Thursday, 23 January 2014

There is no such thing as 'Early Christianity'

It seems that even some well educated people believe that the Catholic Faith is just one other denomination, lined up alongside Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists and so on.

St Peter, not an 'Early Christian' but
an 'Early Catholic'  Pope and martyr

They trot out the term 'Early Christians' whether speaking of those who died in the arenas of the Roman Empire or those saints and martyrs who are only remembered by the churches that bear their names, now in Protestant hands.

A favourite line, uttered in all ignorance by non Catholic friends is (on discussing St David's Cathedral, for example):

"Such a glorious church, why don't the Catholics have churches as beautiful as this?"

The fact is that historical ignorance and clear reasoning have combined so that there is no concept of England and Wales (or, Europe, for that matter) being wholly and singularly Catholic.

We have been fed the mush handed out by Protestant historians that Christianity existed as a form of generic religion until such time as King Henry VIII came along and regularised worship into a format that became The Book of Common Prayer (and the Novus Ordo Mass).

And we Catholics compound the matter also by using the term 'Early Christians' when we really mean 'Early Catholics'.

People have forgotten (or never known) the fact that there have been something like 55 Catholic Archbishops of Canterbury preceding the figure of 36 Protestant ones.

The fact that the Protestant Church has never canonized one of their members seems to have been lobotomised from the collective memory.

All Protestant saints are, of course, Catholic and it's the biggest scam in history to pass them off as belonging to the Church of England or Wales.

One of the many effects of the Protestant Reformation on the Catholic population, has been that they have, often for many good reasons, kept a low profile both politically and socially.

And when the Emancipation Act of 1829 came into being, we were so grateful that we have, ever since, been passive to the point of being obsequious and fawning.

Perhaps, just as Native Americans have won compensation and recovery of assets for land and property stolen from them in the past, the Catholic Church could sue for something similar although, as a commentator pointed out some time back, we could ill afford the upkeep of many of the Cathedrals and Churches.

Personally, I would settle for two things.

The term 'Early Christians' to be erased for ever, and free entry to what were once Catholic places of worship, places such as Westminster Abbey and Winchester Cathedral.

And, maybe, to have a Catholic as Archbishop of Canterbury once more.


  1. What you just said, ditto. 'Early Christian', has become something a horn-ed tailed thing must get must use out of.

    'People have forgotten (or never known) the fact that there have been something like 55 Catholic Archbishops of Canterbury preceding the figure of 36 Protestant ones.'

    Highlighting these true facts is crucial. (i say true facts because i've had encounters with Catholics who say that faith and facts and truth don't necessarily have common ground, and that one may disbelieve an article of faith because it cannot be proved as a fact, if their 'reason' demands it (I don't think converts ever think this way.)

    "Such a glorious church, why doesn't the Catholics have churches as beautiful as this?"

    What can be done when the people who have been born into the lie dutifully believe it? Convert, even if you are a cradle Catholic, not easily done when so many in the Church now actually teach the unnecessity of conversion, inside or outside.

    There are good priests trying to pour medicine on the wounds of the lie. Since people don't seem to read anymore, unless it's on a screen, St Athony Communications ( have some dvds - 'St Augustine: Apostle of England'...'In the year 597 AD, on the island of Thanet in Kent, a landing took place which would change the course of English history...' Also, 'Arise Once More: Reviving Catholic Britain'. Puts paid to the 'early christain' as something outside or other than Catholicism, delusion. Catholic = Christian and Christian = Catholic. There's no way around this Truth unless you decide God didn't enter history, in which case conversion is much needed.

    p.s I lived in England for 8 years, and multiple times visited London to see the Abbey - not once was it 'open to the public'.

  2. Good post; but I have to admit, I'd settle for a few more truly passionately militantly Catholic bishops in our current Catholic sees… at least as a first step.

    1. Yes, Ben, and so would I. Can't see anything on the horizon though.

  3. Important points I feel Richard. Of course, the first time the term Catholic was used was around the year A.D. 107, by St. Ignatius of Antioch. Shame your Caravaggio isn't a little larger!

  4. Of St David's Cathedral:
    "Such a glorious church, why don't the Catholics have churches as beautiful as this?"
    Because the heretics nicked them.

    A constant irritation is the exclusive use of the term "Christian" where in fact what is meant is "Protestant".

    1. The next time some non-Catholic refers to themselves as Christian...ask them..."How do you figure?"

      For the LIFE of me I cannot find one thing about them that makes them Christian. They divorce, thwart God's plan of procreation and murder by contraception, and it gets worse from there esp these days. So...just what about a Prot is Christian?

  5. “And, maybe, to have a Catholic as Archbishop of Canterbury once more.”

