Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mannyfit75
In the Beginning of Christian, Jesus Christ build His Church upon Peter and then his apostles.
THis is what Christ built HIS Church on
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
All Five Churches and other Churches were One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The East and West were one before the Schism of 1054.
Your right except for one thing, the catholic that you typed has a capital “C” when it should have a small “c”.
There were no Baptists, no Calvinists, no Lutheran, no Protestant period. The Christians belong to this One Catholic Church.
Wrong here again, Christians belong to Christ.
 
Catholics are the same way, they disagree all the time. Always breaking off and forming other little Catholic churches, I must have three within three miles of me. I have an Old Catholic church (which I visited once), I have the Liberal Catholic church, and I have the St. Pious? I think, Catholic church.
This has already been this discussed and refuted. The dissenting Catholics have no authority to teach Magisterial Authority. They were not pleased with certain Councils like Second Vatican Council.

They like Martin Luther left the Church out of their own selfish desire. The difference is in Protestantism, the Elders decide on the issue and vote on it. The Southern Baptist in their convention brought to the table the role of women in the Church. There were those who did not agree and they split. This is from their leadership in their Church.

The Catholic hiarchy that is, the bishop in union with Pope teaches one doctrine, one faith. There is no Church document to say Catholic laity has authority, nor does it say that a single bishop like SPPX has authority for splitting the Church.

The Church have always resolve or discuss issue through Church Councils. Starting with the Council of Jerusalem down to Second Vatican Council II.

It is odd though, the Liberal Catholics keep writing to the Holy See to change their doctrine, but the Mother Church does not compromised on these issues.
 
Wrong here again, Christians belong to Christ.
Your right but back then in 30 AD or earlier, there was only One Church and it was the Catholic Church. There were no Baptists, Non-Denomination, Born-Again, etc.
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
You know you could look this stuff up yourself instead of making me do all the work!

I am the sole arbitrator of what I believe, everyone is! What a strange question! I do not know who believed Sola Scriptura and could care less. I do not follow men. I follow the Bible.
So you follow the Bible? The whole Bible? WOW! I myself follow Jesus and the Church he left. you know the one he gave Peter the keys to. I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about him leaving a Bible for us…and that it was up to us to figure this all out…Since the Bible is a Catholic book…I believe all that is written in it…
 
“Back” to what? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Protestant churches, who all disagree with each other on just about everything. That house is scattered in pieces, and gives no shelter - there is no “back” to go back to. 🤷
Which one of them is the One Church of Christ dating back to the time of Christ?

None. There was only One Church and that Church established by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.

I think the biggest you would regret that if you leave the CC for those Protestant sects, you would not be able to received the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Protestants don’t even have that. Most of them have communion monthly and their belief is symbolicism…
 
Well you might have a church named that but it does not in anyway resemble what they originally taught.
By the way, I can tell you do not know how old your oldest copy of Ignatius and the first person to quote from him was.
The essential teachings of the Catholic Church is the same. Real Presence, Trinity, Sacrifice of the Mass, and so forth. Second, it is not just St. Ignatius. There are other Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Terutillan, Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, and much more.

All of them taught the Church has bishops, deacon, and priests. They also believe in the sacrifice of the Mass. They gather in the first day of the week, breaking bread, and sharing the memoirs of the Apostles… etc.
 
So you follow the Bible? The whole Bible? WOW! I myself follow Jesus and the Church he left. you know the one he gave Peter the keys to. I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about him leaving a Bible for us…and that it was up to us to figure this all out…Since the Bible is a Catholic book…I believe all that is written in it…
Sarcasm noted. The Bible is not a Catholic book, no way. Some of the things you got right but a lot you got wrong.
 
The essential teachings of the Catholic Church is the same. Real Presence, Trinity, Sacrifice of the Mass, and so forth. Second, it is not just St. Ignatius. There are other Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Terutillan, Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, and much more.

