A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic---revised

[elvisman]

Thank-you .as far as 2nd peter ,another brother kindly brought that up also ,and my wording could have been better .Perhaps you could cite the catechism where it says something of needing tradition/church for understanding of some scripture -that is all i was trying to say .Peter nor Polycarp do not say that in above quotes,merely to be well versed.As far as Philip,was he interpreting or was he teaching ? There is a difference I believe . I do not see interpreters of scriptures as being one of the giftings of the church that we have listed in scripture , but there are “teachers”,and it does not say they are presbyters.Every believer is to have light ,a fountain of life flowing out to the lost world, but i would not consider that interpreting scripture for the lost world, per say…Again ,I am reading fathers one at a time ,and have only read the first two. You are correct that the journey will take me more and more to Catholic foundation, to things we are apart on. But so far Clements two epistles and Polycarp are right on (may i say they remind me of Billy Graham ,with mostly," the bible (scripture) says", over and over again.

**Philip interpreted for and guided the Ethiopian eunuch. It doesn’t make sense when you try to differentiate whether he interpreted ot taught him because it is the same thing.

As for private interpretation of Scripture, 2 Peter 1:20-21 says:
**"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, ****for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." **

We must remember that Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide the CHURCH to ALL truth (John 16:12-15). That guarantee was not given to each individual, which is clearly evident by the thousands of Protestant sects . . .

Here is what the Catechism says about private interpretation of Scripture:
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church**". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture** (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).**

 

[david_ruiz]

That is prejudice rearing its ugly head

 

[placido]

Sorry .it was not intended.You mean it is not a positive thing for you to see in history the first usage of “Catholic Church” ?

Written words consist of “spirit” and “letter”. Nothing wrong with the letter per se, but the spirit in which it is written. You know you did not intend it to be “a positive thing”.

When did the greek word “catholic” mean "one ,holy ,apostolic?
When did it cease just meaning “universal” ?

Oh dear, universal means catholic …yes, and the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Apostolic.

At least you concur that it “developed”.

Yes, just like the New Testament. All 27 books were not written in one day, but over many years till the last one was written round bout 100 AD. And the Holy Scriptures were not named “Bible” until much later. And the Bible was not divided into chapters and verses until the 16th century. But I don’t see you complaining about that.

Where did Jesus predict that,specifically heirarchy, and not the spiritual church only (of which Polycarp speaks of)?

I see something very interesting here … do you believe everything Polycarp wrote or are using him opportunistically?
Answer that question and I will tell you why I am asking (and don’t forget, Polycarp was not a lone ranger; there were other leaders who also wrote and Polycarp did not repudiate them).

Sorry,but from what others (Catholics) say we are still part of that tree, “a gift ,going towards catholic unity” . A branch that falls off dies ,and only prejudicial eyesight would say Protetstantism is spiritually dead.

It is possible I used a wrong analogy but the Catholic Church teaches that you are separated, maybe not like a branch that falls off the tree, but still … you are separated.

placido

 

[david_ruiz]

Written words consist of “spirit” and “letter”. Nothing wrong with the letter per se, but the spirit in which it is written. You know you did not intend it to be “a positive thing”.

 

[david_ruiz]

You agree that some scriptures are hard to understand, but you don’t think God provided a solution to that. He founded His church for nothing

 

[joe370]

Hey David ruiz

It is possible I used a wrong analogy but the Catholic Church teaches that you are separated, maybe not like a branch that falls off the tree, but still … you are separated.

yes “,not in fullness” is what i hear a lot ( a little like second class Christians).

I know what you mean. When I decided to come home to the CC my non-Catholic friends treated me as if I were on my way to the very bowls of hell.

Which church, if any, in your mind, does possess the fullness of truth, just as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century church did? I’m guessing no one, anymore, but I could be wrong.

 

[david_ruiz]

The moment you leave the Mexico, for instance, and give up your citizenship, you are no longer a citizen of Mexico. Whenever people talk about citizens of Mexico you are no longer included. If you want remain a citizen of Mexico don’t give up your citizenship … you understand what I mean?

