Hi,

I am curious to understand the Protestant side of Church History. Please only reply to the question, as it is not going to be debated. I simply want to understand your points, and I promise not to reply with objections to the contrary.

I would like to hear from you about the following questions:

A) How was the Christian Church from 33-300 AD organized? Who were the Church's leaders, and where did they get their authority?

B) How did the earliest Christians worship? What did their worship service comprise? Was music involved?

C) Where did they get together? In Churches, homes, or other places?

D) What were the early Christians' Scriptures, and did they agree on what was accepted and what was rejected? What role did the Scriptures play in daily Christian life and especially when congregations came together?

E) Who were the main Church leaders (by name)? What did they teach? Did they all agree on doctrinal issues, or was there disagreement?

F) What were Church councils?

Thanks for your input, and please limit your response to these questions

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004

Answers

Andrew,

Most readers who come to the forum on a regular basis only bookmark the “Recent Answers” page in their favourites. They rarely check the “New Questions” page to see what new questions there might be. When someone begins a brand-new thread it is placed on the “New Questions” page automatically. If the creator of the original thread does not “bump” this thread, that is, place a second post in the thread to move it to the “Recent Answers” page, chances are the thread will receive less, or no discussion, then if it were on the "Recent Answers" page due to reduced traffic experienced on the "New Questions" page. Therefore, regulars to the forum periodically check the “New Questions” page to assist those posters who are not familiar with the software by “bumping” their post to “Recent Answers” where it will be seen by more readers, thus inviting further comment.

Whenever a new thread is created, the creator of the thread should “bump” the thread immediately (place a second post in it) to send it to the “Recent Answers” page to increase his/her chances of receiving further comment directly.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2004.

Hi, I am curious to understand the Protestant side of Church History. Please only reply to the question, as it is not going to be debated. I simply want to understand your points, and I promise not to reply with objections to the contrary.

I would like to hear from you about the following questions:

A) How was the Christian Church from 33-300 AD organized? Who were the Church's leaders, and where did they get their authority?

{Christain worhsip was genrerally held at homes, to answer a later queatsion first. Christan Chruches where established byt he Apostles, and later developed regional govenrnaces, such as Bishops and Deacons. Over time, these churhces developed a fairly steady exchange with each other, a loose confederacy, but still retianed virtual Autonomy until around 150 AD, when they began to coalate into a more Unified structure. Over time, the Bishops started t build more and more networks of connections, usign the Empires trade routes. After this it follows the Cahtolic Modele. Except we include other groups that where never Catholic. ( For some treaosn, rejection fot he Cahtolic Chruch is thought of as startign with Luther by most Catholcis, though this is demonstratabley false.)}-Zarove

B) How did the earliest Christians worship? What did their worship service comprise? Was music involved?

{In houses, under persecution, or in Synagauges that accepted the Messiah. Singing was available, sometimes hards or other instruments, but considering the Chruches small size this was not always an option.}-Zarove

C) Where did they get together? In Churches, homes, or other places? \

{Usually hoes, soemtimes Synagauges, on occassion varous other palces. I do not beleive their where htat many uildigns that where classified as Chruches in the firts century, but over time they wher ebuilt.But not sure when exactly.}-Zarove

D) What were the early Christians' Scriptures, and did they agree on what was accepted and what was rejected? What role did the Scriptures play in daily Christian life and especially when congregations came together?

{No one fully agrees ott his day. The Syric Chruch, for instance, rejects Hebrews and Philimon, and has a cuple of addiitonal Psalms, as well as the Apocrypha. Generlaly. they all accepted the Old testement. The Letters of Paul where almsot universlaly acepted, except the Pastoral epistles and theletter to Philemon. The Gosp;els where by and arge accepted.

In addition, various local regions also had various scriptures, including Gnostic scriptures, and a variety of other Gospel accounts. Several books where disputed, but widely used. Others whre used in a more localised setting, until the Counsil of Carthage finilised the Bible.}-Zarove

E) Who were the main Church leaders (by name)? What did they teach? Did they all agree on doctrinal issues, or was there disagreement?

{The Apostles whre int he First Century, after this, I don't know all the names and nor do you. Linus was one. So where others, various Bishops came about in the First Century. However, Protestnats usually recognise the early Chruch fathers n the second Century throug the fourth century, such as Augustune.}- Zarove

F) What were Church councils?

{Same as they ar ein your own. A meetign of variosu Chruch officials.}-Zarove

Thanks for your input, and please limit your response to these questions

{I did. Hoiwever in one instance you ask for names, and others seemed to want more elaboration, why the reqieast for limitations?}

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 22, 2004.

Zarove,

Thanks for the reply. Can you get some Church Father writings and quotes on all the points you made? Thanks

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 22, 2004.

Like what?

Most s pretty ubndisputed. IE, they gathered main in houses. Durign the years of Persecution this was mroe sensable than meeting in a large public building.

Other thigns I have mentioned are available in many hisotry ooks. But I need a bit more to go on.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 22, 2004.

