religion because nobody else but him personally got it right is as ‘unbiblical’ as it gets.
30 Popes prior to the time of Constantine.
I am an orthodox Christian and believe what you say. However in my mind I see a child slave in a Roman business. Going to any church or priest is impossible. Yet this little person hears of Jesus and the good news. He/she is so amazed and happy to hear that God is ONE and loves all the slaves as His children.
Catholicism is so much about cities, cars, schools, monied people, art, history. Yet many long for the old, wonderful experience of God coming to them, not the other way round.
Hey Deanna, thanks for commenting and welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
> However in my mind I see a child slave in a Roman business
I’m not really sure what you mean here. Are you using this as figure?
> Catholicism is so much about cities, cars, schools, monied people, art, history
In what way?
My husband works at a local white flight Catholic school as custodian,
Jesus is seldom mentioned.
> My husband works at a local white flight Catholic school as custodian, Jesus is seldom mentioned.
I’d invite you to read my article Weeding Christians and Odd Fish
I believe those things but I also believe Jesus emphasized mercy and honesty more. And I don’t believe only Catholics are Christian.
> And I don’t believe only Catholics are Christian.
I agree
I see the concept of Pilgrims ecumecical apologist philosophy is the same as depicted in the image seen at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-RKWUOENSNo/RyIw9YtYrkI/AAAAAAAAAN8/jW4cxMMXM2o/s1600/christ_krisna.jpg
Its another Jesus and another Gospel, loud and clear Paul condemned in Galatians.
Incidentally a catholic “watchdog” blog set up by one Michael Prabhu closes monitors happening in the Romans Catholic Church of how a number of Jesuit priests are under scrutiny though in the end those investigations are simply labelled as ecumenical – a school of thought not in line with Biblical Christianity.
Hey Godwin, welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
> I see the concept of Pilgrims ecumecical apologist philosophy is the same as depicted in the image…
In what way? I don’t see how a picture o Krishna and Jesus really parallels with what I said in my Ecumenical Apologist post, which I say that my goal is to affirm what is common between different Christian denominations, while still defending the unique claims of the Catholic Church.
> Incidentally a catholic “watchdog” blog set up by one Michael Prabhu closes monitors happening in the Romans Catholic Church…
Never heard of him.
> ….in the end those investigations are simply labelled as ecumenical – a school of thought not in line with Biblical Christianity.
I think ecumenism is perfectly in line with Biblical Christianity. Ephesians 4 begins “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.”
Ephesians was written to saved brethren “saints” at ephesus church – not for the un-saved religiously lost . The spirit of ecumenism tries to foster a one world religion, its main objective is to set-aside doctrinal differences and so is not compatible with the faith once delivered to the saints Jude 1:3. The Ephesians epistle like many other paul’s epistles (Corinthians for example) were exhortations to those churches to maintain the spirit of unity among the brethren to abide within the framework of the faith that they have been handed down as their christian heritage.
> Ephesians was written to saved brethren “saints” at ephesus church – not for the un-saved religiously lost
Nobody said they were. The point of the quotation was to show the unity that should exist within Christians and how we are united by our baptism.
> The spirit of ecumenism tries to foster a one world religion, its main objective is to set-aside doctrinal differences and so is not compatible with the faith once delivered to the saints Jude 1:3
Nope, it’s to foster goodwill, work together on common goals (e.g. ending abortion) and building lines of communication so as to talk about our differences more clearly.
I believe what the Holy Spirit wrote in Romans 16:17. Sound doctrine cannot be compromised at any cost. Rome will never change and will perpetually continue to cling to its doctrines of devils.
A few points:
1. Who says that anything is compromised with ecumenism? What doctrines have changed as a result? Please name them.
2. You don’t explain how it is you think “Rome” has “doctrines of devils”. All I know is that you don’t like them. How do you know that you don’t ascribe to “doctrines of devils”? Are you interpretations of Scripture infallible?
3. Without “Rome”, how would you know which books went into the Bible?
Here is the URL to the catholic blog in question…
http://ephesians511blog.com/2014/08/03/fr-michael-amaladoss-sj-under-investigation-by-rome-2/
Nice! I already wrote a response. I probably will respond in a week,
Pingback: Before 300: Was Early Christianity Overtly Roman Catholic? | Reformed Christian Theology
Better late than never. The following is why I think the above article does not accurately reflect the early church: http://christianreformedtheology.com/2015/03/09/before-300-was-early-christianity-overtly-roman-catholic/
Thanks, I’m rather snowed under at the moment, but I’ll hopefully get some time this weekend to respond properly.
One more reason why the “Constantine founded the Catholic Church” assertion is so irrational, is that Constantine, although sympathetic to Christianity (his mother was a devout Catholic) and who eventually became a Christian himself on his deathbed, NEVER joined the Catholic Church (he was baptised into the Arian heresy, which denies Christ’s Divinity). In fact he spent most of his life using all of the resources of the empire to struggle against Catholicism and in favour of Arianism. At first by cajolery and largesse during the Council of Nicea, and when that dismally failed to persuade the bishops to accept Arianism, he Constantine used force.
