Protestants - When did the Catholic Church Begin?

[abcd]

Calvin is from the 16th Century. St. Augustine is from the 4th Century. Calvin did not exist then. John Calvin distort Augustine theology and made it his own.

The Protestants weren’t any different. They persecuted Catholics in their country.

Im very well aware of the history of Calvin And Augie when they lived. My point is Calvin was an admire of Augie and

“It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation.” So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other theologian that provoked Warfield’s remark. Rather, it was that the Reformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over the legacy of the Pelagian view of man.

Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fathers of Reformation teaching on salvation and grace.

It is a fact that Augustine taught predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. The Catholic church deny all of these doctrines.

We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God’s grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.

 

[John_Calvin]

Amen

Ignatius was not referencing the Roman Catholic Church which did not appear until much later. It would be difficult to specify precisely when this took place since the evolution from the catholic church to the Roman Catholic Church was a gradual process. If one takes the assertion of Rome’s authority over the rest of Christendom, one would then have a standard by which to measure its occurrence. I have on numerous occasions seen the assertion by Roman apologists that Augustine said, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” I fail, however, to find that in any of Augustine’s writings so I consider that spurious. If indeed the primacy of Rome over other churches had been accepted at the time of Augustine, it would be incomprehensible that there should be mutual excommunications in 1054 between Rome and the Orthodox.

 

[Joero]

I’ve lost track of where I read this, but somewhere on Catholic Answers, someone wrote that the Anglican church has bishops going back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. The truth of the matter is that Anglicanism and the Church of England were unknown before the Reformation. The Christian church in England for over a thousand years up to the Reformation was the Catholic church-Roman.
The first bishops of Henry VIII’s new church rejected the Papacy and therefore rejected the Catholic church. The rejection of the Papacy was soon followed by the rejection of a number of other Catholic doctrines. A different religious body ie the Church of England was born.
Faithful Catholic men and women were greatly persecuted for adhering to the ancient faith brought to England by St.Augustine.
The Reformation in England was state-led, hence the fact that the Church of England has all the ancient churches and bishoprics.These things don’t make the Church of England the historic church. It is the Catholic church that is the true and ancient Christian church in England.

Yeah! That happened when Henry VIII asked for the consent of the Pope to divorce his Spanish wife and wanted to marry an English girl, Anne Boylene. He was not granted by the Pope, so he declare himself through the parliament of England the sole ruler of the christian churches of England and those bishops and priests who were loyal to the papacy were forced to move away from England or face the consequences.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Ignatius of Antioch, born in 50 AD, a second generation Apostle taught by St. John, and the first Martyr to be fed to the lions in the Collesium, said “Whereever Jesus Christ is, there is The Catholic Church”. That’s a long time before 600.

Agreed. But when he siad that he didn’t mean there is the Church which has been institutionalized under the power of one man who sits on the seat of Peter in Rome as the Vicar of Christ. and all Christians who are outside of his influence are seperated brethern and not a part of the one true Church. Yet that seems to be what many here think the phrase “the Catholic Church” means today.

The meaning of “the catholic church” (he didn’t use capitalization even if he wrote in unicals) expressed by Ignatius and the meaning of “the Catholic Church” as predominately used thus far in this thread are simply not the same.

 

[NotWorthy]

I already apologized for my response to his ambiguity upthread 3 or 4 posts. This isn’t even your argument–he did not use a colon, but a period. Not even semicolon.

I cannot speak to your Jack Chick characterization, whatever he is about. If he is anti-Catholic, then you may owe me an apology, if you’re sincerely into apologies.

You can only speak to my Jack Chick characterization if you deliberately mis-quoted Manny. Since you didn’t do it deliberately, then I don’t feel I owe you an apology.

But, Hey, I"m sorry if I offended you, still!

Since you’ve apologized to Manny, then Life is Good, eh?

 

[NotWorthy]

Note the punctuation Manny used after the word “lie” – it is a period. Thus, though if one has read much of what Manny has written before you know he didn’t mean what he said, all that Ahem did was quote the next sentence (i.e. a complete independent thought) exactly as Manny posted it. Ahem only has 46 total posts, he may not be familiar with Manny’s point of view and is just taking him at his written word.

See post #264. But thanks for the heads up.

What is plainly clear to me, is plainly an ambiguity to others. I didn’t notice the ambiguity until it was brought up.

