How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)

Young, Evangelical, and Catholic ^ | November 5, 2011 | Brantly Callaway Millegan

[markomalley]

Pentecost

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch 2 (~A.D. 200):

That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date.

Below is a list of the year of the earliest (of which I am aware) extant extra-biblical witness of various Christian doctrines.

(A.D. 33 - death and resurrection of Christ)
A.D. 90 - the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice
(A.D. 95 - death of the last apostle, John)
A.D. 95 - apostolic succession
A.D. 110 - real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
A.D. 150 - baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism for salvation
A.D. 150 - basic structure of the Mass as Christian worship
A.D. 155 - veneration of saints and their relics

A.D. 160 - Mary as the New Eve
A.D. 170 - use of the word 'Trinity'
A.D. 180 - primacy of the bishop of Rome
A.D. 200 - 'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' formula
A.D. 367 - today's 27 book New Testament canon
(A.D. 1500s - Protestant Reformation)

(Note: Those that are (underlined) are relevant events to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines in bold are accepted by evangelicals and Catholics and are also listed to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines not bolded are accepted by Catholics and are rejected by most evangelicals as corruptions of the faith. All dates listed are of course approximate. The quotes showing the witness to these doctrines in those years are at the end of this post.)

I have seven comments:

1) Notice the large number of doctrines/practices that are rejected by most evangelicals as Roman Catholic corruptions of the faith that are witnessed to prior to explicit development of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the first extant witness to the 27 book New Testament canon. In other words, if all of those beliefs which most evangelicals tend to view as sure markers of the obviously perverted corruption of the Catholic Church were already there, then the same Church that settled the New Testament canon and fought the Trinitarian and Christological fights of the 4th century was already well immersed in corruption, superstition, and heresy.

2) Remember that evangelicals claim that all of those Catholic beliefs listed above - the Lord's Supper as sacrifice, apostolic succession, veneration of saints and their relics, etc - were all invented and did not come from the apostles, even though the Christians immediately following the apostles, including some who knew the apostles personally, did think that those doctrines came from the apostles.

St Athanasius, bishop of
Alexandria, who was ban-
ished five times by the gov't
for preaching the teachings
of the Council of Nicea
regarding the Trinity

3)Ironically, those issues that evangelicals claim to be obvious corruptions of the faith were accepted throughout the early Church with relatively little dissent*. And it was on issues like the New Testament canon and the doctrine of the Trinity - two issues on which evangelicals agree with the early Church - that had the most widespread disagreement and dissent. The confusion/dissent regarding these two issues was so widespread and entrenched that they were only settled for the whole Church when the bishops of the Church wielded their authority from apostolic succession - the same authority who's existence evangelicals deny.

4) As I stated in a previous post, the evangelical must hold that all of this occurred despite the fact that Jesus himself promised to be "with [us] always, to the very end of the age," (Mt 28.20) as well as that, since He would build His Church on the rock, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mt 16.18).

5) Modern evangelicals, in their rejection of those early Catholic beliefs are largely following a tradition that started in the 16th century.

6) So, who is more likely to be closer to the original teaching of the Apostles? The Catholic Church, following the beliefs and practices of the early Christians who first received the teaching of the Apostles directly, or those who, 1500 years or more after the fact, reinterpreted the writings of the Apostles to mean things that Christians had never believed before and rule out as corruption and heresy those things that Christians had always believed/practiced from the very beginning?

7) Since it doesn't appear as though any of the authors are proposing a new doctrine in any of the quotes, it can be assumed that all of these doctrines in the very least pre-date by some amount of time their first extant historical witness. It should be noted that in some cases, the authors most likely knew some of the apostles themselves, e.g. St Clement, who was the bishop of Rome at the end of the 1st century and is traditionally identified with the Clement referred to by Paul in Philippians 4.3. And in other cases, the authors knew disciples of the apostles, e.g. St Irenaeus was a disciple of St Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

The quotes themselves are below. In a few cases, if the earliest witness is not without any doubt stating the doctrine, then I've listed another early quote that is more clear.
____________________________________________________________

A.D. 90
The Lord's Supper as a Sacrifice
Didache, 14:

Offering the Sacrifice of the Mass

"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. [Malachi 1.11,14]"

If the above is unclear:
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 41:

"He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist"

A.D. 95
Apostolic Succession
St Clement, bishop of Rome, First Clement 42, 44 (for more, see The Early Church Was Catholic: Apostolic Succession and Authority):

"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. [...] Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."