Hey Zarove,

I wanted to ask some questions that apply to the first ones. You said Linus was one of the Church leaders and this is true. Where was Linus active, and what 'role' did he play in the Church? (bishop, priest"presbyteroi", deacon, etc...). Can you comment on other leaders like Igantius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Cletus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others? What were specific doctrines that they taught and preached about? If you have some quotes about their specific teachings, that would be great.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 22, 2004.

Hey Zarove,

I forgot to ask this additional question which is a more detailed version of question B. When the Christians got together either in homes or specific Church places, what did they do? What was done in worship? What went on when they got together in these places? Any specifics, or is it not possible to know this?

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 22, 2004.

Dear Andrew,

One of the most recent books (introductory level) dealing with some of the issues you raised is “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and Faiths We Never Knew” by Bart D. Ehrman.

A Synagogue and Church were found in Dura-Europas (along the Euphrates River) that had been destroyed around 256 AD. This is (or was when I was in seminary) considered to be the earliest extant church - (http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/3262/dura2.html) Both were converted homes. (Note the Christian baptismal – similar to a mikveh.)

Since early Christian (New Testament) worship would begin in synagogues, it would have been the normative worship for Jewish Christians and the archetype for gentiles joining the Christian communities. St. Paul talked about the elements of that worship in I Corinthians 11 – which reflects the Jewish synagogue (assembly). Paul explains the Lord’s Supper in the context of the church (ecclesia – assembly) gathering for worship.

In Ephesians 5:15-20, the congregations are told be filled with the Holy Spirit, “as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. One of the earliest hymns we have from the Early Church is Philippians 2:5-11.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), April 22, 2004.

Robert,

ok, now we have some of the basics of earliest Christian worship from the Scriptures. Now can you tell me more about how Christians continued to worship after the last Apostle John died on Patmos in c. 100 AD? Were there Sacred Traditions passed on, and if so what were they? How did the Christians, after the Apostles, carry on in their worship as a congregation? If you can, as you quoted Scripture for evidence please quote from the early writers. The Church Fathers is a good starting place. Thanks for the post

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 22, 2004.

Robert,

As a followup, you can see I have posted on the New Answers page a number of threads with only the Fathers' writings on them. You can also go to www.earlychristianwritings.com or www.catholic.com to find more complete writings by our founding Church fathers. But I have posted at least 7 different threads with stuff you can look at

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 22, 2004.

Ansrew, why the Facination with how Protestnats veiwed pre-acceptance Christain worship? On this matter, the Catholcis and Protestants largley agree that the geenralworhsip was conucted secretly in hoes. This was becuase of severe persecution.

What we disagree on it that this was all Catholic.

Thus, askign how chrizstaisn worhsiped israthe rmoot, since it is generally accepted by both Catholics and protestnats that the majority worhsiped in homes. Soem in Synaguages. Rarely in Chruches bult spacifically for Christains, but theyw ehre built on some regions.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 23, 2004.

Zarove,

You are missing my question. I agree, as all Catholics and Protestants, that the early Christians worshipped in homes, synagogues, and secret places due to the persecution. I was not asking that question at all; I want to know what you believe they DID while in these places. What did they celebrate? What things did they do-were there traditions or liturgy or what? Was there belief in the Eucharist, and if so was this a central part of their gathering? Remember, I am not asking where they worshipped, but what they did while they worshipped

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 23, 2004.

In that case it depends. Even your own early Chrich Fathers record diversive traditions. Even herasies.

Dependant on the local community, such things wher eobserved as the eucharist, but soem did not. It was not until the Nicean Counsil took place that any sort of finilised Christain standard took shape. This also Catholics agree on in general. This is also where the famous "Nicean Creed" ame form. Other Counsils that Century woudl follow, further defining Christain acts and Liturgy, but until these acts where defined by ounsils, the traditions , and for that matter the scriptrues used except the Old testement, largley varied form region to region.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 23, 2004.

Zarove,

Thanks for answering. I have a couple more questions now concerning your last email. You said that the Eucharist was observed in some cases. In these cases, what did the Eucharist mean? What did the Christians believe the Eucharist was? When you answer this, could you please provide any evidence from the Fathers' quotes or other Christians at that time? thanks

Also, a question about Church Councils. What were the earliest Councils, and what did the Bishops who attended decide on?

What were some of the other traditions besides the Eucharist that Christians did while worshipped? Thanks

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 23, 2004.

Dear Andrew,

I am not clear as to what you are asking. Are you seeking the historic process and experience of the Early Church or are you seeking proof texts for a particular polity and theology. Much of what you cite is what Erhman identifies as proto orthodox leaders and theologians which provide the legacy of present day Christendom (Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic, and Reformation churches).

But, the Church Fathers can be as much a foible as a forte when we enter these conversations. Examples include:

Clement – a Docetist? (Cited by Erhman): “But in the case of the Savior, it would be ludicrous (to suppose) that the body, as a body, demanded the necessary aids in order for its duration. For he ate, not for the sake of the body, which was kept together by holy energy, but in order that it might not enter into the minds of those who were with Him to entertain a different opinion of him; in a manner as certainly some afterwards supposed that He appeared in a phantasmal shape. But, he was entirely impassible; inaccessible to any movement of feeling – either pleasure or pain. (my underline).