So, once again, Mea Culpa, ahem!!!

And to any others who got tired of following our little tete-de-tete.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

That’s OK. I wasn’t overly concerned one way or the other. I hate to tell you how many times I’ve written a post only to read it 21 minutes later and realize that I left out a simple three letter word – “not”.

Sort of changes the whole meaning of what I was trying to say, but it’t too late to correct it.

 

[John_Calvin]

That’s OK. I wasn’t overly concerned one way or the other. I hate to tell you how many times I’ve written a post only to read it 20 minutes later and realize that I left out a simple three letter word – “not”.

Sort of changes the whole meaning of what I was trying to say, but it’t too late to correct it.

If you act quickly (within 20 minutes), you can edit your post.

 

[Steadfast]

abcd,

Missouri Synod

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ignatius was not referencing the Roman Catholic Church which did not appear until much later. It would be difficult to specify precisely when this took place since the evolution from the catholic church to the Roman Catholic Church was a gradual process. If one takes the assertion of Rome’s authority over the rest of Christendom, one would then have a standard by which to measure its occurrence.

That is a false statement. The Roman Catholic Church existed since the time of the Apostles. However, its members were called Christians first in Antioch. In 110 AD, in Antioch, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Christian Church, “the Catholic Church.”

History shows that the Early Church consist of five metropolitan sees. Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. These Churches make-up what the four marks of the Church of Jesus Christ. They are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. They are One. The primacy of See of Peter has always been there.

Who do you think St. Paul wrote his letter’s the Romans in his Epistles? It is apparent there is a Church Christian community there.

If you claim the Roman Catholic Church existed later, then tell that to St. Paul. Because apparently, he did wrote a letter to the Romans. In fact, Clement of Rome, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter in 90 AD wrote letters to the Corinthians concerning to their disobedience.

I have on numerous occasions seen the assertion by Roman apologists that Augustine said, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” I fail, however, to find that in any of Augustine’s writings so I consider that spurious.

The source for that quote is found in “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” in St. Augustine’s Sermon 131:10.

Historians disagree with you. Augustine’s writings are not spurious as you think.

Catholic Answers has an answer to the origin of this as well:

The statement, sometimes rendered as “Rome has spoken; the cause is finished” or in Latin " Roma locuta; causa finita est," derives from a statement Augustine made early in the fifth century.

In a sermon to his flock, Augus-tine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said “The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished (Sermon 131:10).” This has developed over the centuries into the commonly known formula.

Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church are authoritative only if approved by the bishop of Rome.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601qq.asp

If indeed the primacy of Rome over other churches had been accepted at the time of Augustine, it would be incomprehensible that there should be mutual excommunications in 1054 between Rome and the Orthodox.

The execommunication in 1054 AD was between individuals. It was between the Roman Legate and Patriarch of Constantinople. When the bull was issued, the current Pope was already dead. Making the papal bull of execommunication null and void.

It was not until 1472 and nullified the Ferrara-Florence Act of Union that was enacted in 1439. The date of the actually schism is actually 1472 not 1054 since the papal of execommunicate was invalid in the first place.

The cause of the Schism was theologian and political groups. There isn’t much different theology between the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

In fact in 1437, the Copts, Ethiopians, Maronites, Melchites, Syrians, and Syro-Malankars, all Eastern Orthodox reunited with Rome and became the Eastern Catholic or uniates Churches.

Dialogue between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic Church bishops and theologians are working on bringing both the two Churches together. The Pope and Patriarchs have been preaching it and they admit it will take time, patience, and prayer for both sides. They are very optimistic that the EO and CC will be One Church just it was in the beginning.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I do by the way accept ahem’s apology.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

That is a false statement. The Roman Catholic Church existed since the time of the Apostles. However, its members were called Christians first in Antioch. In 110 AD, in Antioch, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Christian Church, “the Catholic Church.”

With respect Manny, Ignatius wasn’t using the term in the way you have written it, as a title. Rather, he was simply describing the Church as being universal, that is all inclusive. Ignatius was saying that if you met a Christian in Alexandria, another in Rome, a third in Ephesus, a fourth in some isolated town no one had ever heard of that they all belonged to the same large body of Christ. In other words the church was not just those assembled in any one place or time. Nor was it just those who were under one particular teaching. It was actually the invisible body that the present Catholic Church rejects. To infer that Ignatius was speaking of the Catholic Church that exists today is to make his words say something completely different than what he meant by them. Claim that the Catholic Church goes all the way back to the moment Jesus commissioned Peter if you want to, but you can’t use Ignatius as a proof text of that, because that is just not even close to what Ignatius meant by them.

