The Early Church Was Catholic!
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 01. 2022
- The Early Church Was Catholic!
Joe Heschmeyer joins R&T to discuss his book The Early Church Was the Catholic Church, available here: shop.catholic.com/the-early-c...
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.
🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.
🔴SUPPORT
Subscribe: / @reasonandtheology
Become a Patron: / reasonandtheology
Donate: reasonandtheology.com/donate/
🔴VISIT
Website: ReasonAndTheology.com for more information
Facebook: / reasonandtheology
Facebook: / michaelloftonrt
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / michaelloftonrt
Telegram: t.me/reasonandtheologychat
🔴LISTEN
Itunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/show/michael...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/1ayL3WL...
RSS Feed: feeds.feedburner.com/ReasonAnd... - Zábava
Dr Gavin Ortlund needs to hear this.
Catholic Church is a true church 🙏
Yes, you're right.
God Bless You. 🕊️✝️
The Catholic Brothers have a pretty great deep dive on this topic. They actually just finished the first century, if anyone's interested I'd recommend it.
Im an avid follower of their channel, they do amazing work!
They are wrong, not even close.
The distinction made around 53:00 - whether the Church Father is making a claim that they received something from their teacher, or practicing their own theological development is important to keep in mind not only for the Early Church, but today as well.
@@justinbest1348 Irenaeus is the most cognizant of it, but you'll still see indicators in the text as to whether something is the already received teaching (e.g., Ignatius writing, "Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion" suggests that it's not a new opinion) vs. their own interpretation or wisdom or the like (e.g., Augustine saying, "There are certain rules for the interpretation of Scripture which I think might with great advantage be taught to earnest students of the word, that they may profit not only from reading the works of others who have laid open the secrets of the sacred writings, but also from themselves opening such secrets to others.").
@Justin Best Well, put the quotation in context. In the prior sentence, he says, "As to the reasons, indeed, why these numbers are so put in the Holy Scriptures, other people may trace out other reasons, either such that those which I have given are to be preferred to them, or such as are equally probable with mine, or even more probable than they are; but there is no one surely so foolish or so absurd as to contend that they are so put in the Scriptures for no purpose at all, and that there are no mystical reasons why those numbers are there mentioned." He's not saying that every one of his arguments is a slam dunk from Scripture or Tradition. But he IS saying that someone who says that the repeated usage of 40 in Scripture is meaningless IS arguing against Scripture and Tradition, and he's right about that. I actually think he's making a brilliant argument -- that from 3 p.m. on Good Friday to dawn of Easter Sunday is 40 hours, and that this would explain why 40 is the number of preparation used throughout Scripture.
Great Video, Joe Heschmeyer is really awesome 👍
Joe has turned into my favorite catholic apologist. Really great convo guys! Joe’s book is my next book to read for sure (recent convert from Protestantism)
@@justinbest1348 you see weak evidence for Protestant beliefs prior to 1500s. John Calvin admits the Church Fathers universally taught mass was a sacrifice. Do you hold that?
Thanks! And welcome home. :-)
@@justinbest1348 By that we mean it is the unbloody re-presentation (making present again, not mere symbolism) of the one Eternal Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
@@justinbest1348 It means that we don't see a bleeding corpse on the altar
@@justinbest1348 I don't need to look at John 6 i just need to look at the altar and notice there isn't one there
Hey Joe, thanks for the great discussion. You do a good job pointing out the internal inconsistencies of many Protestant positions.
Are there any Protestant positions or approaches which you would say are internally consistent and at least try to account for the history of Christianity? Thanks.
@@justinbest1348 I remember when I was agnostic, I took multiple philosophy classes. All my secular professor agreed that a text can be read an infinite number of ways and that you can come to different interpretations. To put it bluntly, sola scriptura is for midwits.