A.D. 110
Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
St Ignatius of Antioch, bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6-7 (for more, see 1500 years of Gospel-compromising heresy & idolatry...or not):

"Let no man deceive himself. ...[I]f they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. [...] But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. [...] They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

If the above isn't clear enough:
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 66:

"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

A.D. 150
Baptismal Regeneration (baptism is not merely symbolic)
and Baptism Necessary for Salvation
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 61, 66:

"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [John 3.3]"

"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined."

If the necessity of baptism is not clear enough in the above quotes:
A.D. 200
Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:

"...the prescript is laid down that without baptism, salvation is attainable by none (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, Unless one be born of water, he has not life [John 3.5])"

A.D. 150
Basic structure of the Mass
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 67:

"[O]n the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

A.D. 155
Veneration of Saints and their Relics

Martyrdom of St Polycarp

Author unknown, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 17 (for more, see Relics of Saints and the Early Church):

"[After Bishop Polycarp was martyed in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said...being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!"

A.D. 160
Mary as the New Eve
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100, ~A.D. 160:

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.'"

A.D 170
Use of the word 'Trinity'
Theophilus, patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus to Autolycus 2.15:

"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."

A.D. 180
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
Some take the attitude and posture of St Clement, bishop of Rome, in his letter First Clement written around A.D. 95 to the church in Corinth as indicating an early understanding of the primacy of the bishop of Rome (see First Clement, 1, 58-59, 63). Some also see an indication of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch circa A.D. 110 (see Letter to the Romans, 1, 3). The date listed above - A.D. 180 - is for the quote from St Irenaeus below. His is the first clearly explicit witness to the primacy of the bishop of Rome of which I am aware:

The crucifixion of St Peter

St Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

A.D. 200
'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' Formula
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2:

"...especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

A.D. 367
27 book New Testament Canon

St Athanasius, Easter Letter of 367, 5:

"Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

*Except perhaps with the primacy of the bishop of Rome, but the early dissent was small compared to the confusion/dissent regarding the Trinity and the New Testament canon. Major dissent regarding the role of the bishop of Rome came much later.

[metmom]

You’re still not making a case for literal translation here.

Did you actually click on the links and look at the Greek?

It says what it says - *sin* not *sin offering*.

The case makes itself.

[smvoice]

Why did Christ die on the cross? Literally die?

[stfassisi]

From me..You’re still not making a case for literal translation here.

OOPS,I meant to say INTERPRETATION,not TRANSLATION

I made the same mistake twice,my bad! That's what happens when I'm in a hurry. At least we got to see the greek translations anyway:-)

I'm done for the night

[metmom]

OK. Then it gives you time to think about WHY a literal interpretation is not called for.

[Natural Law]

"The case makes itself."

It makes the case only if you ignore the entire context of the Old and New Testaments and accept this one verse as definitive.

The one place we can look to for a clue is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint that was in use for several hundred years before the birth of Christ. The word used is hamartia.

Hamartia can be translated "sin". However in the Septuagint, the word hamartia is very commonly used to mean a "sin offering" as I pointed out in post #240. This makes 2 Cor 5:21 fully compatible with Ephesians 5:2, "and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma," and Hebrews 10:10, "By By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

[smvoice]

Here is another LITERAL one, mm.

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 3:13.

The law showed us our sin. The penalty for sin is death. Christ became sin for us and paid the penalty for that curse of the law in our place. In it's most simplistic form.

[metmom]

Well, you see, if we don’t take that Jesus became sin for us literally, then there’s no obligation to take literally the rest of the verse that says that we become the righteousness of God in Him.

If we become the righteousness of God in Christ, then there’s no need for works or sacrifice or any of the other trappings that keep religion going.

[metmom]

That means we’re free.

[smvoice]

As they are saying in KC Halls all around tonight:

BINGO!

[CynicalBear]

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

[RnMomof7]

Jesus gave His authority to the Church to teach and baptize in Matthew 28, don’t we have an obligation to learn?

Define church

[RnMomof7]

Jesus gave His authority to the Church to teach and baptize in Matthew 28, don’t we have an obligation to learn?

Define church

[RnMomof7]

Again, a general lack of scholarship. This is in reference to 2 Cor 5:21, but does not mean that Jesus actually became sin. This is in the context of the Jewish rite of atoning sacrifices (Lev 4:24; Lev 5:9; Num 19:9; Mic 6:7; Ps 40:7) in which the word "sin" (Hebrew "asam") refers to the actual act of sacrifice or to the victim being offered. So, this verse really means "he made him a victim for sin" or "a sacrifice for sin". This literally means that Jesus was exchanged for sin.