Oh, and I didn’t think you liked the phrase “Roman Catholic Church”, yet here you are using it yourself???

 

[Mannyfit75]

With respect Manny, Ignatius wasn’t using the term in the way you have written it, as a title. Rather, he was simply describing the Church as being universal, that is all inclusive. Ignatius was saying that if you met a Christian in Alexandria, another in Rome, a third in Ephesus, a fourth in some isolated town no one had ever heard of that they all belonged to the same large body of Christ.

He did describe the universality of the Christian Church because it extend far beyond Jerusalem, the birth place of our Church. I have no disagreement in that. By the time of St. Ignatius time, the whole Church was commonly referred to as the Catholic Church. That includes the Church in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Constantinople, & Jerusalem.

In other words the church was not just those assembled in any one place or time. Nor was it just those who were under one particular teaching. It was actually the invisible body that the present Catholic Church rejects.

That is a false statement as well by making the claim that the present Catholic Church rejects.

CCC 797 "What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church."243 "To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members."244 The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:245

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the “Gift of God” has been entrusted. . . . In it is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God. . . . For where the Church is, there also is God’s Spirit; where God’s Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.246

The Catholic Church does acknowledge that it is invisible (unseem) and visible sign of reality. I suggest you read this article made by Catholic Answers called Is the [Church Visible or Invisible?](Is the Church Visible or Invisible?) by John J. Moran

To infer that Ignatius was speaking of the Catholic Church that exists today is to make his words say something completely different than what he meant by them. Claim that the Catholic Church goes all the way back to the moment Jesus commissioned Peter if you want to, but you can’t use Ignatius as a proof text of that, because that is just not even close to what Ignatius meant by them.

The Catholic Church, which I belong too is the same Church as the one stated by St. Ignatius. For one, we Catholics have bishops. We do not do anything without the bishop. We do not deny the Eucharist is the flesh of the Son of Man like those who do. St. Ignatius wrote his letter to the Philadelphians in Chapter 4.

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm

Oh, and I didn’t think you liked the phrase “Roman Catholic Church”, yet here you are using it yourself???

Yes I did. I wrote it because the Church in Rome did exist just it exist in Antioch, in Jerusalem, in Ephesus, in Alexandria, and Constinople. The Catholic Church existed and its birth was at the side of Christ at the cross, where blood and water came out.

 

[inkaneer]

I’ve lost track of where I read this, but somewhere on Catholic Answers, someone wrote that the Anglican church has bishops going back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. The truth of the matter is that Anglicanism and the Church of England were unknown before the Reformation. The Christian church in England for over a thousand years up to the Reformation was the Catholic church-Roman.
The first bishops of Henry VIII’s new church rejected the Papacy and therefore rejected the Catholic church. The rejection of the Papacy was soon followed by the rejection of a number of other Catholic doctrines. A different religious body ie the Church of England was born.
Faithful Catholic men and women were greatly persecuted for adhering to the ancient faith brought to England by St.Augustine.
The Reformation in England was state-led, hence the fact that the Church of England has all the ancient churches and bishoprics.These things don’t make the Church of England the historic church. It is the Catholic church that is the true and ancient Christian church in England.

Originally the COE had bishops that were Catholic but swore allegiance to the King rather than obey their vows of obedience to the pope. These were then declared to be in ex communicato. However, these bishops were validly ordined and therefore had valid Apostolic Succession. The priests they ordained had valid orders. However somewhere during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I the Church of England changed its ordination rite so as to make it null and void. Not sure exactly when or how this was done but one of the things removed regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice. This new ritual remained in effect for well over 100 years. It was subsequently altered a second time and those elements that were removed were more or less put back in. But the damage had been done as all the clergy with valid Holy Orders had died before the second change. Thus there was no one who had valid Apostolic Succession to ordain new priests. The Vatican did a study on this issue back in the 1700’s I believe and came to this conclusion. I am aware that some COE ministers claim to have valid Apostolic Succession via being ordained in the Orthodox Church. However, evidence of this, if indeed there is any, seems extremely hard to find. By the way the Catholic Church was never eradicated in Engand. It went through a lot of repression and persecution and a lot of saints were martyred but it survived to this day and I have seen reports that there are more English Catholics attending church in England than Anglicans.