 

[david_ruiz]

Yet Orthodox and Protestants do not see eye to eye over doctrine. They would quarrel over Sacred Tradition, with Protestant rejecting it as heretical; they would quarrel over infant baptism, with some Protestants rejecting it as unBiblical … in fact they would quarrel about almost every doctrine.

 

[david_ruiz]

page 89 Basics of the Faith: A Catholic Catechism by Alan Schreck

Compact History of the Catholic Church by Schreck
page 10

thanks .Good stuff That is how i see it also ,the nameing of the church was relative to other falsehoods,and as a quick guide or reference point,to help distinguish .

 

[david_ruiz]

**

You are absolutely

 

[david_ruiz]

**

We must remember that Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide the CHURCH

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey David ruiz

I know what you mean. When I decided to come home to the CC my non-Catholic friends treated me as if I were on my way to the very bowls of hell.

 

[placido]

and did God give the Holy Spirit for nothing?

God gave the Holy Spirit to the Church. The opposite would happen if you start believing He gave it to every guy on the street … they will come up with contradictory understandings and blame the Holy Spirit for the confusion.

Not saying church can not teach.

That is what you are saying, alternatively you are saying the Church can teach but who cares what it teaches …

NO. He talks of scripture,as Augustine does.

And they both were Catholic and they both believed that without the Church’s teaching they would never have believed the gospel. “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so,” says Augustine.

They have authority and clarity and are there for us to edify ,buildup.Polycarp says nothing of difficulty ,and hence gives no solution (like a magisterium) Says nothing. Scripture is everybody’s business is what i get out of it. That is not within the context of Polycarp .

I think you are having problems because, for whatever reasons, you have chosen to consider a single paragraph as the beginning and the end of everything Polycarp said. You simply refuse to look at what else he said and what his contemporaries said. For whatever reasons you have elevated Polycarp to a position of a pope.

If we speculate ,I would rather think there is a reliance on the Holy Spirit by the reader and student of scripture,and we study not in a vacuum ,that is without elders and teachers and the Body.

I don’t get you. Are you saying everyone who reads scripture is guided by the Holy Spirit to a proper understanding? If that is what you are saying then you are 100% wrong.
Or are you saying that in reading scriptures the reader is partly guided by the Holy Spirit and partly reliant on elders and teachers? What if what the Holy Spirit partly imparts on the readers contradicts what the elders and teachers tell him or her?
Well, sometimes people up with funny statements just to justified their refusal to obey and submit to the Church: “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

placido

 

[placido]

For sure it was not ugly prejudice.

Okay then!

not an exact comparison.It is like saying Jesus “developed” or evolved Adam and Eve in the Garden and not “made”. The Holy Scripture did not evolve , they were written. Nothing changed doctrinally over the 40 year span in which they were written,at least that i can think of.

Here is something for us to agree on: The Church of 60 AD did not have a 27-book New Testament and the Church of 60 AD did not have what you would call “a visible hierarchy”.
But we see the Church of 500 AD having a 27-book NT and you have no problem with that “change”, you only have a problem with the coming into existence of a hierarchy. Why? Because you want to be your own pope … it is convenient and much easier walking in that wide path …

I only read his letter to Phillipians .Is not that all there is ? did not read martyrdom stuff.

So, you read only one letter and you conclude that is the totallity of Polycarp? But tell me: you you think you know more about Polycarp than the Catholic Church that declared him a saint? Did the Catholic Church declare Polycarp a saint without knowing he “contradicted” Catholic teaching? I think you better take those questions seriously.

Anyways, yes found everything in harmony. Only one little part i did not understand (where he says, " but to myself this is not granted "12:1.) I am not sure what you could see that i would object to /Submit to presbyters ,but also be obedient to the word-I believe in both as well as submit one to another.

What does be obedient to the word mean? That would be very wrong to think that means be obedient to the Bible … that is not at all what it means.

yes “,not in fullness” is what i hear a lot ( a little like second class Christians).

“Not in fullness” just means that. It is not like second class Christians, it like a Christians who do not have the fullness of Christianity. Like (but not limited to) when the Bible has 73 books and you have only 66; when there are seven sacraments and you have only two, etc.

placido

 

[placido]

Perfectly. Your assumption is that Mexico did NOT CHANGE. Was there not a war , maybe Mexico’s fault (maybe not) ,and next thing you know , you are not in Mexico , but in some U.S.territory, and finally, a New Mexico.