So what does that mean to you?

[Mr Rogers]

“It’s not a matter of “choosing between Holy Spirit Baptism and water Baptism”; the “two” are one and the same event. Is that a bit more clear?”

No, they are not. They are not tied together in scripture. On the contrary, they are shown several times to be separate.

“”You must be born [again] of water and spirit [together, in one event, with the Holy Spirit working through the water]. Do you see how that fits the sentence quite well, indeed?”

No, it does not. Why? Because it doesn’t match the context, which you do not mention:

“Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

You must be born of water (”That which is born of the flesh is flesh”) and the Spirit (”and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”).

It was normal in Jewish thought to make a statement, then rephrase it slightly with the same meaning - read Psalms and you’ll see thousands of examples.

unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Add in multiple cases in Acts where water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit are NOT simultaneous, and you have an interpretation driven by scripture that contradicts the Catholic Church.

Let me expand the context:

3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Notice Nic says, how can you be born again? Can you enter your mother’s womb? What are you talking about?

And Jesus says, you must be born of water & spirit, of flesh and spirit. So the flesh is physical birth, what Nic was saying - the first birth. Spirit is spirit - the second birth. Being born again.

Further, there are perhaps hundreds of passages showing regeneration comes from believing, not from water baptism. John 20: “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

It is by believing that we receive life.

John 1: “12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

There are countless passages about how we are justified before God, and baptism by water is not mentioned. Read Romans 3-5. It is FAITH that gives us access to God’s grace, not water rituals.

Read about Jewish baptism. There is a reason they did not go into great detail about baptism in the NT, because all Jews understood it. It was a ritual cleaning done to publicly recognize the spiritual cleaning - as Peter said.

“in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”

It is not the ritual, but the believing faith, and that faith is active before baptism - otherwise the person would not choose to be baptized.

But then, scripture knows nothing of baby baptism...Paul may have taught the “whole counsel of God”, but I guess the baptism of babies was not part of it. Like Purgatory, it had to be invented later...

---

“In the meantime, dear fellow: have you noticed how many of your objections have fallen in battle? “Sola Scriptura” (the very foundation of everything you are trying to argue) has collapsed into self-contradictory pieces. Your theory of “Matthew 28:18-20 being read as strict, discrete events in strict chronological order” fell in like manner.”

In your dreams.

Making an assertion is not the same as doing it. Matthew 28 reads, for example, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Only a Roman Catholic can change that into, “Go, baptize and make disciples.”

Go. Make. Baptize. Teach.

That is what Jesus said, and it is a pity that Popes and priests disagree with his word.

There is a reason why the Roman Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations of scripture, and it is NOT because scripture supports the Roman Catholic doctrine!

[Religion Moderator]

Like pornography, the mods know hate speech when we see it.

Historical works are rarely banned because they do not monger hatred today as they did when originally written.

Also when one belief spawns from another it is not unusual for both to condemn the other in the harshest terms possible, e.g. anathema, apostacy, heresy, cult, Satanism. Those terms become part of the believers' deeply held beliefs and should not be surprising when used on "open" Religion Forum threads.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

hmmm, i thought you claimed to have been taught the Faith, have you forgot everything???

[metmom]

We were taught Catholicism.

When we got saved, we read the Bible and learned the Truth.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

well, at least that’s the story and you are sticking to it.

the story gets exposed when you start explaining what the Church “teaches”, then the mask is dropped and what do we see?

someone who has no clue what the Church teaches, and what they think they “know”, was gotten from a comic book or radio preacher.

rest assured, no one is fooled.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

if any wants an example of what i am talking about in my last post about so called “former” Catholics, read the following statement written by someone who represents themself this way and you tell me if that can possibly be true:

Then they add baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, last rites, mortal sin, and a whole host of other requirements to stay our of hell. And God have mercy on your soul if you sin between confession and communion. And by the end of the week, you’d know you were done for if you died before you went to confession again. The best a Catholic can hope for is to die between confession and communion.

And then there’s all the Catholics who come on this forum and state that if you did sin and didn’t get a chance to repent before dying, too bad, no heaven for you.

all of this would be news to any Catholic, especially that mortal sin is a requirement to stay out of hell.

here’s a challenge for metmom, you say “ all these Catholics who come on this forum and say that if you sin without repenting, no heaven for you”

show me proof where this statement was ever made.

( something tells me i will be waiting a long time, cue the crickets.......)

[MarkBsnr]

hmmm, i thought you claimed to have been taught the Faith, have you forgot everything???

I think that they have found a greater attraction.