Augustine – (the role of Word [preached] and Sacrament) Sacraments are the “Word made visible” (Tanquam visible verbum) and per modum symboli–“in the manner of a symbol.”

Again: Augustine – The Lord’s Supper: “The phrase, ‘ Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man” (John 6:54) is a figure, teaching us that we must partake of the Lord’s Passion, and sweetly and profitably store up in memory the fact that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”

And: Augustine – regarding the sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper – “The Hebrews, in the animal victims which they offered to God celebrated a prophecy of the future victim which Christ offered; the Christians, by the most holy offering and partaking of the body of Christ, celebrate the remembrance of a sacrifice already made.” In regard to the position of the Bishop of Rome, Cyprian at the Council of Carthage: “Let none be called prince of priests or first bishop.”

And when Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria said that Gregory “commanded him,” Gregory’s response was “Remove, I beg of you, this word ‘command’ from my hearing; for I know who I am and who you are; in degree you are my brothers; in moral character, my fathers. Therefore, I have not commanded but have taken care to indicate what things seem useful.” Was Gregory simply being polite or did he recognize limitations in his office?

Regarding the canon of scripture, do we follow Augustine’s dogmatic insistence or Jerome’s scholarly evaluation?

In regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary, do we heed Jerome (with an ascetic view of sexuality) or Helvidius (agreeing with Tertullian and Victorinus of Pettau – being wrong about one issue doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything. Remember the headstone of the hypochondriac: "I told you I was sick.")?

While many of these statements and debates of the Church Fathers were specifically directed to their own time and situation, the question is – what do we do with them? Do we use them to prove our particular points? Do we use them to prove our superiority or “fullness” over other Christians?

Or, do we use them as starting points for a conversation that affirms our mutual trust in the risen Lord – sharing and appreciating in each other’s particular experiences within the whole Church of Jesus Christ? Remember Uniformity and Unity are not the same thing.

The question isn’t, “Can we recreate the Church of 1516 AD, or 1053 AD, or 324 AD, or 99 AD, or even 34 AD?” Rather, it is to acknowledge that we are here now and how are we going to get to the future as faithful Christians in a post-modern world? Peace.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), April 24, 2004.

The trouble is he is askign too broad a queastion. He thimself is yougn and argues form Proof texts.

A quote form an earlu Chruch father really doesn't prove anyhting. Conext, as well as detailed study, i needed. Not just a selection of quotes that vuagely resemble the topic at hand.

Andrew expects us to use similar argumwnts, that is, argument by uotation. Thsi is, of course, spurious as if we look long enough we will find some ealru Chrich father syaing soemtikgn that we can use for our case.

Likewise, he also exppects a finilised answer.

This is IMPOSSIBLE.

I mentioned that soem Chruches had a eucharist ritual, and he is alreayd askign how the Chruches used this, and what else aside form it was their. He is now asuming that all Chruches had a WEucharist, which is not the case. Many id not have aEucharist, and even in those that did, ita significgance and applied meanign varied.

Early Chrisyainity ran a range, from the more conservitive lots who where Jewish mainly, but beleived in Jesusd as the proised Messiah, to the Gnostics, who beleived that God int he Old tstement was evil an the dmeiurge and that Jesus was thre Serpent in eden who bestorwed knowledge ( Gnos) to Eve and Adam.

in etwween you had a range of various beelifs, most of them no more divisive than with modern divisions among protestants, in short, minor variations, wiht perhaps one or two doctoriens seperate.

The early Counsils tried to unify the more orthodox lines of the Chruces to a single beleif, and elmiminate disagreement.

But you cannot make a blanket statement that shows practices when they where divergent, and hte topic is too wide ranging to offer mere proof text as a mean oto answer it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 24, 2004.

Zarove,

You say arguing by quotation is spurious?? I'm sorry to disagree, but I am frankly pretty blown away by that response, because it occurs to me that the main Protestant way of proving points is by random and vague Scripture quotes.

How else can I believe what you claim concerning the early Church, unless you back up these claims with written accounts? If you don't provide evidence, you are just stating heresay and I can't prove you right or wrong. However, when I make a point such as "the Eucharist was believed to be the true presence in the early Church", and then draw a part of Ignatius' letter that says "...concerning the Eucharist, which is the selfsame body of our Lord Jesus Christ", doesn't that make a better case than me simply stating my reply?

Protestants are known by Catholics for their firing of random quotations to prove points; I don't see why you yourself think that this is spurious. How else are we to know about the early Church, other than through the accounts given to us either by hand (Scriptures and Church Fathers), or the Sacred Traditions (the Catholic Church) (1 Thess 2:15).

When you tell me how you view early History with all your points, where do you get this information? Have you read the writings of the Fathers, or just a book written by someone on them? If you haven't, I would suggest doing so. You see, when I make points concerning early History, I do so by reading accounts of the Fathers and history (Eusebius, not a modern writer that gets all the information from the former History), and showing where my point lies historically. If you don't do that, how else will people believe you? It's one thing to have faith that the person is in fact grounded in truth, but it's another story when the blind lead the blind.