Thank you so much. I am a Catholic Christian and you helped me!
You’re welcome Debra, glad I could help 🙂
In all these dialectical arguments concerning the early church fathers and which Denomination has their true origin there, I have not found many Protestants or Catholics who rather than attempting to pattern their theology after these men have chosen to pattern their lives after them.
Where are the Catholics or Protestants today who can claim a life of fasting, vigils and renunciation of this world?
Have we fall into the trap of the pharisees where we venerate the patriarchs but fail to pattern our deeds after them?(Matt 23:29-32)
I always find it strange that Rome who has throughout history been the biggest persecutor of true Christians now venerates and claims it’s origins from them. Yes, there was a pre-Constantine catholic church(universal) but is that the same as the ROMAN catholic church?
So again, have any of you actually pattern your souls after these men, bearing fruits worthy of repentance or do you all think you will be saved through your professional logomachies and claims of ” Having Abraham as your father”? (Matt 3:8-9)
“And which is better, faith which comes through the inworking (of God) or demonstrative by arguments?
…Faith arises from disposition of soul, but dialectic from the skill of its inventors.
Wherefore to those who have the in-working through faith, demonstrative argument is needless, or even superfluous. For what we know through faith this you attempt to prove through words, and often you are not even able to express what we(true Christians) understand.
So the in-working through faith is better and stronger than your professional arguments.” – St. Anthony the Great
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Hey Ross, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
I think the one follows the other. Theology informs the way we live. Do you disagree?
My first thought is: Catholic monks and nuns living in convents and monasteries around the world.
I think you’re going to make a claim like this, you should probably provide some evidence for it, rather than simply asserting it.
Well, the purpose of this article was to address one aspect of that question: was the theology and practice in the Early Church similar to that of modern-day Catholics? I think the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Do you disagree?
(By the way, in case you didn’t know, “Roman Catholic” was a term invented by Anglicans in an attempt to justify their schism. I am Catholic, but I am not Roman Rite, I am Byzantine Catholic)
The Benedictines pattern themselves after St. Benedict. The Augustinians pattern themselves after St. Augustine. We pray on Sundays in the manner of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. The writings of these and the other Fathers are studied deeply by Catholic and Orthodox Christians in order to imitate them. How many Protestants do the same?
You’re presenting a false dichotomy. Why not both?
Isn’t it a bit ironic that you’re using the words of St. Anthony here? Couldn’t I just say in response “have…you actually pattern[ed] your soul after [this man], bearing fruits worthy of repentance or do you all think you will be saved through your professional logomachies”?
Also, are you aware that St. Anthony came out of the Desert for the express purpose of refuting the Arian heresy?
Do you think the difference between Catholic and Protestant theologies are “foolish controversies”? If not, then I don’t see the significance of the quotation.
Again, I’m not quite sure what you’re arguing. It might be good if you could explain what you think this verse proves.
Yeshua (Jesus) told Peter (petros/stone)that upon this rock (petra/bedrock) I will build my church only after Peter made the confession: ‘You are the messiah. The son of the living G-D’.
This confession is the foundation of the church, not Peter.
Hey Stephen,
Welcome to Restless Pilgrim! You didn’t actually interact with anything actually posted in this article. Do you have any other comments about what was actually written? Can you agree with the statements of these Early Christians? If not, why do you think they believe what they do?
Regarding your comment, you appear to suggest that petros and petra. On what do you base this? You also assert that the Confession, separate from the man. On what do you basis? Are you aware of the Old Testament background to “the keys of the Kingdom”? I exegete the passage here.
God bless,
David.
In your post, you used the word “church”. What does that word mean? Thanks.
The same visible body of believers which is referred to in the Nicene Creed and is described as “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”.
I just came across even earlier proof for prayer for the dead:
“Let him [the reader of the headstone] pray for Abercius” – Abercius Headstone (AD 167)
Question: You are obviously a person who has done a lot of research on Christianity before Constantine. I’m a former United Methodist pastor. I have a question for you. I have a very very vague memory (I’m 69 years old. I ONLY have vague memories of everything! 🙂 ) a vague memory of being taught in seminary that before Constantine, those Christians who were given the title of “saint” were not necessarily ‘perfect’ or performed miracles or answered prayers. That during the first 300 years of persecution and martyrdom of the Church, ANY Christian who was imprisoned by Rome was considered a saint since they had remained faithful despite the temptation to deny the faith to avoid arrest and torture. And that is why the martyrs were especially venerated because they stayed faithful even though it meant their death. And it wasn’t until the government no longer imprisoned, tortured and murdered Christians (300ad) that the Church started using a broader definition of saint revolving around miracles and living a ‘perfect’ or near perfect life. I don’t have a problem with that, but I’m just trying to remember if that is true or not. Now that is a vague memory of mine; but is that accurate?
