Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Answer: 110 AD (probably earlier) – for the benefit of those who cannot view videos. The full video clip is excellent.
Imagine you are in 100 AD and wanted to know which group or faction was most likely to be the real successors of any group that Jesus Himself gathered round him (founded). Which group’s texts and teachings were most likely to be the authentic texts and teachings by and about Jesus?
How would you decide? The texts/teachings you liked most? The texts/teachings you found most interesting? The group leaders you liked the most? Or the texts/teachings written by those who walked with Jesus by and confirmed as authentic (canonized) by their (institutional) successors (Apostolic Succession)?
Now ask the same question in 200 AD, 400AD, 1600AD or 2010 AD.
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
Blessed John Henry Newman in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine 5
I’m curious if any of these splinter groups continued, or did they all die off? I only ask because I heard a Baptist mention that some of the early Christians believed as the Baptists did and continued through the centuries. I just looked on Wikipedia and see that this is called the “Strict organic perpetuity view” and the “Spiritual kinship view”.
I only ask because I heard a Baptist mention that some of the early Christians believed as the Baptists did and continued through the centuries.
This is called historical retrojection.
The Chicken
I would suggest it would be beneficial if transcriptions of these videos were provided, or *at least* close captions. I usually find myself in circumstances where playing something with sound is much less convenient than simply reading. Others, more seriously, are deaf and will be unable ever to get any benefit from the videos if basic accessibility measures are not taken.
I have read that the word “catholic” is derived from kata (throughout) and holos (the whole), As in Acts 9:31, the Greek phrase: ekklesia kath olos, translated as “the church throughout all” (RSV). Is this something we can use with those fundamentalist who wouldn’t give a hoot about St. Ignatius, only what scripture says?
Interestingly, many separated brethern use the terms Catholic and Catholic Church for themselves, and when questioned, they say they are Catholics and the Catholic Church is just another name for their community. I am thinking in particular of the Orthodox. However, they prove themselves wrong by using the proper name of their communities – such as Orthodox Church – instead of the name Catholic Church, which Saint Cyril said is the proper name of the Church, and they are proven wrong by the Church Fathers who use Catholic terminology – Catholic faith, Catholic Christian, Catholic priesthood, etc. – which the communities do not use like us Catholic Christians use them: I.e., frequently and correctly.
Antique Catholic terminology:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4900520852_16de25444a_o.jpg
Antique Catholic Mass:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4907600194_2526035843_o.jpg
“I have read that the word “catholic” is derived from kata (throughout) and holos (the whole), As in Acts 9:31, the Greek phrase: ekklesia kath olos, translated as “the church throughout all” (RSV). Is this something we can use with those fundamentalist who wouldn’t give a hoot about St. Ignatius, only what scripture says?”
This will probably be a non-starter in terms of getting a good response from a fundamentalist, given the context. The passage reads: “η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας” (“the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria”). However, in terms of identifying the origin of the later term, and giving some historical & scriptural antecedents, this might well merit some more reflection.
Off topic: Jimmy, when will your revision of Mass Confusion be available? I am holding off purchasing this book until I can save postage by buying both.
Orthodox Christians, Oriental Christians and Episcopalians/Anglicans consider themselves to be Catholic. They accept the idea of the Fathers and the first 2,3,4, or 7 Ecumenical Councils. The accept Tradition and Scripture, the threefold ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon, Apostolic Succession, Saints, Mary, Sacraments and generally the Real Presence in bread and wine. Their biggest difficulty is the role of the Bishop of Rome – is he only ‘first amongst equals’ or more?
Other Christians, while not going as far, accept the historic (catholic) creeds eg Niceno–Constantinopolitan creed.
Many of the more learned Calvinists admire St Augustine of Hippo.
Many Evangelicals discovered their Catholic heritage (although many might squirm at that phrase) when they were amongst the first to respond to the conspiracy-theory ‘history’ of the early church in the Da Vinci Code.
Sadly, there are some Christians who imagine that Christian history ended with the Acts of the Apostles and began again with Wycliffe or Luther or the founder of their church in the 1900s or 2000s. Some of them suggest that a sort of underground church existed from the time of the Apostles and continuously kept the ‘true faith’ which was then only able to be openly practised when their church was founded. To them I would say where is the historical evidence? Sure, individual baptized catholics (including some priests and bishops) have had difficulties with this or that doctrine, even to the point of formally rejecting some of them. But they were not even loosely organized with doctrines like modern-day protestant churches.
Various heretical organized groups eg Arians and Gnostics have come and gone but they were not continuous even as loose movements, although their ideas keep popping up regularly and independently. Not all these groups’ ideas or heresies can be right.
Perhaps one way forward, ecumenically, is to encourage our Protestant sisters and brothers to study our common Christian heritage between the Acts of the Apostles and the 7th Century, when many churches in the east began to be suppressed. This might avoid serious discussion of issues like the Eucharist, Orders, Tradition, Mary etc. being clouded by the “Big Bad Corrupt Catholic Church which was challenged by a few plucky Reformers”.
Good video. I didn’t know the word came into being with the early Christian Church. I figured it was just an existing word that everyone already knew the definition of.
Perhaps one way forward, ecumenically, is to encourage our Protestant sisters and brothers to study our common Christian heritage between the Acts of the Apostles and the 7th Century, when many churches in the east began to be suppressed.
Yes but I thought that now some Protestant churches are twisting the history and writings of the Church Fathers to fit their Protestant theology. Or was that a quick blurb I read on Catholic Answers some time ago?