I may be younger than yourself, but please don't use that against me in your emails.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 24, 2004.

Robert,

"The question isn’t, “Can we recreate the Church of 1516 AD, or 1053 AD, or 324 AD, or 99 AD, or even 34 AD?” "

The answer is you don't have to recreate that Church. It is here now, and only one Church on earth is this reality; the Catholic Church. It was there in every date you mentioned, and it has not changed or contradicted itself in teaching for the entire History of Christianity. Recreation of a long lost Church is one thing; being a part of the ever continuous Catholic Church is another. Peace to you

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 24, 2004.

I told emily I wasnt to be on this wekends, but had to check the Prayer thread for AB.

Noentheless. I am here and will offer a brief answer. As usual, my answers in {} Brackets.

-------------------------------

Zarove, You say arguing by quotation is spurious?? I'm sorry to disagree, but I am frankly pretty blown away by that response, because it occurs to me that the main Protestant way of proving points is by random and vague Scripture quotes.

{No, the Protestant way of formign Doctorine is to read the Bible and build upon what is wrtten their. Protestnaism sint base don random Bible quotes tht are later attribited sme auge meanikgn to support a point. That, alone, is proof that you have no idea what Protestnatism actually is.

Their is a difference between indeapth Bible study and usage, and random quotations beign seelcted, firther, this sin about winning points.}-Zarove

How else can I believe what you claim concerning the early Church, unless you back up these claims with written accounts?

{Written accouns yes, random "Proof texts" No. All you do is quote form the early Chrich fathers those quotations that support soem Proposition you happen to be arguing in favour of. Often these quotes ar eout of context, and osmetimes dont even address what you say they do.

I wish to avoid this errror and actually site early sources in context to what they actually eman, not just take soem random Quote form Augstine or Jstin Martyr and paste htem on the board and say "See, toldya so". That is not only childish, it si also spurious, as I said, as soem of these Fathers may have disagred with you on several other points. Argument by sound bite is not a way to conduct an Hisorical study. One must examine several docuents, read through them carefully, and make certian one has enough information to rationally conclude ones findings. It is harder and takes a lot of work, but in the ned it is much more rewarding.}-Zarove

If you don't provide evidence, you are just stating heresay and I can't prove you right or wrong.

{Evidence is not he same as an appeal to auhtority or argument by random quotation. A better tactic woudl be writign a full article outlinign your case siting sources, rathe rthan just lisst a long chain of quotatiosn you culled form their writigns that vuagely resemble what you claim.}-Zarove

However, when I make a point such as "the Eucharist was believed to be the true presence in the early Church", and then draw a part of Ignatius' letter that says "...concerning the Eucharist, which is the selfsame body of our Lord Jesus Christ", doesn't that make a better case than me simply stating my reply?

{But Augustine claimed it was merely symbolic. Again, I o not just state a rely, however, if I where to proivde an answer, it woudl need mroe thourouhg research. what you want isnt simpleyw hat we beelive, you want a formal debate, and even in th event of a formal debate, you will naturlaly have to deal wiht p;eople lookign into sorues and documenting things carefully, and then adding commentary to link the comments ot heir thoughts. You dont just post a list of quotatiosn and expect much out of anyone oher than exhasperation.}-Zarove

Protestants are known by Catholics for their firing of random quotations to prove points; I don't see why you yourself think that this is spurious.

{Protestnats do not randomly fire quotations to prove a point. Nor shoudl a Catholic. Randomly fliging quotations gets you the below.

7. Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

6. And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.

5. And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said unto them, Why are ye now turned back?

This proves NOTHING, and s confusing. even your own qutatiosn arent random. You seelect them, either form a site that has them listed, or eslse form your own research, thus negatign ANY claim of randomality.

Likewise, Protestnats usually try to support their claims form the Bible itsself, not form random quotatiosn and auge inferences to meanign, but form what they acutally hld the Bible to say, their si a radical difference here, just as their is a radical difference form using a source, like the Bible or the early Chruch Fathers, and simpley lookign for proof texts.}-Zarove

How else are we to know about the early Church, other than through the accounts given to us either by hand (Scriptures and Church Fathers), or the Sacred Traditions (the Catholic Church) (1 Thess 2:15).

{But reading their accouns is a lot different than haivng a blurp posted by soemone tryign to make a point.

Their is a diffeence between a citation, and argument form quotation.}-Zarove

When you tell me how you view early History with all your points, where do you get this information?

{Mainly form Secular History sources and over a decade of actual study.That's why I seldom site soruces, a lot of its form memory at this point. }-Zarove

Have you read the writings of the Fathers, or just a book written by someone on them?

{Both, you?}-Zarove

If you haven't, I would suggest doing so.

{See above.I also read the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Buddhist Scriptures formt he Peli Cannon, and a Brief Hisotry of Time. I also read Mein Kempf, Machiavellis "The Prince", Utopia, Grims fairy tales, Historie Regum Britaniae, and many, many othe things...}-Zarove

You see, when I make points concerning early History, I do so by reading accounts of the Fathers and history (Eusebius, not a modern writer that gets all the information from the former History), and showing where my point lies historically.

{But all you do is cull out quotatiin form them that vaugely resemble your claim, then pist them. This is flawed argumen because it is an appeal ot an auhtority that not everyone will nessisarily racognise, as well as mearly the end result of seekign out the desired proof text.

For example, you want to prove the eucharist as the real preasence of the Lord, so you find a Chruch father than said it was, and post the quote. Ignore the ones that aid it was symbolic, just post the ones that agree.

This is erroneous in and of itsself, and one has to be far more careful if one is to learn anyhtign about anything.}-Zarove

If you don't do that, how else will people believe you?

{I get peopel to beleive me because I can support my efforts, and because if they look them up they can onfirm them for me. Again, this thread itsself was nto started as a debate, you said so yourself, so i wasn ciming to the tabel with boartloads of proof, merley what and why I beelive about the ealry Chruch hisotry.}-Zarove

It's one thing to have faith that the person is in fact grounded in truth, but it's another story when the blind lead the blind.

{And yet another to actively seek proof texts to feel secure in your faith. Again, the argument style you employ is merely to post many quotatiosn that agree, and to win agsisnt you, the othe rperson must post even more quotes supportign their veiw than you do to support yor own. its like a game, only I am not playing it, I am instead tryign to open a dialouge and exchange information.}-Zarove

I may be younger than yourself, but please don't use that against me in your emails.

{I am only addressing a very real problem with youth, and that is inexperience. You havent learned to distinguish between a real argument, a discussion, and mere proof text offerings. This is why I am less prone to actively support your own arguments.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 24, 2004.

Concerning the Eucharist in the Church Fathers:

Zarove, you keep saying that some Church Fathers thought the Eucharist was symbolic. Who were they, and where is it in their writings? You said Augustine wrote it, so which book is it in? Let me read the stuff you keep saying as contradiction

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 25, 2004.

Someone else already posted the quote. It isnt hard to read other replies.My point is that we shoudlnt argue based SOLEY on fidign quotatiosn that agree with us, this you seemed ot overlook.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 25, 2004.

Zarove,

The reason I posted so many quotations from the Fathers on particular doctrinal subjects is not to overwhelm people. Rather, I wanted to show that the particular teaching was not believed solely by one person- but rather it was believed and taught by hosts of Church Fathers at various times in History. Now, I understand what you mean about some people not agreeing; I haven't read much if at all of doctrines not in Catholicism today though. What I want to show is that the doctrines Catholicism has taught for 2000 years of Church History was taught over many generations of Church Fathers, and I think the various quotations from the Fathers at different historical periods demonstrates this. God Bless Zarove

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 25, 2004.

Zarove, The reason I posted so many quotations from the Fathers on particular doctrinal subjects is not to overwhelm people. Rather, I wanted to show that the particular teaching was not believed solely by one person- but rather it was believed and taught by hosts of Church Fathers at various times in History.

{But that was never in Dispute, the issues are if the FIRST CENTURY CHRUCHES taught htis al the way back tot he Apostles, or if they evolved over time.}-Zarove

Now, I understand what you mean about some people not agreeing; I haven't read much if at all of doctrines not in Catholicism today though.

{This is what I mean by further s tudy. Protestantism didn't just spring up pvernight with Luthger, nor did the Chruch treach all that is Catholisism consistantly in every Chruch for 1500 years nonstop toll Luther. Many peopel agreed with the overall Protestnat psoition early on. Likewiese, even AFTER the 300's, not every Christain was Catholic.}-Zarove

What I want to show is that the doctrines Catholicism has taught for 2000 years of Church History was taught over many generations of Church Fathers, and I think the various quotations from the Fathers at different historical periods demonstrates this.

{But what you are doign is simpley quoting proof texts to support the position, and disguising this as a queatsion to Protestnats, which is Dishonest.

Protestnats do NOT beleive that the Catholic Chruch was the first, and only, true Chruch, foudned directly by Jesus Christ, withthe fllness of the truth. If they did, they woudlnt be protestants, or if they where, they woudl ahv a lot of explainign to do.

Protestnats maintain that the Cahtolic Doctoriens evol ed over time, and it is more commonly held in most nonCahtolic Circiles that Catholisism adopted much along the way and refined its beelif systems. Most secular historieans note the wide divergence of beelif systems and modes of worship in Early Chrisainity that was eventually codified by several successive counsils.

It is nto good enough to show where someone beleived in some Cahtolic Doctireine in the 300's, or even the 200's or the 100's. One must instead show that this was Uniformly taiught sintnce the time of the apostles in an unbroken chain that lasts 2000 years, whciuh cant be done since, as you said, many peopel DID disagree and these thigns WHERE NOT commonluy held by most Chruches. The whole poin of the counsils was ot end disagreements between chruches.Their qoulnt have been counsils if their wheren't disagreements.}-Zarove

God Bless Zarove

{Same.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 25, 2004.

Zarove,

You mentioned something that Protestants don't believe that the Catholic Church is the true and only Church founded by Christ Jesus and the Apostles. You said Protestants were looking for the one true Church in the 1st century. Tell me, if you don't think the Catholic Church and its teaching are what the Apostles handed on, then where is the ONE true Church Jesus founded?

By the way, when you mentioned unbroken line I kind of was reminded of something. You said that if Protestants knew of a Church with an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles and their teaching, that they would not be Protestant or have explaining to do. Well, how do you explain the unbroken succession of 264 Catholic Bishops from St. Peter? That is what you are looking for is it not? Zarove, by the time Revelation was written, there were already 5 Bishops of Rome. Below is this list if you haven't seen it or forgot it:

* St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18 * St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21 * St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) * St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3 * St. Evaristus (97-105) * St. Alexander I (105-115) * St. Sixtus I (115-125) * St. Telesphorus (125-136) * St. Hyginus (136-140) * St. Pius I (140-155) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Anicetus (155-166) * St. Soter (166-175) * St. Eleutherius (175-189) * St. Victor I (189-199) * St. Zephyrinus (199-217) * St. Callistus I (217-22) * St. Urban I (222-30) * St. Pontain (230-35) * St. Anterus (235-36) * St. Fabian (236-50)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Cornelius (251-53) * St. Lucius I (253-54) * St. Stephen I (254-257) * St. Sixtus II (257-258) * St. Dionysius (260-268) * St. Felix I (269-274) * St. Eutychian (275-283) * St. Caius (283-296) * St. Marcellinus (296-304) * St. Marcellus I (308-309)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Eusebius (April-August 309 or 310) * St. Miltiades (311-14) * St. Sylvester I (314-35) * St. Marcus (January-October 336) * St. Julius I (337-52) * Liberius (352-66) * St. Damasus I (366-83) * St. Siricius (384-99) * St. Anastasius I (399-401) * St. Innocent I (401-17)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Zosimus (417-18) * St. Boniface I (418-22) * St. Celestine I (422-32) * St. Sixtus III (432-40) * St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) * St. Hilarius (461-68) * St. Simplicius (468-83) * St. Felix III (II) (483-92) * St. Gelasius I (492-96) * Anastasius II (496-98) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* St. Symmachus (498-514) * St. Hormisdas (514-23) * St. John I (523-26) * St. Felix IV (III) (526-30) * Boniface II (530-32) * John II (533-35) * St. Agapetus I (535-36) * St. Silverius (536-37) * Vigilius (537-55) * Pelagius I (556-61)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * John III (561-74) * Benedict I (575-79) * Pelagius II (579-90) * St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) * Sabinian (604-606) * Boniface III (February-November 607) * St. Boniface IV (608-15) * St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18) * Boniface V (619-25) * Honorius I (625-38) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Severinus (May-August 640) * John IV (640-42) * Theodore I (642-49) * St. Martin I (649-55) * St. Eugene I (655-57) * St. Vitalian (657-72) * Adeodatus (II) (672-76) * Donus (676-78) * St. Agatho (678-81) * St. Leo II (682-83) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* St. Benedict II (684-85) * John V (685-86) * Conon (686-87) * St. Sergius I (687-701) * John VI (701-05) * John VII (705-07) * Sisinnius (January-February 708) * Constantine (708-15) * St. Gregory II (715-31) * St. Gregory III (731-41) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* St. Zachary (741-52) * Stephen II (March 752) * Stephen III (752-57) * St. Paul I (757-67) * Stephen IV (767-72) * Adrian I (772-95) * St. Leo III (795-816) * Stephen V (816-17) * St. Paschal I (817-24) * Eugene II (824-27) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Valentine (August-September 827) * Gregory IV (827-44) * Sergius II (844-47) * St. Leo IV (847-55) * Benedict III (855-58) * St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67) * Adrian II (867-72) * John VIII (872-82) * Marinus I (882-84) * St. Adrian III (884-85) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Stephen VI (885-91) * Formosus (891-96) * Boniface VI (April 896) * Stephen VII (896-97) * Romanus (August-November 897) * Theodore II (November-December 897) * John IX (898-900) * Benedict IV (900-03) * Leo V (July-December 903) * Sergius III (904-11) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Anastasius III (911-13) * Lando (913-14) * John X (914-28) * Leo VI (May-December 928) * Stephen VIII (929-31) * John XI (931-35) * Leo VII (936-39) * Stephen IX (939-42) * Marinus II (942-46) * Agapetus II (946-55) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* John XII (955-63) * Leo VIII (963-64) * Benedict V (May-June 964) * John XIII (965-72) * Benedict VI (973-74) * Benedict VII (974-83) * John XIV (983-84) * John XV (985-96) * Gregory V (996-99) * Sylvester II (999-1003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* John XVII (June-December 1003) * John XVIII (1003-09) * Sergius IV (1009-12) * Benedict VIII (1012-24) * John XIX (1024-32) * Benedict IX (1032-45) * Sylvester III (January-March 1045) * Benedict IX (April-May 1045) * Gregory VI (1045-46) * Clement II (1046-47) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Benedict IX (1047-48) * Damasus II (July-August 1048) * St. Leo IX (1049-54) * Victor II (1055-57) * Stephen X (1057-58) * Nicholas II (1058-61) * Alexander II (1061-73) * St. Gregory VII (1073-85) * Blessed Victor III (1086-87) * Blessed Urban II (1088-99) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Paschal II (1099-1118) * Gelasius II (1118-19) * Callistus II (1119-24) * Honorius II (1124-30) * Innocent II (1130-43) * Celestine II (1143-44) * Lucius II (1144-45) * Blessed Eugene III (1145-53) * Anastasius IV (1153-54) * Adrian IV (1154-59) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Alexander III (1159-81) * Lucius III (1181-85) * Urban III (1185-87) * Gregory VIII (1187) * Clement III (1187-91) * Celestine III (1191-98) * Innocent III (1198-1216) * Honorius III (1216-27) * Gregory IX (1227-41) * Celestine IV (October-November 1241) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Innocent IV (1243-54) * Alexander IV (1254-61) * Urban IV (1261-64) * Clement IV (1265-68) * Blessed Gregory X (1271-76) * Blessed Innocent V (January-June 1276) * Adrian V (July-August 1276) * John XXI (1276-77) * Nicholas III (1277-80) * Martin IV (1281-85) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Honorius IV (1285-87) * Nicholas IV (1288-92) * St. Celestine V (July-December 1294) * Boniface VIII (1294-1303) * Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04) * Clement V (1305-14) * John XXII (1316-34) * Benedict XII (1334-42) * Clement VI (1342-52) * Innocent VI (1352-62) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Blessed Urban V (1362-70) * Gregory XI (1370-78) * Urban VI (1378-89) * Boniface IX (1389-1404) * Innocent VII (1406-06) * Gregory XII (1406-15) * Martin V (1417-31) * Eugene IV (1431-47) * Nicholas V (1447-55) * Callistus III (1445-58) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Pius II (1458-64) * Paul II (1464-71) * Sixtus IV (1471-84) * Innocent VIII (1484-92) * Alexander VI (1492-1503) * Pius III (September-October 1503) * Julius II (1503-13) * Leo X (1513-21) * Adrian VI (1522-23) * Clement VII (1523-34) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Paul III (1534-49) * Julius III (1550-55) * Marcellus II (April 1555) * Paul IV (1555-59) * Pius IV (1559-65) * St. Pius V (1566-72) * Gregory XIII (1572-85) * Sixtus V (1585-90) * Urban VII (September 1590) * Gregory XIV (1590-91) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Innocent IX (October-November 1591) * Clement VIII (1592-1605) * Leo XI (April 1605) * Paul V (1605-21) * Gregory XV (1621-23) * Urban VIII (1623-44) * Innocent X (1644-55) * Alexander VII (1655-67) * Clement IX (1667-69) * Clement X (1670-76) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89) * Alexander VIII (1689-91) * Innocent XII (1691-1700) * Clement XI (1700-21) * Innocent XIII (1721-24) * Benedict XIII (1724-30) * Clement XII (1730-40) * Benedict XIV (1740-58) * Clement XIII (1758-69) * Clement XIV (1769-74) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Pius VI (1775-99) * Pius VII (1800-23) * Leo XII (1823-29) * Pius VIII (1829-30) * Gregory XVI (1831-46) * Bl. Pius IX (1846-78) * Leo XIII (1878-1903) * St. Pius X (1903-14) * Benedict XV (1914-22) * Pius XI (1922-39) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Pius XII (1939-58) * Bl. John XXIII (1958-63) * Paul VI (1963-78) * John Paul I (August-September 1978) * John Paul II (1978-)

When you go through Church History, you will see that the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bishops above never have contradicted from the beginning. This is the unbroken line Protestants need to see. The Bishops of Rome succession from Peter is key to understanding the continuity and unity of the Catholic Church from the Apostles.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 25, 2004.

Zarove, You mentioned something that Protestants don't believe that the Catholic Church is the true and only Church founded by Christ Jesus and the Apostles. You said Protestants were looking for the one true Church in the 1st century.

{No, I didnt. I said that the Protestnats do not beleive that the atholic Chruch, as it stands now, is NOT the origional true Chruch. I did not say that protestnats wher elooking for the true Chruch int he First Century.All I said was that Protestnas do nto beleive Catholic tradition extends as far as the apostles in all instances.( Note, I said "In all Instances", namoign one, IE Baptism, doesnt mean that you can find ALL of Caolisism in the firts century.)}-Zarove

Tell me, if you don't think the Catholic Church and its teaching are what the Apostles handed on, then where is the ONE true Church Jesus founded?

{You seem ot think that this is how Protestnats approacjh things. OK, Protestnats accept that the early Chruch had Scrpture, so does the ahtolic Chruch, however, these whre disputed early on. Protestnats also beleive that the heirarchy fthe chruch evolvued over time. Thus lookign for "The one true Chruch" is not what protestants actually do.Protestnats look for the Chruch that teaches and lives by the Bible. Nothign else, unelss they ar eliberal. Protestnat is a broad sweepign word, but in general its based on teahcing the word of God, NOT on findig the one true Chruch.,}-Zarove By the way, when you mentioned unbroken line I kind of was reminded of something. You said that if Protestants knew of a Church with an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles and their teaching, that they would not be Protestant or have explaining to do. Well, how do you explain the unbroken succession of 264 Catholic Bishops from St. Peter?

{First off, I am personally not onvenced their is such a line, we will deal withat issue much, much later though. As my priognal poin I made to you is not forgotten so you can play a[ologist and beat the protesntat. even if their is an unbroken chain form Peter to JP2, this does NOT render this the oen true Chruch with apostolic successikon. Again, the idea goes, and I am not attakcign or arguing , only explaining, remmeber that...

Tge idea goes like this.

The Catholic Chruch, over time, adopted some doctoriens and traditions not in origional Chrisyainity and mutate dover time, thus the need for a reformation. Following?

Now, if the Pope IS the successor of Peter, hes justa Bishop as far as Protestnats are concerned., nothign more and nothign less.

Protestnats do not think that the Catholic Chruch, as a whole, was handed whole cloth to Peter for safekeepign and stayed exactly the same for 2000 years, this woudl not negate some of the claims however.}-Zarove

That is what you are looking for is it not?

{No, its not. Not me personally, and not protestants in general.}- Zarove

Zarove, by the time Revelation was written, there were already 5 Bishops of Rome. Below is this list if you haven't seen it or forgot it:

{I omited the list to keep the reply shorter.}-Zarove

(List omited for brevity.See preceedign post.)

When you go through Church History, you will see that the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bishops above never have contradicted from the beginning.

{Thats a whole other discussion lad. And the whole core of protestnatism is that the Catholic Chruch eventually DID contradict the origonal teahcings and was thus in need of reform.So even proving it was the earliest Chruch does not negate protestnat claims. Likewise, some, though not most, protesntas do accept the RCC as the oriigonal but think it apostate.

Most others think the RCC evolved out of the early Chruch. This is also the secular historical line of reasoning.

Some thing it started wholly in the 300's AD.

All of this is well too much information to offer here, we will doubtless cover it later, but for now, get it into your head what protestantsism is in reality.}-Zarove

This is the unbroken line Protestants need to see. {Not really. Again, an unbroiken line of succession is not proof that the atholic CHruch itsself retained its origional course in teachign the Gospel. This woudl nto prove that it did not in some ways become corrupt, which is what protestnatism is actually based on.

Nor is it even relaly conclusively proven.}-Zarove

The Bishops of Rome succession from Peter is key to understanding the continuity and unity of the Catholic Church from the Apostles.

{But not key to understandign the idea that, if the Cahtolic Church evovled out of the oriigonal Chruch, adding traditions and off beat interpretations along the way, that it woudl need to be reformed to get it back to its origional state, which is what protestnatism is base don.}-Zarove

{In closing, please think about the actual pont of my other statement about how to actually debate and discuss.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 25, 2004.

Zarove,

I'm starting finals week here at the U of MN, and so I need to start focusing on my studies. I'll end this thread and others I have contributed to. Thanks, and wish me luck!

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 26, 2004.

Dear Andrew,

After your finals, you might want to add these books to your reading list: Ø “Introduction to the New Testament” Feine, Behm, Kummel, Abington Press Ø “From Jesus to Christ” Paula Fredriksen, Yale University Press Ø “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press Ø “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew” Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press

These books have a great deal to offer. You may observe that they do not present the history of the Church in exactly the same way you perceive it. However, a limited bibliography tends to limit the outlook and conclusions of the individual, or as a New Testament college professor of mine said, “A tree falls in the direction it is cut.”

Good luck on your finals

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), April 28, 2004.

Dear Zarove

I got curious about something you said and would like to ask for a more detailed explanation if you wouldnt mind

you said: (And the whole core of protestnatism is that the Catholic Chruch eventually DID contradict the origonal teahcings and was thus in need of reform.)

Could you please site an example of a catholic teaching that contradicts the original teaching(by original I mean the teachings of the apostles)? You dont have to give many examples, just one will suffice.

-- janeiro (janeiro_a@rocketmail.com), April 28, 2004.

Prayer directed tot he Saints and Mary. Unmarried Preisthood. Indulgences.

These whre among he origional protests.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 28, 2004.

Zarove,

You may be interested in this site (Catholic Outlook - Mary and the Saints), especially the section at the bottom entitled "The Communion of Saints," as it provides a number of arguments (including Scriptural) in support of this Catholic doctrine.

Here is a site explaining the Catholic view of indulgences: A Primer on Indulgences - James Akin. You may also wish to listen to Scott Hahn's A Bible Study on Indulgences to learn more about the reasoning behind the doctrine.

To read about the Scriptural defense of priestly celibacy, go to the bottom of this site: Catholic Outlook - The Sacraments

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 29, 2004.

But Emily, my priupose on this thread is to ppresent the Historical backgroudn of Protestantism, and what protestants beleive, as well as their veiws on history and development, not Privide,Cahtolic answers in regard to those beleifs.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 29, 2004.