Bible ? for all Non-Catholic Christians: Why are you not Catholic today while at the same time you accept her Authority in that you use the 27 books o

[SingleMomMonica]

It simply makes no sense to me that anyone would reject the Catholic Church while at the same time fully accept the Catholic Church’s Authority to not only write, but, via Councils of the Catholic Church being in the late 300’s, determine which of all the many early Catholic Christian writings would be considered a part of the Bible and which would not be.

Have Non-Catholic Christians simply not thought this through?

Or are Non-Catholic Christians comfortable living with such contradictions?

Certainly Non-Catholic Christians apply logic to their beliefs, yet this is completely illogical.

I’d like to know the logic a Non-Catholic Christian is using so that he/she can reconcile in his/her own mind and heart the fact that they are currently worshipping outside of the Catholic Church while at the same time reading the 27 New Testament books of the Bible which was determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church.

Also, many Non-Catholic Christians also believe in the Trinity which also was determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church.

What rule to Non-Catholics Christians use to determine which pronouncements of the Catholic Church to accept and which ones they will not accept - like belief of the Trinity vs. the belief that Mary is the Mother of God, the believe in the validity of the New Testament vs. the belief of Purgatory, etc. Certainly, they do not use the Bible as the Bible confirms all Catholic beliefs those Non-Catholic Christians accept and those they reject. Plus, they couldn’t use the Bible to say why they accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the Bible wasn’t written originally with a table of contents.

I just want to understand the logic Non-Catholic Christians use.

 

[L2Gospelplz]

First of all…

The Biblical cannons:

Those were not set until the Council of Trent in 1546 for Rome and the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Until that time it was not officially sealed as unable to add or remove books. I imagine you are unfamiliar with the fact that this is post Reformation. As far as the Lutheran confessions, The Book of Concord and unaltered Augsburg Confession, make no mandate on Biblical cannon. In other words, we use the scriptures which were generally accepted by the Church at the time of the reformation, but since at that time there was no formal ruling, we currently have no formal ruling. We however, ARE, incredibly consistent and don’t change things just because it makes it convenient.

The Trinity:

This is found in Scripture, not from the Pope. Scripture, comes from the Holy Spirit via apostles (and James)…not from the Pope. The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ, his authority stemming from Jesus through Peter, who wrote 2 letters and influenced (maybe) one gospel. Do you see a trend here where maybe even without Rome and Peter the cannon stays pretty stable?

Let’s talk about ecumenical councils…You get the Trinity and the Nicene Creed in the first, what, two? Let’s be honest here guys, the fact that Rome held a place of honor is to be sure, no one questions that. But Pope? By the second council? Hey, if you want to start talking about Leo in 446 be my guest but the major players in those councils didn’t come from Rome, and the council was accepted by the Bishops from all over not by the authority of Rome.

So, to answer your question – We hold to the Trinity because it is clearly taught by scripture and held to by the ecumenical councils approved by the community of Bishops not the Authority of the Church in Rome. We use the scriptures as were generally accepted by the Christian Community throughout the ages and as we are from the latin/western tradition of the Church it makes sense that we would all use the same set of texts.

As a side note and final comment let’s not forget that you threw us out. You want to rail on the Anabaptist tradition the Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, whatever fine. Confessional Lutherans which hold a quia subscription to the Book of Concord accept the Scriptures as inerrant and inspired, we accept the ecumenical councils and a whole lot more. Your tone is hostile, condescending and argumentative. The Church is in factions because of sin, arrogance will not fix that, the law will not fix that, logical deductions and apologetics will not fix that, it is only the love and Grace of Christ Jesus that will fix that.

 

[eOxy]

It simply makes no sense to me that anyone would reject the Catholic Church while at the same time fully accept the Catholic Church’s Authority to not only write, but, via Councils of the Catholic Church being in the late 300’s, determine which of all the many early Catholic Christian writings would be considered a part of the Bible and which would not be.

Have Non-Catholic Christians simply not thought this through?

Or are Non-Catholic Christians comfortable living with such contradictions?

Being an Orthodox Christian it does make perfect sense to me.

I just want to understand the logic Non-Catholic Christians use.

Me to - how could you switch 'Roman Catholic" for the “Catholic”?

Bible is written in Greek. Latin Vulgata is only a translation ( a faulty one).

 

[Hesychios]

Being an Orthodox Christian it does make perfect sense to me.

Orthodox Christianity is fulfilled and complete Catholicism. It is unadulterated Catholicism.