    I’d be satisfied to have a CATHOLIC as archbishop or bishop of any see in England and Wales.

    1. Yes, absolutely Michael.Let us hope that Bishops Egan and Davies will lead the way.

    2. Just passing through...January 23, 2014 12:53 pm

      I mean no disrespect by what I am about to say, but if these two bishops you mention continue to commit the Freemason Prot service worship of Man then I do not see the reason to have hope in them. Please take no offense. It is merely my observation based on the crushed hopes of Catholics elsewhere with similar longings.

  6. Just passing through..but it's not your observation of the two Bishops mentioned....I am uncertain if you are aware of the great works carried out by these men in a short period of time. God bless.

  7. Great posts in the past few days. I cannot keep up with comments. But, keep writing, please.

  8. Heartily concur with your main point!
    But it ramifies.
    The vast weight of North America is a continuous irritation to me on many points - where Spain in Franco's time once believed in the infallibility of the Encyclopedia Laroouuse, this semiconscious idolatry now extends more to American sources ( international cultural classifications, , important for tourism , not just erudition , follow our stateside cousins who I otherwise defend in general in distinguishing "christian" from "catholic" cultures, etc)
    I have an incomplete collection of American reference works, which happily maintain the lies I was told at school , such as an originatively and organically "celtic" church begun by St Patrick et al of their own accord, versus the "roman church".
    Hardened, Embedded , encrusted balderdash.
    Last heard , St Patrick was certainly a proper son of the church, tied up with St Germanus, and probably took over from a previous Bishop on the Irish mission.
    I am very lacking in knowledge, God send I may sometimes be a balaam's ass as well as a pompous one, I remember 20odd yrs ago conversation with a young Spaniard who knew twenty times more than me of the "early church", patristics , and the like, and was then studying same, and I brought him up short by repeating the remark of an English priest mid sixties" You know , I really can't think the church started as coalescing groups of sameylikey moderns setting up a Woffly wooly Jesus of nazareth fanclub like stampcollecters or realMadrid supporters".
    Because too much recent good and thorough, and erudite, but, scholarship originates in the Anglosphere.
    They were our brethren in the communion of saints, they had the mass, priests, and bishops, and Rome, as different perhaps as thee and me on the pew, and would I at least and we all were as ready to joyfully be martyred by the hundreds, thousands , and hundreds of thousands .

  9. Totally agree with you blog. On a slight tangent I decided last Thursday to listen to "In out time" on radio 4 which was dealing with The battle of Tours. Through out they insisted on calling the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Taking into account that the battle of Tours was long before the reformation I could not get my head around why this was since in the West there was only the Catholic Church.

  10. Bishops Egan and Davies stand in sharp contrast to most of the rest of Their Lordships of England and Wales. But, given the nature of the present pontificate, I do not expect appointments of men of their calibre in the future. I fear we'll have more compliant mediocrities.

  11. Im not familiar with the Bishops you mention but I am concerned about the homogenization of Catholics to the extent of what we are is "like" or "similar" to....whatever....Catholicism IS the fullness of all Christain truth...punctum.....or not?.....this Pope seems to have an issue with that and there I become confused. J.

  12. Im afraid I dont know how to use/apply the other profile referecnes whereby I could add my name so I use again...anonymous like above.

  13. Yeah!! Thank you! I do not have Catholic radio (I do not have a t.v.) where I live so I listen to Protestant radio sometimes. I laugh when they have programs about the Truth as if they were the first to discover the Truth. Protestants need to be reminded that they have been stealing, plagiarizing, copying, passing off Trust as their own since the Reformation. It never dawns on them that they keep looking over at our wheel to create the wheel that already exists to see what a wheel looks like.

    Pray long, pray hard, pray often

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. I agree with the general focus of the article. I don't care much for the misappropriation of churches and so forth either. I DO think though, that "Early Christian" makes much more sense than does "Early Catholic". Yes, the early Christians WERE early Catholics, but I've roughly understood that the terms "Catholic" and "Protestant" came about AFTER the Reformation era.
    I think it unlikely that most Christians would've used the term "Catholic" to describe themselves before, say 1530.

    1. The term "Catholic" is from the early 2nd century.

    2. According to Wikipedia, Ignatius of Antioch used the term "Catholic" as early as 107, yes, and apparently some used it fairly often during the latter half of the same century.
      Trouble is, I've never heard any suggestion that the faithful routinely used the term to describe themselves before the Reformation.

      If they did, it's news to me.
      ..Which raises a rather awkward question or two:
      If the early faithful DID refer to themselves as Catholic--unless they belonged to the Orthodox in the East--why did we, the modern Catholic faithful, ever allow ourselves to be re-branded as Christians? Why did bishops ever tolerate the change?