Regardless of what happened – war, change, etc. – you are no longer a citizen. As simple as that.

Did Mexico have to get into that war ? Was she blameless ? …Were we not British citizens here in early America? Did not England’s policies CHANGE toward America ?

I think you are taking my use of Mexico as an example too far. I could have said Angola, Russia, Korea, etc. I am not talking about Mexico; I was using it as an analogy … something you seem never to grasp.

Was she not acting quite authortarian, taxing without representation etc…No , we are not British today but American, partly due to England’s errors.

Let me suppose you understood my analogy correctly and you are now using one of your own. That would imply Protestants left the Catholic Church because of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal errors. In turn that would imply that, at a given time in history, the gates of hell overcame Christ’s Church. But did Jesus not say that would never happen? Was He telling a lie and/or making false promises? So, you believe Jesus built his Church on sand and when the rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew it collapsed and was completely ruined. Reformers, like Martin Luther, had to step in to save us. They are now our saviors …

We did not trash our foundation (Britain), in fact she provided quite a foundation ,and indeed some of her ideas were birthed and grew in America , where the latter was better than the former , by design.

Likewise, all truths that are found in Protestantism, Protestants carried them over when they left the Catholic Church.

placido

 

[placido]

Polycarp , nor Clement , the two authors I have so far read, say nothing of that requirement , save that Jesus came in the flesh , which was a very contentious issue I guess.

It is, then, high time you start reading Polycarp’s contemporaries like Ignatius of Antioch.
BTW, it being a contentious issue does not mean all who spoke on it were wrong. Even circumcision and the canon of scriptures were contentious issues before they were resolved in Church councils.

For others I will repeat my assertion that Christians have a “catholic” faith , we are universal.

Yes, but some Christians do not possess the “Catholic” faith in its fullness.

To your rebuttal , you can have a million dollars , or you can have a million Euros ,or Marks, or Yen…(50,000 denominations right ?)

I am poor but … no thanks, please keep your money (cf Acts 8:18-21).
As to the number of Protestant denominations, I think every individual Protestant is technically a denomination. If there a millions of Protestants then there are millions of denominations.

placido

 

[elvisman]

No, this is the legacy of the Church …Their is some dialogue above on Mexico and the U.S. to show my point. Rome is not without fault .It takes two to tango.

WRONG**.**
**It is the Legacy of the divorce that Protestantism was born from. It has continued to divorce from *****itself ***from itself over and over and over for the last 600 years.

---

A perfect example of this is the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE), whose motto is “Reformed, and Always Reforming”. This legacy of divorce is that of Protestantism. The Catholic Church has endeavored to remain ONE – as the Father and the Sone are ONE (John 17:20-23).

A split is asplit is asplit .Yes there are degrees of disagreemnt ,which i think you allude to and must be respected.

Wrong** again. Disagreement over***** leadership***** is one thing. Rejection of Doctrine is ****quite **another – which is what happened during the Reformation. A separation is not the same as a divorce.

Whole other topic ,that is misportrayed (There are many Christians who “divorced” from Rome , who believe AND have the works to prove it ,better than I and perhaps you- hence don’t know how this argument moves us forward) . Suffice to say, as Polycarp, “Faith is our mother , of the Church of God”.

**Nobody is saying that the Holy Spirit cannot work within the limited confines of Protestantism. Nobody is saying that Protestants ****aren’t ****Christians. The fact is that God can and DOES work his divine will within ****ANY situation – even evil ones like Pharoah, Jezebel and others.
**

That "cause’ is a mouthful .I thought we will throw our given crowns back at His feet ,for it is because of His goodness , that "caused " us to turn to Him and serve Him.Still,is it not intersting that Polycarp cares not for our "church arguments"as to name and when started .He keeps it simple -the just shall live by faith .like Abraham ,which is any Christians’ foundation /heritage. Don’t we kinda boast ,I am from Luther or Calvin, or we go all the way back to Peter etc etc. So I love Polycarp, who says we are “before the moon and sun” .“Let every man be a liar ,but God be true” (and glorified).