 

[ahem]

I am comforted and encouraged to know personally Catholics who not not insecure and hence feel no need to be combative, always defensive about their claims.

I am honored to call them close friends.

 

[reald]

The New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one.

….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)” (Rom. 1:8)

Before his martyrdom in 107 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to the Church in Smyrna where he encouraged the Christians to stay close to their bishops just as **“where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Ad Smyr., 8:2). ****Note that “catholic” here, is an adjective which means “spread out all over the world”. The word “Catholic” is a combination of the Greek words KATA and a form of HOLOS which St. Paul employs in Romans 1:8 to describe the faith of the Church in Rome. **

St. Ignatius of Antioch used the phrase katholike ekklesia, Catholic Church, the unity of all churches, in letters he wrote during his journey as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome around 107 AD.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

The Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 AD, which we recite each Sunday morning during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, says, “We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.”

The Latin motto is, **Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia. As Peter, so the Church. **

 

[John_Calvin]

That is a false statement. The Roman Catholic Church existed since the time of the Apostles. However, its members were called Christians first in Antioch. In 110 AD, in Antioch, St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Christian Church, “the Catholic Church.”

History shows that the Early Church consist of five metropolitan sees. Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. These Churches make-up what the four marks of the Church of Jesus Christ. They are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. They are One. The primacy of See of Peter has always been there.

Who do you think St. Paul wrote his letter’s the Romans in his Epistles? It is apparent there is a Church Christian community there.

If you claim the Roman Catholic Church existed later, then tell that to St. Paul. Because apparently, he did wrote a letter to the Romans. In fact, Clement of Rome, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter in 90 AD wrote letters to the Corinthians concerning to their disobedience.

The source for that quote is found in “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” in St. Augustine’s Sermon 131:10.

Historians disagree with you. Augustine’s writings are not spurious as you think.

Catholic Answers has an answer to the origin of this as well:

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601qq.asp

The execommunication in 1054 AD was between individuals. It was between the Roman Legate and Patriarch of Constantinople. When the bull was issued, the current Pope was already dead. Making the papal bull of execommunication null and void.

It was not until 1472 and nullified the Ferrara-Florence Act of Union that was enacted in 1439. The date of the actually schism is actually 1472 not 1054 since the papal of execommunicate was invalid in the first place.

The cause of the Schism was theologian and political groups. There isn’t much different theology between the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

In fact in 1437, the Copts, Ethiopians, Maronites, Melchites, Syrians, and Syro-Malankars, all Eastern Orthodox reunited with Rome and became the Eastern Catholic or uniates Churches.

Dialogue between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic Church bishops and theologians are working on bringing both the two Churches together. The Pope and Patriarchs have been preaching it and they admit it will take time, patience, and prayer for both sides. They are very optimistic that the EO and CC will be One Church just it was in the beginning.

No, it is your statement which is false. To begin with the easy part, Augustine’s Sermon 131.10 is found at

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.pdf

If you enter “890” in the page number, it will take you to this section. Let me know when you find this statement. I promise you that I won’t hold my breath until you do – I’m not that stupid.

So Paul wrote a letter to the Romans. Is that supposed to prove something? He also wrote to the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, and the Galatians. Tradition also assigns Ephesians and Colossians to him, but that is dubious. Ignatius wrote to a number of churches including Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans and, yes, the Romans. Does that make Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, the head of the entire church? The obvious answer is “NO.”

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf

Click on “Ignatius” in the “Bookmarks” panel.

The problem with Catholics is that they choose to understand everything as they would like it to be rather than as it is. You have no corner on the church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is every bit as legitimate as the Bishop of Rome. In fact, he is perhaps more legitimate since he pretends to no authority over other members of the Anglican Communion.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, it is your statement which is false. To begin with the easy part, Augustine’s Sermon 131.10 is found at

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.pdf

If you enter “890” in the page number, it will take you to this section. Let me know when you find this statement. I promise you that I won’t hold my breath until you do – I’m not that stupid.

I will have to look into this to validate your claim.

So Paul wrote a letter to the Romans. Is that supposed to prove something? He also wrote to the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, and the Galatians. Tradition also assigns Ephesians and Colossians to him, but that is dubious. Ignatius wrote to a number of churches including Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans and, yes, the Romans. Does that make Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, the head of the entire church? The obvious answer is “NO.”

