Time for another question from Pastor Billy, Protestants, Fundamentalists and non-Catholic Christians...why?

Question

Protestants, Fundamentalists and non-Catholic Christians I regularly hear and read arguments against the Roman Catholic Church being the early Christian Church with claims of there being no Pope, no buildings, no statues of Mary in the first Church history. I now ask (using your own logic) how can Protestants, Fundamentalists or any non-Catholic group which would argue they are the rightful descendants of the Church of God if early Christians did not own private scrolls of scriptures or practice the tradition of carrying them to church with them?

This is extremely relevant as I hear non-Catholics criticize Catholics for not carrying bibles to church as if they are lesser "in the Word" and yet we don't read of this practice by early followers of Christ anywhere.

first three answers and all are avoiding the question. hmmm interesting...

addendum: Steve Amato you're going to have to re-write your answer I can't understand you. The question is, if early Christians didn't demand everyone own a private copy of the scriptures or practice the tradition of carrying that privately owned copy to worship with them than how can non-Catholic "bible alone", "bible thumping", bible touting" Christians be descendants of early Christians?

We aren't talking about ignorance of scripture be mindful of that. St. Jerome wrote "ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ" not bad for a Catholic.

Answer 1

In II Thess 2:15, Paul expresses the Catholic view of the early Christians: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

The Gospel was mostly transmitted by word of mouth; only a few congregations had written sayings of Jesus (perhaps Q or Mark) and some letters from Paul, John, Peter, James, or Jude. The New Testament wasn't completed until near the end of the first century, and the canon wasn't fully accepted until the fourth century.

I continue to be amazed at the historic ignorance of fundamentalists who don't recognize that the New Testament is the work of the early catholic-orthodox Church organized and authorized by Jesus. How they can imagine that the writings of these original Christians somehow contradict their own beliefs and practices and refute the beliefs and practices of their modern Catholic heirs is incomprehensible. How they idolize a book over the Word of God made flesh is sinful.

If the sacred book is more important than the full Gospel of Jesus proclaimed by "word of mouth and by letter," why didn't Jesus write a book?

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 2

The stupidity of it is that they're demanding the existence of a tradition that was impossible to exist in the first place. There were no bibles carried to church because... well, there was no bible!

The NT didn't become canon until 400 AD, and to back it up all the way to the time of the apostles, one of first letters of the NT that would EVENTUALLY be recognized as inspired (thesselonians?) wasn't even written till about 20 years after Christ's death. With no written scritpure, how did the Church teach the Word during those first 2 decades? If the bible is the only source of Christian truth and faith, how did the Church survive all those centuries with no inspired canon?

Protestants need to quit rewriting history and get with the program.

Answer 3

It seems to me that non- Catholics just cannot seem to give logical and unbiased answers to anything regarding Catholicism, like rottweilers trained to attack they give the same mundane repetitive rants.
There is of course one undeniable answer to all attacks on Catholicism and this comes from the lips of Christ Himself.
``Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it``
For 2,000yrs the gates of Hell have indeed tried and by various means and peoples but hey, we are still here.

Answer 4

The antagonism here is quite un-Christian .The person called Chris forgot to mention Henry the Eight?.It is also said that 'evil accuses good'.

Answer 5

first of all catholic were not the first church as they clam.well no they did have a bible but they did have the letters of the apostles.and yes some of them had and knew the old testament.I would never say they don't know or have the a bible .but there is a lot of stuff the catholic church did and still doing wrong.but I will tell people I'm in the wrong but the catholic church will not say they have. first thing about getting your sins forgiven is to admit to the sin and ask for forgiveness.but to say we have not done anything wrong is a sin in it's self

Answer 6

Catholics, much like the Jews at the time, don't follow the very Bible they carry around. Non-Catholic Christians are arguably more predominantly does of the word than Catholics.

(Catholic argument like are much like the Pharisees claiming the Bible came from them and therefore everyone should conform to their version of Christianity)

Answer 7

Catholics killed people found owning a Bible. Catholics certainly didn't "protect" the Bible. They wanted it gone from existence.

Catholics teach works. Catholics are not saved and are not Christians. Catholics believe a false gospel of works that leads to eternal hell (Galatians 1).

Bible teachers that said the Vatican and the catholic cult are an antichrist: John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards

Answer 8

Sentinel, you are SO right!!

I can't give a better answer than his.

Answer 9

My church claims no ties to the Catholic church.

The early church is the true church, but the Catholic church is not the early church at all!

Answer 10

dead sea scrolls, we have em, baby! X