All of them taught the Church has bishops, deacon, and priests. They also believe in the sacrifice of the Mass. They gather in the first day of the week, breaking bread, and sharing the memoirs of the Apostles… etc.
Bishops, deacons, and elders or presbyters are in the Bible. ou will not find one thing in Clement that I disagree with and supports extra biblical Catholic doctrine.
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
You know you could look this stuff up yourself instead of making me do all the work!

I am the sole arbitrator of what I believe, everyone is! What a strange question! I do not know who believed Sola Scriptura and could care less. I do not follow men. I follow the Bible.
The definition of Denomination is not fully accepted by either Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, the only two valid Apostolic Churches.

Denominationalism is an ideology which views some or all Christian groups as being, in some sense, versions of the same thing regardless of their distinguishing labels. Not all churches teach this. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not use this term as its implication of interchangeability does not agree with their theological teachings. There are some groups which practically all others would view as apostate or heretical, and not legitimate versions of Christian.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

Same link

The Catholic Church is the religion founded on One Man, God made flesh. Jesus who is both truth God and True Man. We follow God. We literally follow the Word of God.

108 of the Catechism sums this up very clearly:

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

Catholicism fits this to the core. We believe the Word of God is found in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Authority. The Church, the Bride of Christ is preserved by the Holy Spirit from teaching erroneous doctrines.
 
You are misinformed my friend.😉
Nope. I’m not. Protestantism didn’t came about until 1500. The Non-Denomination Christian group which came from the Protestant tradition started out in the 1990s.

Protestant Denominations spread and multiplied especially in the United States as Denominational confessional statements began to be used more to exclude than to include Christians with different doctrinal convictions[citation needed]. Each denomination maintains to differing degrees some form of organizational and visible unity with its member churches, albeit radically decentralized compared with the Roman Catholic Church. Today, non-denominational churches, like the Independents at the Westminster Assembly, refuse to recognize any ecclesiastical authority above the local congregation and deny the visible unity of the Church (though not the unity of the invisible Church) despite the fact that the original denominations were formed by substantially the same ideology.
 
Bishops, deacons, and elders or presbyters are in the Bible. ou will not find one thing in Clement that I disagree with and supports extra biblical Catholic doctrine.
Clement of Rome was the 3rd successor of St. Peter. He was also Pope.
 
:confused:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
You know you could look this stuff up yourself instead of making me do all the work!

I am the sole arbitrator of what I believe, everyone is! What a strange question! I do not know who believed Sola Scriptura and could care less. I do not follow men. I follow the Bible.
You refusal , again ,to answer the question is noted. I ask again -if you and your pastor diagree on what a Verse means how do we know who is right? Both of you cant be right and the Spirit can not present contradictory version of the truth. I will be awaiting you next non-answer.
 
Sarcasm noted. The Bible is not a Catholic book, no way. Some of the things you got right but a lot you got wrong.
It is a Catholic Book. It was the Catholic Church in Synod of Hippo in 393 AD that had a listed 46 OT and 27 NT. The same list came about in the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.
 
The Biblical canon is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and thus constituting the Christian Bible. Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the “memoirs of the apostles,” which Christians called “gospels” and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[3] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[4] By the early 200’s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).5] Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them.[6] Thus,** while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.**7]

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[8] and** he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them**.[9] The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[10] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382,** if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above**,[11] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[12] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[13] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”[14] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[15] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.

Conclusion: With all these Church Council decided which Books in the Bible are inspired and canonical, it was the Catholic Church who form the Bible both OT and NT. This was way before the 1054 AD Schism between the East-West, and before the Protestant Reformation in 1500s. There was One Church then and it was Catholic. The Catholic Church gave you the Bible.
 
Bishops, deacons, and elders or presbyters are in the Bible.
So why not belong to a Church that has men in these positions, who were ordained according to the authority of their predecessors, going back to the time of the Apostles? 🤷

(A man who claims authority on his own authority does not actually have any authority - authority can only be received from authority.)
 
So why not belong to a Church that has men in these positions, who were ordained according to the authority of their predecessors, going back to the time of the Apostles? 🤷

(A man who claims authority on his own authority does not actually have any authority - authority can only be received from authority.)
Well said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top