Was the early church “the (Roman) Catholic Church”?
This is the typical claim: “We were all Catholic at one time”
Except, no.
Just like the Talmudic Judaism of today is not the same as the faith of Moses or David (oops, did I step on some toes?) so too the Catholic faith of today has core tenets which are foreign to the catholic (i.e. “universal”) church of the early centuries. They are not the same.
Here are some points at which modern Roman Catholicism is at odds or at least don’t jive with widespread early Christian teaching:
Papal Authority (Infallibility even):
Cyprian of Carthage (AD200–258) emphasized a collegial model of church governance. Bishops should act in concert rather than one bishop (like the modern Pope) having supreme authority. In “On the Unity of the Church,” Cyprian does not mention the Bishop of Rome having universal jurisdiction or infallibility, which contrasts with the modern doctrine of papal infallibility defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870. Yes, Irenaeus of Lyon in “Against Heresies” Book III Chapter 3, Section 3 (AD180) lists the Bishops of Rome starting with Peter (and Paul), followed by Linus, Anacletus, Clement, et al. He is, however, emphasizing the preservation of the authority of the teaching “the inheritance of the episcopate” is their own preaching not the man with the authority to add or deviate from Peter and Paul’s message. In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus says the earthly authority of the church rests with the church itself, not in its leaders. “Take it to the church” not “take it to the bishop (of Rome)”
Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption:
Veneration of Mary is certainly present very early. She is, after all, correctly called the “Vessel of God.” The Immaculate Conception, including her perpetual virginity was defined in 1854, and the Assumption was codified in 1950. As an example, Irenaeus of Lyons (AD130–202) speaks highly of Mary but does not address her being conceived without original sin. (see: Luke 1:41-43 “the mother of my Lord” yet Romans 3:23 isn’t hyperbolic. All have sinned and fallen short)
Purgatory:
The concept of Purgatory as understood today wasn’t taught in the early Church. Augustine of Hippo (AD354–430) speaks of a purifying fire for some souls after death (such as in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15), but not as a place or state of existence. If you go to 2Maccabees 12:43-45 you can find the concept of the “expiatory sacrifice” to “[make] atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.” Yikes! Part of the reason why deuterocanonical books weren’t considered Scripture until Trent in 1546 (which is a bonus as to why the early church isn’t the Roman Catholic church, they added to their scriptures).
Sacraments:
Tertullian (AD160–220) mentions baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or “Eucharist” Lat.) as the “sacramentum” (sacred signs), but the systematization of seven sacraments as we know them today in the Roman Church did not occur until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The Didache (AD70-90) discusses Baptism and the Eucharist to be performed by the church, but not: Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, or Matrimony. The Catholic Church added these. Are the sacraments important to the core identity of the Roman Catholic church? YES! Nothing could be more central… Did the earliest Christians practice these 7 sacraments as the Roman Catholics do today? Clearly, no. Was the early church the same as the Roman Catholic church? Manifestly, no.
Clerical Celibacy:
Ambrose of Milan (AD340–397) praised celibacy but did not argue it should be mandatory for clergy. In 1Corinthians 7:7-8 Paul says much the same, it is good, but not everyone has that “gift.” In 1Corinthians 9:5 Paul indicates the “other apostles” are married, and he names Peter specifically as having a wife. The requirement for priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church clearly demonstrates the Pope of today isn’t the same as Peter 2,000 years ago.
Infant Baptism:
Infant baptism was practiced early on. Origen (AD185–254) is one of the first to mention it. However, the early adoption of the practice does not align with its absence in the Didache. Chapter 7 discusses baptism: “And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.” Do they expect babies to fast two days before they’re baptized? No. There is not a single reference to a baptism of an infant in the entire New Testament. Baptism is always of believers in the NT. As an example, Peter preaches and about 3,000 people were baptized. “Well, surely some of those would be infants” I have heard a pedo-baptist say… au contraire mon frère. Acts 2:41 “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” Belief in the message, not the receiving of a sacrament, is first. The Bible clearly teaches believer’s baptism.
The earliest church did not practice Catholicism sufficient to be accepted as part of the Roman Catholic church today. ipso facto we were not all “the Catholic Church” at the beginning. It is anachronistic to say so.
The Eastern Orthodox church would lay claim to “the original church” as well. From their perspective, they remained pure and the Catholics deviated. Each “branch” of the church lays claim to the “trunk” of the tree.
The answer is not “which church has the better tradition” but what does the Bible say. Which is more authoritative, the church or the Bible? Do men not make mistakes? What is the standard by which we can detect these mistakes, consensus of the men we trust… or a careful study of the Scriptures? As the Bereans of Acts 17:10-11. No, Paul even says if he himself says something contrary to the message he had established don’t listen to it, it is accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).
Authority is vested in THE message, not the men. The message was entrusted to men to preserve, with no authority to add or deviate from it.
Rituals and tradition do bring clarity and comfort in painting a clear black and white scenario, but reality is more messy. We cannot abdicate the responsibility to search the scriptures for ourselves to come to the truth. Letting someone else decide is not the way.
At least that’s my view.