 

[mardukm]

Orthodox Christianity is fulfilled and complete Catholicism. It is unadulterated Catholicism.

Any paradigm which rejects the Oriental Tradition and the Latin Tradition as heterodox is not “fulfilled and complete Catholicism.”

Blessings

 

[nsper7]

The Biblical cannons:

Those were not set until the Council of Trent in 1546 for Rome and the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Until that time it was not officially sealed as unable to add or remove books. I imagine you are unfamiliar with the fact that this is post Reformation. As far as the Lutheran confessions, The Book of Concord and unaltered Augsburg Confession, make no mandate on Biblical cannon. In other words, we use the scriptures which were generally accepted by the Church at the time of the reformation, but since at that time there was no formal ruling, we currently have no formal ruling. We however, ARE, incredibly consistent and don’t change things just because it makes it convenient.

You’re giving an incomplete story. The Canon of Scripture (including the Deuterocanonical Books) was ‘set’ much earlier:
Council of Rome:

Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books

[It has been decided]
that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .

[It has been decided]
that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .

Pope Innocent I:

A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . .

The Council of Trent simply reiterated and restated what was already fact: that the Deuterocanonical Books are part of the Canon of the Old Testament and have been. Martin Luther based his OT Canon off of the ‘Palestinian Canon’ from the 1st Century AD which was developed by Non-Christian Jews (you know, the ones who rejected Jesus as Lord and Savior). Thus, Luther was more willing to trust a group of Non-Christians over the Church. Oh well, not the worst bit of oddity for Luther, but still…

The Trinity:

This is found in Scripture, not from the Pope. Scripture, comes from the Holy Spirit via apostles (and James)…not from the Pope. The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ, his authority stemming from Jesus through Peter, who wrote 2 letters and influenced (maybe) one gospel. Do you see a trend here where maybe even without Rome and Peter the cannon stays pretty stable?

Let’s talk about ecumenical councils…You get the Trinity and the Nicene Creed in the first, what, two? Let’s be honest here guys, the fact that Rome held a place of honor is to be sure, no one questions that. But Pope? By the second council? Hey, if you want to start talking about Leo in 446 be my guest but the major players in those councils didn’t come from Rome, and the council was accepted by the Bishops from all over not by the authority of Rome.

So, to answer your question – We hold to the Trinity because it is clearly taught by scripture and held to by the ecumenical councils approved by the community of Bishops not the Authority of the Church in Rome. We use the scriptures as were generally accepted by the Christian Community throughout the ages and as we are from the latin/western tradition of the Church it makes sense that we would all use the same set of texts.

There were no Lutherans at any of the Ecumenical Counsels. Neither were the false doctrines of Sola Scriptura–which you just violated by you acknowledgment of the teaching authority of the early Ecumenical Counsels and the Bishops collegiality. Furthermore, Lutherans lack the Apostolic Succession that might have connected them to the Bishops and Ecumenical Counsels.

And while, other than rejecting the Deuterocanonicals and attempting (unsuccessfully) to throw out that “right strawy epistle” of St. James, the Protestant Canon has remained stable, its doctrines have not. The fact that you are an LCMS Lutheran and there are a myriad of other Protestant “denominations” that have schismed not just from the Catholic Church, but from each other, indicates this.

Orthodox Christianity is fulfilled and complete Catholicism. It is unadulterated Catholicism.

Except for the fact that you rejected the authority of St. Peter, the Rock on whom Christ’s Church is built upon, but at least you do have valid Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders. That puts the Orthodox many steps ahead of Protestants already. I hope the East and West will be reunited under the Successor to St. Peter someday soon and I have a great respect for the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

You’re giving an incomplete story. The Canon of Scripture (including the Deuterocanonical Books) was ‘set’ much earlier:

It was set for the Latin Church, but not the whole Church.

Local Councils in the East had minor differences from the Latin Canon with respect to the OT. All these local Canons were deemed to be orthodox by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Blessings

 

[nsper7]

It was set for the Latin Church, but not the whole Church.

Local Councils in the East had minor differences from the Latin Canon with respect to the OT. All these local Canons were deemed to be orthodox by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Blessings

The 7th Ecumenical Council=2nd Council of Nicea, right? That occurred in 787 AD or thereabouts, correct? Well, that is still several hundred years before the Protestant “reformation”–it was a reformation in the same way poison ‘reforms’ a human being.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I just want to understand the logic Non-Catholic Christians use.

