Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 10, 2008 23:57:48 GMT -5
[This is a response I made to someone who was claiming to want a Christianity like that "pre-Catholic/Protestant", meaning, Christianity straight from the NT. In my response I showed him why this just doesn't work. It's a little long, but please read all]
---
---
---
We see the progress that the Church had made when we read St. Ignatius' letter in 107 AD, about 20 years after Revelation was written. We see that it is the same Church, but that it indeed has developed, that the grasp on certain doctrines is deepened. We further see other writins such as Justin Martyr (150 AD) speaking of the Church - again, the same Church, but indeed developed (not changed), and the understanding on doctrines is even deeper.
We later see Ireaneus (189 AD) and the same thing. The Christians clinging to the teachings of the Apostles and the Scriptures, maintaning unity unlike the heretics, and we also see deeper understanding of doctrines, we even begin to see clearer traces of difficul concepts such as the Trinity, which is later discussed even deeper by Tertullian (200 AD).
We actually finally see a great development (not change) in the Council of Nicaea, with a much greater understanding between the relationship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, with God the Father. In here we get the Nicene Creed which explicitly says that Jesus is indeed God, and that the Holy Spirit is also adored and worshiped as the same God.
Yet it is the same Church of Acts, just more developed and organized. And note that this is way before Medieval times, when many claim the Catholic Church began to be corrupted.
So in any case, to say that you want to go to a pre-Catholic/Protestant state is to say, first of all, an era before the Protestant Reformation (1500s), and secondly and most important, an era before 107 AD, when the Church is specifically called "Catholic" by St. Ignatius of Antioch.
However, it is to further reject St. Paul's letters to seven churches (twice to two of them) and St. John's "letters" to the seven churches in the Apocalypse: a document in 170 AD shows that St. Paul's addressing of seven letters is practical and symbolic, just as St. John's, in that it shows the oness of the Church, it's "Catholicity."
This would lead you to only the book of Acts and the 4 Gospels, since the other letters (not Paul's) began to be called the "Catholic letters" (meaning "general") and thus cannot be counter... Thus the Book of Acts and the 4 Gospels are not the complete New Testament and thus not sufficient to look at how the primitive Church was.
And besides, the Bible does not tell us to use the New Testament only as basis for the Christian Church. In fact, in Acts we see the primitive Church, and then in St. Paul's letters we see the same Church but a little more developed still, finally ending with Revelation, which is filled with liturgical imagery, showing that the Church has indeed developed liturgically as well. Thus we must certainly look at the early Church, right after the New Testament Church, and see where that Church is today.
---
---
---
Pax Christi
---
---
---
We see the progress that the Church had made when we read St. Ignatius' letter in 107 AD, about 20 years after Revelation was written. We see that it is the same Church, but that it indeed has developed, that the grasp on certain doctrines is deepened. We further see other writins such as Justin Martyr (150 AD) speaking of the Church - again, the same Church, but indeed developed (not changed), and the understanding on doctrines is even deeper.
We later see Ireaneus (189 AD) and the same thing. The Christians clinging to the teachings of the Apostles and the Scriptures, maintaning unity unlike the heretics, and we also see deeper understanding of doctrines, we even begin to see clearer traces of difficul concepts such as the Trinity, which is later discussed even deeper by Tertullian (200 AD).
We actually finally see a great development (not change) in the Council of Nicaea, with a much greater understanding between the relationship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, with God the Father. In here we get the Nicene Creed which explicitly says that Jesus is indeed God, and that the Holy Spirit is also adored and worshiped as the same God.
Yet it is the same Church of Acts, just more developed and organized. And note that this is way before Medieval times, when many claim the Catholic Church began to be corrupted.
So in any case, to say that you want to go to a pre-Catholic/Protestant state is to say, first of all, an era before the Protestant Reformation (1500s), and secondly and most important, an era before 107 AD, when the Church is specifically called "Catholic" by St. Ignatius of Antioch.
However, it is to further reject St. Paul's letters to seven churches (twice to two of them) and St. John's "letters" to the seven churches in the Apocalypse: a document in 170 AD shows that St. Paul's addressing of seven letters is practical and symbolic, just as St. John's, in that it shows the oness of the Church, it's "Catholicity."
This would lead you to only the book of Acts and the 4 Gospels, since the other letters (not Paul's) began to be called the "Catholic letters" (meaning "general") and thus cannot be counter... Thus the Book of Acts and the 4 Gospels are not the complete New Testament and thus not sufficient to look at how the primitive Church was.
And besides, the Bible does not tell us to use the New Testament only as basis for the Christian Church. In fact, in Acts we see the primitive Church, and then in St. Paul's letters we see the same Church but a little more developed still, finally ending with Revelation, which is filled with liturgical imagery, showing that the Church has indeed developed liturgically as well. Thus we must certainly look at the early Church, right after the New Testament Church, and see where that Church is today.
---
---
---
Pax Christi