St. Paul and other New Testament authors speak of all Christians as “saints”. The Greek word “Hagios” denotes something being “holy”, “set apart” in some manner. You therefore see Christians referring to one another in these terms from the beginning of the Church, particularly martyrs and great leaders. Even in the Catholic Church today we’d refer to one another as “saints”, but often capitalise the “S” when referring to the Saints in Heaven, those who have run the race and how now cheer us on as we run our own race (Hebrews 12:1).
What I think you’re thinking of is the idea of martyrdom. When the imminent threat of martyrdom disappeared, some Christians grew nostalgic for the “good old days” of the martyrs. St. Jerome gave a wonderful sermon responding to this where he said “Let’s not think that there is martyrdom only in the shedding of blood. There is ALWAYS martyrdom.” From this developed the idea of “red martyrdom” (i.e. physical death) and “white martyrdom” (i.e. death to self and growth in holiness).
Pingback: ANTES DE 313: COMO ERA A IGREJA ANTES DE CONSTANTINO? – Editora Sta Joana D'arc
Typical Roman Catholic bullshit. You should spend your time explaining how the Orthodox Catholic church went bonkers after the 3rd century. If there was ever a grand prize for a spin artist it would be the Roman Catholic church. It is an organization that is a master at using Jesus Christ as a front to promote its long-standing dysfunctional behavior.
Views from a cradle Catholic who has now turned 2nd century Orthodox Catholic .
M
What does Scripture say about those with foul mouths who can’t control their tongues?
You’re missing the point of this post, namely to demonstrate the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine.
Vague claims presented without evidence. I invoke Hitchen’s’ Razor.
Either you’ve invented a time machine, or you’re an Antiquarian Protestant.
4. Infants are to be baptised
The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from the family.
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. AD 215)
This one seem really weak.
With Childeren who cannot speak it can also mean: Sick childeren or Childeren that have down syndrome.
It doesnt need to mean Infants and doesnt even sounds like Hippolytus is trying to make a case for Infants.
I believe if Hippolytus mean Infants or baby he would have been more specific
On what basis do you assume this? The text explicitly talks about “children who cannot answer for themselves”. Why do you jump to assuming that that this means sick or disabled children, rather than all children or are unable to speak for any reason?
It also says that says that the adults may answer for these children. Would your church ever be willing to baptise a child who was too young to speak? Would your church ever allow someone else to make a profession of faith on behalf of one being baptised? I’m guessing not.
I actually could have chosen an earlier patristic passage, but I just used Hippolytus for the sake of variety. St. Ireanaeus of Lyons is explicit that infants can be recipients of salvation:
“[Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
I could have also added many others who explicitly use the word “infant”: Origen, Cyprian, Gregory, John, … There’s no way of getting out of the fact that the Early Church believed that to be born again was to be baptised, that this is what saved you, and it could be applied to infants and children.
Sounds like to me the Catholic Church that you described took its teaching straight from Isis temple of Roman. ,It’s all pagan from the pit of hell. Not one of your teachings come from the apostles, they’re all from pagan practices except for one and you don’t even adhere to his teaching. The apostles are the church father’s no one else. Where in the Bible does it say you have apostolic authority?
You’re going to have to provide some evidence to back up this claim, not simply an assertion.
Where does the Bible say that?
***
You’ve conceded that the Early Church didn’t look like your own form of Christianity. That begs the question: what happened? With your worldview if would appear that the Apostles failed and that Jesus effectively abandoned his Church for at least a millennium and a half. Is that what you believe?
Not one thing you posted was proof that the Catholic Church, which just means universal not one single church, looked anything like what Rome looks like today. All believers are the body of Christ, Catholic if you will, we just can’t use the term Catholic anymore because that word is associated with a certain denomination. Everything about Rome is man’s doctrine man’s tradition. It wasn’t their tradition that should be followed it was Jewish tradition. Jews didn’t do what Rome did. So, she was right the Catholic Church known today probably started around 300. It’s weird a church would steal people’s writings and say it came from their organization. Take a deep look into the Catholic Church and truly ask yourself if Jesus would be pleased. The doctrine speaks for it self but some how people are blinded by The twisting and adding to the scriptures. While you are taking in what’s happening at the Vatican take a good listen to your pope and the blatant heresy he spews. If his only job is to know scripture, why doesn’t know scripture?
Really? What other Church do you know which would affirm all these doctrines from the Early Church?
You don’t actually present any evidence for this claim. The Nicene Creed literally identifies a singular Church (“I believe in one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church”).
What evidence do you have to back up this claim?
If the Catholic Church started in AD 300, why do all these these quotations come from BEFORE AD 300?
Who stole? What evidence do you have for this?
You don’t actually interact with the claim of the post.