Because I believe that the logic that Catholic Christians use is an overreach, if they use the logic in the OP.

Now I could go in many directions with this, but I will go with just one for now.

And this direction will be the early church as Catholic.

Now it is a historical fact that soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the early church applied the name Catholic (meaning Universal) to themselves. This is not the overreach.

The overreach is then assuming this early church being the domain of one and only one Christian group today. And that would be the Christian group that today calls itself Catholic.

Logically when an entity splits into two or more parts, the original entity is common to all parts that it splits into. Now it is true that there are some attributes that only one part can and will inherit in a split. The name is one such attribute.

Nevertheless, the original entity is logically common to all of the parts it has split into.

 

[Hisalone]

The 7th Ecumenical Council=2nd Council of Nicea, right? That occurred in 787 AD or thereabouts, correct? Well, that is still several hundred years before the Protestant “reformation”–it was a reformation in the same way poison ‘reforms’ a human being.

Direct from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.”

STOP passing on your misinformation as fact!

 

[Jon_Hus]

singlemomonica asks: *Bible ? for all Non-Catholic Christians: Why are you not Catholic today while at the same time you accept her Authority in that you use the 27 books of the New Testament which were written, compiled, preserved and hand-down by the Catholic Church? *

A better question to ask and ponder is why do Roman Catholics think that the Holy Bible was written, compiled and preserved by their Church? We thought that is was God who wrote (using Jewish scribes) and preserved the Bible (Luke/Acts possible exception).

Oh, I know the answer, (just like your mom would say) “because”.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

the East had minor differences from the Latin Canon with respect to the OT.

Only speaking of the New Testament.

You know that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches and the Coptic Churches and the Oriental Churches were all originally part of the Catholic Church as they were each founded by the Apostles were united from the beginning up until around 1054ish. These Churches all acknowledge the Church’s Tradition and use the same 27 books of the New Testament. My question is not aimed at members of any of these Churches.

My question(s) are aimed to those outside of the Historical Church who claim they do not accept Church Tradition and Apostolic Authority, such as the Baptists, Lutherans, Quakers, Mormons, etc., yet they do accept the 27 books which the Catholic Church has deemed the New Testament - the exact 27 books were placed on a list for the first time beginning with the Council of Rome the late 300’s and were finally officially deemed part of the Canon at the Council of Trent…

How can churches that claim the Catholic Church has no authority or had authority but lost it either immediately after the death of the Apostles or at the time Constantine legalized Christianity in the 300s, then at the same time, accept the New Testament which was compiled for the first time at the Council of Rome in the late 300’s?

Where is the logic?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

singlemomonica asks: *Bible ? for all Non-Catholic Christians: Why are you not Catholic today while at the same time you accept her Authority in that you use the 27 books of the New Testament which were written, compiled, preserved and hand-down by the Catholic Church? *

A better question to ask and ponder is why do Roman Catholics think that the Holy Bible was written, compiled and preserved by their Church? We thought that is was God who wrote (using Jewish scribes) and preserved the Bible (Luke/Acts possible exception).

Oh, I know the answer, (just like your mom would say) “because”.

Nope, the reason is the History proves it. Haven’t you read any of the writings of the first Christians or any of the writings of the Councils of the Church? Only the Catholic Church was there for the first thousand years. Then the Orthodox split off from her. It wasn’t until the 1500’s that any non-Apostolic “Christian” churches were established - King Henry VIII and Martin Luther were the first and they split from the Catholic Church each for their own reasons. Even they acknowledged where the Bible came from.

Where do you come off implying that the New Testament was not complied by Catholics? All of the Apostles were Catholic, they were not practicing Jews after Pentecost. Are you attempting to re-write history?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Because I believe that the logic that Catholic Christians use is an overreach, if they use the logic in the OP.

Now I could go in many directions with this, but I will go with just one for now.

And this direction will be the early church as Catholic.

Now it is a historical fact that soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the early church applied the name Catholic (meaning Universal) to themselves. This is not the overreach.

The overreach is then assuming this early church being the domain of one and only one Christian group today. And that would be the Christian group that today calls itself Catholic.

Logically when an entity splits into two or more parts, the original entity is common to all parts that it splits into. Now it is true that there are some attributes that only one part can and will inherit in a split. The name is one such attribute.

Nevertheless, the original entity is logically common to all of the parts it has split into.

I have noticed that you have avoided answering any of the questions I posed to Non-Catholic Christians such as yourself.

Am I to assume by your lack of response that there is NO LOGIC to the Protestant position in the matter of the Authority of the Catholic Church to provide the Christian Faithful with the New Testament?

No Logic in Protestants accepting the New Testament which is the very result of the Authority the Catholic Church was given by Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[ChosenAndCalled]

First of all, I am not a Protestant - I’m not protesting anything. I’m a member of the Holy Catholic Church, reformed. My church has was founded as God closed Eden and promised a savior to Adam and Eve.

The Bible, a fallible collection of infallable documents, was given to the church by the Holy Spirit. The one church. The Roman Catholic’s left that church at Trent when they denied the efficacy of the cross as a means of salvation.

So, to our teaching it’s the RCC that is a newbie - only five hundred years old. God’s Holy Catholic Church - containing all the elect, RCC individuals as well, is much, much older.

 

[ccolley2]

singlemomonica asks: *Bible ? for all Non-Catholic Christians: Why are you not Catholic today while at the same time you accept her Authority in that you use the 27 books of the New Testament which were written, compiled, preserved and hand-down by the Catholic Church? *

A better question to ask and ponder is why do Roman Catholics think that the Holy Bible was written, compiled and preserved by their Church? We thought that is was God who wrote (using Jewish scribes) and preserved the Bible (Luke/Acts possible exception).

Oh, I know the answer, (just like your mom would say) “because”.

Well, who do you think the Early christians were??? Non-denominationals, Protestants???
Who do you suppose kept the Huns and the Muslims from destroying all the bibles in existence during the Middle Ages??? Bibles were made with gold leaf and many of them were destroyed when the Huns came through?
What are you using for a history Book??? document or retract~
CC

 

[SingleMomMonica]

First of all…

The Biblical cannons:

Those were not set until the Council of Trent in 1546 for Rome and the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Until that time it was not officially sealed as unable to add or remove books. I imagine you are unfamiliar with the fact that this is post Reformation. As far as the Lutheran confessions, The Book of Concord and unaltered Augsburg Confession, make no mandate on Biblical cannon. ***In other words, we use the scriptures which were generally accepted by the Church at the time ***of the reformation, but since at that time there was no formal ruling, we currently have no formal ruling. We however, ARE, incredibly consistent and don’t change things just because it makes it convenient.

So you admitt that you continue to use the New Testament exactly as it was being used by the Church at the time…that Church had and still has a name…The Catholic Church.

You admit to using the 27 books of the New Testament which were compiled as a result of the Catholic Church’s Authority. You are correct that the Canon was not officially set until the Council of Trent; however, the Council simply confirmed the same list which was first established by Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in the late 300’s and then that same century by the Council of Hippo, etc. hand down century after century until after the Reformation it was officially made part of the Canon by the Catholic Church.

**The Trinity:

This is found in Scripture**, not from the Pope. Scripture, comes from the Holy Spirit via apostles (and James)…not from the Pope. The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ, his authority stemming from Jesus through Peter, who wrote 2 letters and influenced (maybe) one gospel. Do you see a trend here where maybe even without Rome and Peter the cannon stays pretty stable?

Really, the word Trinity is found in Scripture? This is either a lie that was fed to you that you are simply repeating or one that you have simply made up. The first time the word Trinity was ever used as it relates to Christian Theology was at the Catholic Church Council of Constantinople in 381 ad. Read the Council, the Catholic Bishops by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit had to coin a new word to describe the Mystery of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit One God / 3 Persons. Because nothing in the Bible contradicts the official teachings of the Catholic Church, you will certainly not find anything in the New Testament which contradicts this belief in the Trinity, but you will not find the word Trinity nor the specific definition of Trinity in the Bible.

Let’s talk about ecumenical councils…You get the Trinity and the Nicene Creed in the first, what, two? Let’s be honest here guys, the fact that Rome held a place of honor is to be sure, no one questions that. But Pope? By the second council? Hey, if you want to start talking about Leo in 446 be my guest but the major players in those councils didn’t come from Rome, and the council was accepted by the Bishops from all over not by the authority of Rome.

The Pope of Rome ratified each of the Councils making them and their decrees valid or have you not read much history?

So, to answer your question – We hold to the Trinity because it is clearly taught by scripture and held to by the ecumenical councils approved by the community of Bishops not the Authority of the Church in Rome. We use the scriptures as were generally accepted by the Christian Community throughout the ages and as we are from the latin/western tradition of the Church it makes sense that we would all use the same set of texts.

Trinity is not found in a single verse of the Bible - it is clearly taught via Tradition of the Catholic Church.

The Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Authority of the Pope and were approved by the Bishops under the authority of the Pope.

Based on the above responses, it appears that one would have to re-write history and the Bible in order to believe what Protestants believe.

As a side note and final comment let’s not forget that you threw us out.

You are correct that Martin Luther was excommunicated for teaching heresy and being unrepentant. Had he repented and come back to the full teaching of Christ Jesus and rather than his own made up version which he actually had to change passages of the Bible and remove entire books of the Bible to try to prove his new beliefs such as: adding the word “alone” to make it seem that the Bible teaches we are saved by Faith “Alone” and eliminating prayer for the dead, etc. Perhaps if he had repented of his errors, then the Church would have accepted him back into full communion and the Protestant world would be less 1 (or maybe even more) denomination(s) today?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Logically when an entity splits into two or more parts, the original entity is common to all parts that it splits into. Now it is true that there are some attributes that only one part can and will inherit in a split. The name is one such attribute.

Nevertheless, the original entity is logically common to all of the parts it has split into.

Not necessarily.

If a small group falls away from a larger group in order to follow a different path, this does not change the path of the larger group.

The Catholic Church does teach that all Christians subsist with the Church, but they are not in full communion.

We can find multiple beliefs of the early fathers that are consistent with Catholicism but inconsistent with Protestantism.

We find no beliefs in the earlly Church that are consistent with Protestantism but inconsistent with Catholicism.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

First of all, I am not a Protestant - I’m not protesting anything. I’m a member of the Holy Catholic Church, reformed. My church has was founded as God closed Eden and promised a savior to Adam and Eve.

The Bible,** a fallible collection of infallable documents**, was given to the church by the Holy Spirit. The one church. The Roman Catholic’s left that church at Trent when they denied the efficacy of the cross as a means of salvation.

So, to our teaching it’s the RCC that is a newbie - only five hundred years old. God’s Holy Catholic Church - containing all the elect, RCC individuals as well, is much, much older.

You believe that the Holy Catholic Church, Reformed was founded before the Jewish Religion of the Old Testament was even started. This is one of the most bizzare things I’ve heard in my life.

But then I read your next paragraph which states that you believe that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible documents - that’s something that would make anyone dizzy if they really thought about what that means…This has to be the most bizzare things I’ve ever read or heard - You believe that the Bible is made up of infallible documents yet those documents to be included or excluded is fallible. Look, either the Bible is completely infallible or it isn’t. You are trying to have it both ways which is contrary to any rational logic.

Your third paragraph is again full of contradiction to logic as you are saying that the Catholic Church is newer than the Catholic Church, Reformed. How can you Reform something that doesn’t exist? Please tell me, if the Catholic Church did not exist until centuries and centuries after your Catholic Church, Reformed which according to you began before the ancient Jewish religion was started specifically at the close of the Garden of Eden.

Your logic and historic knowledge is very confused.

The Truth of the Matter is that the Catholic Church existed since Pentecost.

The Truth of the Matter is that the Catholic Church, Reformed did not exist until the late 1900’s as even on one of the below websites, they acknowledge the Beatification of Pope John XXIII who was a faithful member of the Catholic Church and was elected Pope of Rome in 1958. He was Pope for nearly 5 years. This new church called the Catholic Church, Reformed did not come into existence until at least 1963 or later.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13091
reformedcatholicchurchinternational.org/
reformedcatholicchurch.org/icicc.htm

Again, we have yet another case showing that history must be re-written in order for there to be any logic in Non-Catholic Christians belief system.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I have noticed that you have avoided answering any of the questions I posed to Non-Catholic Christians such as yourself.

Am I to assume by your lack of response that there is NO LOGIC to the Protestant position in the matter of the Authority of the Catholic Church to provide the Christian Faithful with the New Testament?

No Logic in Protestants accepting the New Testament which is the very result of the Authority the Catholic Church was given by Jesus Christ Himself.

Umm…these are the two questions you asked in post #1.

Have Non-Catholic Christians simply not thought this through?

Or are Non-Catholic Christians comfortable living with such contradictions?

The answer to question 1 is yes.

The answer to question 2 (repeating myself) is I do not see the church that called itself Catholic at the time you are citing the exclusive domain of the church that calls itself Catholic today.

Were there any other questions in the original post that I in fact did not answer. I believe that I did answer the questions that you are saying that I did not.