Ignatius did wrote 7 letters and these letters are not even spurious as some may claim it to be. Ignatius of Antioch is not the head of the entire Church. There was in his time another bishop of Rome. St. Alexander I who reign as the Bishop of Rome in 105-115 AD. St. Alexander I is the successor of St. Peter.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf

Click on “Ignatius” in the “Bookmarks” panel.

The problem with Catholics is that they choose to understand everything as they would like it to be rather than as it is. You have no corner on the church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is every bit as legitimate as the Bishop of Rome. In fact, he is perhaps more legitimate since he pretends to no authority over other members of the Anglican Communion.

(Edited).

By the way, your link you provided requires a login and account to get in. An account that I don’t have.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

That is a false statement as well by making the claim that the present Catholic Church rejects.

First making a claim that the present Catholic Church rejeccts does NOT make something a false statement – unless you think the Catholic Church of today is more perfect than the Catholic Church of yesterday. The Catholic Church has made false statements in the past. It even acknolwedges some of those false statements and other errors. It doesn’t believe it has ever taught any false doctrine. And I’m not here to argue the whole of Catholic doctrine. But your simple assertion that my statement is false simply because it is something that the present Catholic Church rejects simply isn’t consistent with the history of the Catholic Church itself.

He did describe the universality of the Christian Church because it extend far beyond Jerusalem, the birth place of our Church. I have no disagreement in that. By the time of St. Ignatius time, the whole Church was commonly referred to as the Catholic Church. That includes the Church in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Constantinople, & Jerusalem.

If Ignatius is the person who coined the term “catholic church” or is certainly the first person to be recorded as having applied the adjective “catholic” to the already existing term “Church”, it seems highly unlikely that, as you say, " By the time of St. Ignatius time, the whole Church was commonly referred to as the Catholic Church."

The Catholic Church, which I belong too is the same Church as the one stated by St. Ignatius.

That is an opinion you and other Catholics hold to, but it is not one shared by all persons. Including those who are legitimate historians of the Christian faith.

For one, we Catholics have bishops. We do not do anything without the bishop. We do not deny the Eucharist is the flesh of the Son of Man like those who do. St. Ignatius wrote his letter to the Philadelphians in Chapter 4.

Isn’t that rather irrelevant? A bishop is just a fancy word for overseer. The church of course needs overseers to administer the body politic which is also part of the church. But the Catholic Church recognizes that the Church of Christ can be the Church without the presence of bishops. You probably wonder why I can say this, but it is clear in the teaching of the very documents you referenced: “They [the bishops] are the successors of the Apostles.” So, is that there was a time that there was the Church but there were no bishops. So, to say that the Catholic Church has bishops is irrelevant. Other churches too have successors to the Apostles. I would submit to you that some of them have bishops, others priests, pastors, deacons, prsybeters, elders – the titles don’t matter, what matters is that Christ has installed them too to serve as overseers of his Church. It is one Church because there is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:5).

What is that one faith? Irenaeus declares it thusly:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensationsof God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 10), “Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.”
​

According to Irenaeus, “the universal Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world”; be the members of it found in a Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, or Assemblies of God congregation, they are all part of the same Church that not only Irenaeus spoke of. And this is the proper meaning of the term “catholic” if we are to understand it as the not just Irenaeus but other early church fathers like Ignatius in the passages you have cited. To deny this is to deny your own tradition. To affirm it means that Irenaeus has declared those of us who share the faith he mentioned not separated brethern, but part of the very same universal Church that you declare yourself to be.

 

[gigageek]

According to Irenaeus, “the universal Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world”; be the members of it found in a Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, or Assemblies of God congregation, they are all part of the same Church that not only Irenaeus spoke of…

So does your comment mean then that as long as we all share in the original beliefs of the universal Church, that Jesus started, we are part of the same Church?

If I understand your assertion correctly then how could you go on to claim the list of non-Catholic Church’s above? As not all Baptists believe in many early Church teachings as being “real” or “necessary”, but rather symbolic and without “real” value.

So by your very statement only those denominations that adhere to the early Church Traditions and teachings are part of this universal Church.

If that is your claim then I could go along with that, but then that would mean that these non-Catholic denominations are only non-Catholic in name.