Yes, for instance: "The Bible is our only, infallible authority of faith", and yet the Bible calls, not itself but the Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3,15), and never claims to be the only authority. Actually it contains contrary statements, with St. Paul ordering the Thessalonians to hold fast to the apostolic teaching "whether by word of mounth or by letter" (2 Thess 2,15). The Church and the Apostles and those the Apostles send out, are authoritative along with their own writings. Nor did the Bible actually exist until a Church council of bishops (the Successors to the Apostles) in Carthage ruled on which texts were part of its canon in 398. Now if a body of people are authorized to define the canon (and btw, the Reformers tried this too, when they removed seven books of Scripture), then that body of people are also authoritative interpreters of God's Word (since they can discern which texts are in and which are out).
This is a Protestant contradiction, claiming a sole authority, when the same authority identifies others.
This is bound up with another contradiction: denying legitimate Successors to theApostles capable of ruling in their stead and carrying on their teaching, when the New Testament brims with ordinations of successors and when Our Lord says "And surely, I am withyou allways, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28,20) How could He be with the apostles till the end of the age when all the first apostles died and if there was no continuation of the apostolic office until the end of the age?
@@justinbest1348 you didn’t catch that I only said infinite to get my point accross? What is the difference between the Bible and the Catechism? It is just a reality, it’s honestly philosophy 101. Any secular professor will tell you as much.
@@justinbest1348 oh boy, so you think that because it is a postmodernist assertion it isn’t true? No wonder RCIA is full well educated Protestants. Last year I went to the Cathedral and the catechumens were ex Protestant professor, people with Bachelors and Master degrees who read themselves to Catholicism. What is crazy is that we don’t even evangelize.
Gregory, that’s a good and complicated question. A lot of Protestants have an assumed (or even taught!) version of Church history that isn’t true in which the early Christians believed basically Protestant things and corruption slowly seeped in. There’s nothing logically incoherent about that view (it’s just not well supported historically), and so it makes sense that Protestants accept the teachings that Scripture obviously teaches and rejects the teachings that are less obviously (or not obviously) taught. I don’t think that there’s a LOGICAL problem there, just a FACTUAL one.
Where it gets tricky is once one actually learns a bit of Church history. Once you realize that the Christians of the first and second century *universally* believed so many of these Catholic distinctives, a logically-consistent Protestant has got a problem.
You can say that Christianity already went bad by the second century, but by what standard? The New Testament? Well, how do we know which books are in the New Testament? (Answer: second-century Christians). And if these guys were heretics, why would we trust that they got the New Testament right?
If it helps, imagine an imaginary Protestant denomination that says, “We know the New Testament is true because the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says so,” but then rejected Mormon beliefs on a whole host of other issues, and even rejected other Scriptures endorsed by these Mormon leaders. That denomination would be behaving in a bizarre and illogical way. So Protestants who do the equivalent (rejecting early Catholic leaders as erring or heretical Christians, and then basing their New Testament canon off of these same Catholics) are likewise behaving illogically.
32:06 the meditation on the role of liturgy, especially the babel approach to liturgy, where man seeks to rise up to God, is what we see today with the rise of the modern "liturgists". Unfortunately, the division of languages from the unifying Latin, is symptomatic of our current woes. I like the thought at 33:10
🙏✝️
Re: Arians in Spain -- No, there were Arians because the Visigoths that took over Spain were Arian. St. Isidore of Seville and his brother were big on trying to convert the Arians to Catholicism, and the process was still going on when the Muslims invaded. The Muslim presence led to heresies like Adoptionism, David being the true Messiah, and so on, but didn't really act to encourage Arianism (possibly because VIsigoths were stubborn, possibly because anybody Arian usually converted to Islam for the bennies).
Spain was invaded by the Ummayids, who were Arians, supported by local Arians. Islam arrived later, after the Abbasids invented it.
St. Alphonsus de Liguori's Moral Theology includes a recipe for hot chocolate. It's part of the fasting discussion, of course!
T A KE
M Y
D A R N
M O N E Y
Read St. Augustine's Sermon 227. You will recognize some of the Divine Liturgy, 1600 years later.
Michael, you should take a critical look at Melissa Dougherty’s channel. She mentions “historical Christianity” quite a lot and I don’t quite think she has a good grasp of what that means.
I have a question…..would the office of the Diaconate be considered a human apostolic tradition?
@Alex Jurado
Alex,
The Diaconate is the result of Church need and the Magisterial Authority which created it to fulfill the needs of the faithful.
It is generally assumed that the office of Deacon originated in the selection of seven men by the apostles, among them Stephen, to assist with the charitable work of the early church as it's recorded in Acts 6.
God bless.
*insert comment about how I am the true Successor to the Kyline See*
@DonnyBlips why thank you
I’m a sedekyleist. There is no true successor to the See of Kyle
Pope Kyle vs Pope Michael. Another Avignon type papacy incoming?
@@rocketman1371 you are a schismatic
@@parker7923 it's *antipope* Michael, thank you
You know since I deep dived into being a catholic with all its dark history and enlightened intellectual history
And well adapting what Jesus did in John 8:7? I became more open to other people's opinions and train of thought.
Its like magic. You kind of hear and know that yeah, maybe what the Priests and the bible says, "God will use other people to talk to you" 😀 "do not fear. Ask and you shall receive" is true
This video is very enlightening and thank you for sharing guys
Have a great day
The ante-nicene fathers never taught about venerating icons or saints. I can never be a part of the church that does things that were clearly heretical to early christians. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel so uneasy in my spirit and discomfort whenever I pass by a shrine or an eerie painting.
Well, I hope you venerate your parents or you're sinning. You should probably venerate your wife if you want to stay married and you better venerate the law or you're going to jail. Just saying.
Veration means to respect.
Have you ever given your Mom or your wife flowers because you love them? That what we do with Mary.
Did you get down on one knee out of respect when you proposed? Does that mean you worship your wife?
Do you stand when a judge enters a courtroom out of respect?
Will you bow if you ever meet the queen? Does bowing mean that people think she's God?
Do Asian people bow to each other out of respect? Are they worshipping each other?
You confuse veneration with worship. What is worship? How is worship defined in the bible? Sacrifice. The Jewish people went to the temple and offered unblemished lambs for cereal offerings and sin offerings. That was worship. Pagans offered sacrifice to their gods. That's how their worship of them was described. Worship is sacrifice.
Prayer isn't true worship. You can worship God in prayer by praising Him, but that isn't how the bible describes worship. It is man-made idea that prayer is worship.
Jesus is our unblemished lamb offered for our sins.
What did the Jews do with the unblemished lamb after they sacrificed it? They ate it. That's how they completed the sacrifice. If we don't eat christ the sacrifice isn't complete. Amen, amen, I say to you, if you do not eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you. Jesus said it 5 times in John 12, the last time he said the word gnaw. If He had meant think of me when you eat bread, that wouldn't have been a hard saying, would it. Its easy to believe like you believe. It's just a symbol. That's easy. No problem. What's hard is you literally have to eat his body. This is my body, this is my blood, He said. I am the manna from heaven, he said. What did they do with the manna? They ate it!
The Monarchians were the true Church and trinitarians only wrested control with the marrying Catholic Trinity with the Mithraism. Monarchians were the majority, held the Bishopric of Rome and across the empire. Trinity was a johnny come lately church idea and came from ancient paganism and the philosophers that pushed it.1 First Theophilus with his usage of the old Greek idea of trias=triad a three god idea and then Tertullian with Trinitas a Latin term.
Is it just me, but doesn't Joe looks like Justin Timberlake with a hangover?
😅😅
Absolutely informative!! Well done!
Of course the early Church was Catholic East/West ✝️☦️
“The early church was Catholic.” Amen, not Roman Catholic 😉
Catholic under the bishop of Rome aka Roman Catholic
"new teachings are red flag".
Maybe is not related, but seems that some of the novelties of II Vatican Council should be red flag too.
No, there weren't any novelty in terms of doctrine.
Heresy breeds heresy.
It is no coincidence that God allowed Constantinople to fall on Pentecost, the birthday of the Church, to clearly show the Greeks who rejected the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence (which all eastern bishops except Mark of Ephesus accepted) separated from the Catholic Church.
As what dwong said; I will repeat it. “ It is no coincidence that God allowed Constantinople to fall on Pentecost, the birthday of the Church, to clearly show the Greeks who rejected the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence (which all eastern bishops except Mark of Ephesus accepted) separated from the Catholic Church.“
@@dwightschrute900 🤣 Bully I’m still trying to figure out who you are? Do I know you from somewhere else?
@@dwong9289 shush, he'll put some dirt in your eye
@@justinbest1348 "Florence, Council of", Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2005,
Pretty sure the earliest (30-50 AD) church was Jewish.
That isn't mutually exclusive to the claim made in this video.
@@ReasonandTheology Why aren't they Jewish, then, if that's the original version? If it doesn't matter what the original version is like, why be Catholic?
@@11kravitzn catholicism is the fulfilment of the Jewish religion. Thanks for commenting.
@@ReasonandTheology The historical Jesus, a devout Jew, is rolling in his grave.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (Torah) until everything is accomplished.
@@11kravitzn Christians believe that the law. My words are not opposed to that. And drop the unnecessary rhetoric
You speak against being Born Again Jesus Christ said you (we) must be Born Again (spiritually internally) to enter the Kingdom of God John 3:3-7 You see and speak on everything with your carnal sel-righteousness trough a lens of Roman Catholic-ism . Even your eucharistic transubstantiation is catholic fiction , no human can contain the real presence of Jesus Christ into a pagan sun-god symbol . All the catholic rituals is just very deceptive and it is not biblical . The mass is sacrifice what are you sacrificing . The Real Living Savior and Lord Jesus Christ already paid the ultimate sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary and you catholic constantly nail Him to the Cross over again . Non of this is biblical .
Lol!!! Not even close. The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles. All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.
The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians…and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism?
The answer is simple - the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is very interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.
Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church’s teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The “first church” and “one true church” is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after.
There has only ever been one the church. The Catholic church-the universal Church. That's how it was defined in the year 130. It had no name until then, but in the New Testament, they wrote to request the leaders handle disputes. They were one church with leaders that relied on each other but they were in different locations. There was one who was the overarching authority and that was Peter until he was martyred. You see them defer to Peter all the time. They would say, "Peter and the other apostles were there" and he was always mentioned first, when they named the other apostles.
Jesus created one church with Peter. On this rock, I will build my church.
He claimed the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It's still here, regardless of how bad it has been run over the past 2,000 years.
He prayed that it would be united.
Do you trust Jesus or not. That's the real question. Was he wrong? Did he lie? Is he incapable of fulfilling those promises?
If you believe that Jesus/God is incapable of fulfilling His promises, why are you even Christian? If God can't be trusted we are all in trouble as Christians.
Do you seriously believe that God could fail but your church in Des Moines, Iowa, or wherever you are, got it right? Or worse, that God couldn't keep those promises to His Church, but you got it right? That is spiritual pride, my friend.
We place our trust in the promises of God. If He can fail, then He isn't the God we think He is.
Don't you mean Orthodox?
No
Jesus did not teach catholicism... So one must ask when did Christianity get hijacked ?
Did you say that Jesus didn't teach Catholicism? Well, as far as I know, there is no contradiction or conflict between what Jesus taught and what the Catholic Church teaches
You are clueless! Inerrant Papacy, , purgatory, priest confession, worship of Mary, praying to dead saints, placing Catholic tradition as a higher authority than scripture itself, infant baptism....I could keep going...None of this is biblical...infact the Catholic church persecuted and killed countless thousands during the dark ages and suppressed the bible being assessible to the common man out of a desire for money and control
@@stevenanderson101 Easy, easy. You are actually wrong on all those doctrinal points. I would kindly address each of the points you have raised but that would be too much to handle on this platform. So let me start with your allegation that the office of the Pope is "unbiblical". This is not true. The truth is that Christ has always wanted His Church on earth to have ONE PERSON as its leader and shepherd. And He chose Peter as the first person to hold that office. He clearly told Peter after the resurrection: "Take care of my sheep" (John 21:16), thereby giving Peter the authority to exercise the role of shepherd over the whole church on earth
Catholicism is not christian!
@@stevenanderson101 Based on the words of Jesus in John 21:16 you agree with me that Jesus made Peter the first Shepherd of His church on earth?