You hit the nail on the** head****. It is the Protestant “denominations” that *****only ***claim to be of Calvin or Luther or Wesley or Ellen G. White. The Catholic Church is the only one that can claim – and prove its origins back to Christ himself (Matt. 16:18-19).

 

[elvisman]

Whole different topic ,but I disagree with this interpretation. Polycarp makes no such inference or separation of “church” and individual believer being blessed(with the Spirit) with studying scripture for good. The Spirit is what keeps us from private interpretation.I have not mentioned nor inferred it .It is only your assumption that if one does not elevate magisterium to your degree ,he must be advocating private interpretation.I am not.

****Personal interpretation apart **from the Church is condemned by Scripture itself, as I already showed (2 Peter 1:20-21).

**In John 16, Jesus was speaking to the Apostles ONLY at the Last Supper – not the crowds. The guarantee about the Holy Spirit leading them to ALL truth was given only to them as the leaders of the Church and their successors (Acts 1:20-26). Just as in Acts 1:1-2 when Jesus gave instructions to the Apostles ONLY – he also does here in John 16.

General rule of thumb: When Jesus instructs the Apostles - he is speaking to the Church and its leadership.
When he instructs the crowds - he is speaking to ALL of us on general.

 

[david_ruiz]

God gave the Holy Spirit to the Church. The opposite would happen if you start believing He gave it to every guy on the street …

 

[Heliotropium]

Thank-you .as far as 2nd peter ,another brother kindly brought that up also ,and my wording could have been better .Perhaps you could cite the catechism where it says something of needing tradition/church for understanding of some scripture -that is all i was trying to say .Peter nor Polycarp do not say that in above quotes,merely to be well versed.As far as Philip,was he interpreting or was he teaching ? There is a difference I believe . I do not see interpreters of scriptures as being one of the giftings of the church that we have listed in scripture , but there are “teachers”,and it does not say they are presbyters.Every believer is to have light ,a fountain of life flowing out to the lost world, but i would not consider that interpreting scripture for the lost world, per say…Again ,I am reading fathers one at a time ,and have only read the first two. You are correct that the journey will take me more and more to Catholic foundation, to things we are apart on. But so far Clements two epistles and Polycarp are right on (may i say they remind me of Billy Graham ,with mostly," the bible (scripture) says", over and over again.

The Church has the authority to settle disputes between Christian brethren regarding Christian doctrine on Faith and Morals. In Matthew 18:17 Christ instructs the faithful that if there is any dispute then take one or two others with you that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. Kind of like what’s happening now David in this discussion we are having. Then Christ says; “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the CHURCH; and if he refuses the listen even to the CHURCH, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (or as we Catholics see it as a Protestant).”–Matthew 18:17

Now let’s look at some things here. First Christ does not say go look at the Scriptures to get the final Authority. Secondly He directs them to A Church NOT Churches but ONE Church. Thirdly Christ couldn’t have told them to go do this if this ONE CHURCH was not a VISIBLE CHURCH! Therefore one could conclude that if the CHURCH was ONE, and VISIBLE then the only Church that can meet this since the time of the Apostles is the Catholic Church we have and that exists today.

We should also note that Christ tells the Apostles who are the Bishops of this ONE CHURCH exactly how great the Authority is that he has given to it. “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Matthew 18:18. The only Church in History that has claimed to possess this Authority is the Catholic Church. Also this authority was only given to his Apostles and the men they appointed after them by the laying of hands. This authority is not given to every LAYMAN and therefore the teaching of everything and the authority to instruct correctly has been given to THE CHURCHES MAGISTERIUM.

The Apostles didn’t misunderstand Christ’s instructions. No in fact Paul confirms them by calling the Church the Pillar and Bullwark of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15. Wow the Pillar and Bullwark of truth? Now you would think he would have said the Scriptures were that especially if everything rested on them alone. Weird…hm. I find it also odd that in 1 Tim 3:15 why Paul would instruct them (the early Christians) on how to act in an invisible Church? Really wouldn’t make much sense unless the Church was a visible one would it?

God Bless:thumbsup: