Christian history and the Catholic Church – Part 1
Most Christians, I think it’s safe to say, don’t concern themselves with church history. Whether they grew up in the church or came to faith later on they feel no compulsion to familiarize themselves with events and people in the early years of the church beyond what Scripture records. And why should they? It’s certainly not a requirement for having a genuine, vibrant faith. But if they did, one of two things is likely to happen: their faith will be strengthened, or it will be shaken. And whether they stand or stumble depends a great deal on what church they align with and what resource(s) they consult.
I’ll bet most Christians also don’t realize what a wealth of early Christian writings are available to inform us on what the early church was like. But wading through it all is tedious and time-consuming so the average Christian like me is going to rely on the work of others who provide background, pull out and summarize the main points, and offer their interpretation of what was said. And virtually everyone who produces such a work does so from a bias and their interpretation will reflect that.
Though we all have biases, the bias that is most likely to try and skew the historical evidence in its favor is the Roman Catholic one because her unique claims depend so heavily on it. She asserts that from the first century the bishop of Rome was recognized as being “first among equals,” having jurisdictional primacy over the entire church. But in order to demonstrate this her historians and apologists have had to ignore ancient evidence that testifies against her claims and read into other evidence support for them that is objectively not there.
Dependent on the Catholic Church’s claim of being singularly the church Jesus instituted are virtually all her distinctive and unbiblical doctrines which her supposed preeminent position as having unbroken, Christ-appointed, apostolic authority emboldens her to teach. If it can be shown that the bishop of Rome was merely equal and not first, her assumed title as “the one, true church” with all that has flowed out of that in the last 16 centuries would be rendered invalid.
And that’s exactly what I will try and show in the next few posts – the phantom foundation of the Roman Catholic Church, which I addressed previously here. But why would a Christian want to see the world’s most recognizable Christian denomination suffer such loss of prestige and influence? That’s a fair question. But those who would ask it are likely either those who know the church in a personal way and love her, or those who know very little about her. Those of us who know her well but in an objective, impersonal way know the harm she has done to Christendom and believe she has dishonored God himself by her man-made doctrines, distortion of the Gospel, and her rejection of Christ’s all-sufficient, once-for-all sacrifice for sins. So just as Paul and other New Testament writers spoke out forcefully against false and distorted teachings that were threatening the church in the first century, we too should not hesitate to expose them in the twenty-first.
I hope by delving into some ancient church history to both shake and strengthen the faith of every Catholic who will read the information I will share. Shake their faith in the Roman church, whose history is littered with untrue assertions and unholy deeds and whose claimed foundation is fantasy, and strengthen their faith in the one, true foundation of the church – Jesus Christ. He alone is worthy of praise and devotion.
You claim to be Biblical but at least a dozen times
I brought up these 2 very important biblical
statements of Christ and you ignored both.
Christ made one demand of us.
At the last supper He instituted the Eucharist.
He said “This is My body, ….This is My blood…
DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”
Only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
follows those instructions.
Also, Jesus said, “That they may be one like
You and I are one”.
Not a whole bunch of groups, separate in thought
and belief.
It is a shame that your guilt has made you attack
the Faith that has been so good to your family.
LikeLike
I have not ignored the biblical evidence you have cited in the past. I have addressed them before. But again…Jesus repeatedly used figurative language. It is reasonable to believe he was doing so when he said, “This is my body…this is my blood,” just as he was when he said, “I am the door…I am the good shepherd…I am the bread.” We do obey his command to remember his sacrifice by breaking bread that represents his body, as we believe he intends us to do.
Jesus’ prayer for unity in the church cannot be cited as supportive of Roman Catholicism. First of all, he prayed for it, not decreed that it would be so. Secondly, the RCC is not united “in thought and belief.” There is much disagreement among her members. They are united only in willing or grudging (and often because of fear) submission to her asserted authority. Thirdly, true Christians do have a measure of unity and fellowship with one another, even though we disagree on some matters, and with God, wherever they are and whether or not they belong to any denomination.
And I’m really getting tired of your accusations and assumptions of my emotional state or motivations. Kindly keep your comments to the points I am making unless you believe I am being disingenuous or unfair, and I will try and do the same with mine.
LikeLike
And furthermore, what if Islam had been “the Faith that has been so good to [my] family”? Would that then render it off-limits to evaluation of its truthfulness? Shouldn’t faithfulness to God and his Word matter more than faithfulness to family affections?
LikeLike
Shameful Caroline. Anything you don’t agree
with is figurative. So what is literal?
Once again I have proven your statements to
be inaccurate.
When can I expect you to attend Mass.
What a glorious day it will be in Heaven,
Your parents and grandparents will be so happy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David, please consider what you’re saying. You have not “proven” anything, other than that you have a tendency to simply assert things as if they are so without providing evidence. And that you are a good example of a willfully stubborn devotee who refuses to look objectively at the evidence. You remind me very much of most of the atheists I have engaged with.
LikeLike
I happened to see this link from Tom’s blog.
LOL, I guess our Romanist friend, Mr. Jakubowski, seems pretty ignorant of the Patristic witness.
Pope Gelasius I, Bishop of Rome (492-496): Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (Tractatus de duabus naturis 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx).
Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.: According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.
Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.: The teaching of Gelasius on the subject of the sacraments of the Eucharist has often been explained as being in line with the teaching of the Council of Trent. But, as a matter of fact, Trent rejected it on two counts. In canon 1 of the thirteenth Session (1551), the council taught that the Eucharist not only signifies but contains ‘the totum Christum’. The explanation of Gelasius does not include, and indeed seems explicitly to exclude, a doctrine of the somatic real presence of the ‘whole Christ’. Secondly, Canon 2 stresses the patristic notion of ‘conversion to avoid the notion of the union of the substance of bread and wine with the substance of the humanity of Christ. This concept was already found in the list of propositions attributed to Reflormers formulated in 1547: ‘There is in the Eucharist indeed the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but with the substance of bread and wine, so that there is no transubstantiation, but a hypostatic union of the humanity and the substance of bread and wine’. Canon 2 was formulated precisely to avoid the idea that a rigid parallel exists between the unique hypostatic union of Logos and humanity and the sacrament of the Eucharist. But precisely this viewpoint is central to the Eucharistic theology of Pope Gelasius. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.
LikeLike
Dave, I’m afraid, is simply not willing to be persuaded…at least last time I interacted with him. He’s got plenty of church fathers’ quotations that have confirmed what he is holding onto with all he’s got. But as you and others have demonstrated, the opinions of the fathers were varied, and a quote out of context can seriously mislead.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
LikeLike
Well, the problem for Mr. Jakubowski is that the Roman Church has elevated transubstantiation to the level of dogma, and claimed that this was always the belief:
CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
Since we know that this isn’t true and that there was no unanimous patristics agreement, that means his church lied to him.
Furthermore, our Lutheran and EO friends can also affirm the somatic real presence but reject transubstantiation.
It must be really tough being a zealous Romanist having to reconcile all these contradictions. 🙂
LikeLike
What you consider as being stubborn any
reasonable person would see as 2000 years
of historical fact.
You want to interpret things for your own
good. I’ll stick with the people who were
witnesses.
LikeLike