Protestants - When did the Catholic Church Begin?

[inkaneer]

On the matter of Ignatius and the name Catholic Church. I don’t think the claim is that Ignatius named the church as the Catholic Church. But rather he was the first that we know of to use the term “Catholic Church” in describing the early Church. And it is from that point on that the name was thereafter used. So did Ignatius actually intend to “name” the Church as the Catholic Church? No. Was the Church thereafter referred to as “The Catholic Church” as a result of Ignatius? Yes.

 

[ChristianRoots]

You may take all the offense that you wish, but you are a Romanist just as I am an Anglican since the head of your church is the Bishop of Rome.

You may create an account without charge. I think you can even gain access to the files without an account.

We find the term “Catholic Church” first written down by St. Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans around A.D. 107 to describe Jesus’ Church. (The term was already common at that time.) People who belonged to the Catholic Church were called “Catholics.”

So, how is a Catholic today really a “Romanist?” When was the term “Romanist” first used and why? Please provide documentation and not your opinion.

 

[Memaw]

If someone were visiting a town, and inquired of a local person, “Can you give me directions to the nearest catholic church”, which Church do you think they’d point out?

But if you asked for a protestant church, they would say,“Which one”.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You may take all the offense that you wish, but you are a Romanist just as I am an Anglican since the head of your church is the Bishop of Rome.

You may create an account without charge. I think you can even gain access to the files without an account.

This could make for a new comedic addition to the fiction of the Canterbury Tales.

The convention of naming by places & areal associations leads to an ambiguity as to how we should aggregate and disaggerate and temporalize. Why not call Catholics Vaticanists or Italianists or Continentalist or Earthists or Milkywayists or Universalists or as we prefer Catholics?

Should we call you a Britanian, or Germanian, or Nerthusian, or Angelfolcian, a Canterburian, or go back to 43 AD and recollect that it was fully conquered by Emperor Claudius and call you Romanish?

Charitable human convention is for a person to introduce himself by the name he calls himself.

I think I am going to start calling the legion of trolls on the Internet “Internetarians”.

James

 

[Memaw]

You won’t get anywhere with that kind of language. The Catholic Church, we all agree, is the one True Church. We differ on how to define it.

If you want to talk a language that traditional, theologically educated Protestants can understand, you should ask us: at what point were there first members of the Catholic Church who were not in communion with Rome?

For myself, I’m no longer sure that there has ever been a time when the Catholic Church as defined in the Creeds has enjoyed full visible unity.

Or you could ask: at what point did the Church in communion with Rome first embrace doctrinal or liturgical or moral error? I think most Protestants would agree with me in answering that there was never a time when the Church was totally free from error. The Scriptures are free from error, but the Church of the Apostles’ time was not.

Edwin

The Catholic Church is free from Error as promised by Jesus Christ but not every person in the church is free of error. Even one of the Apostles was a traitor, but that didn’t stop Jesus, nor will it stop HIS Catholic Church. It is 2,000 years old and will be here till the end of time. Get used to it folks, its here to stay because Jesus said so.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Last I heard it was up to 60,000 and climbing. Anyone can start a protestant denomination today. Just grab a Bible and act like you know what your talking about.

I think economists and government are counting on the Protestants to rescue the economy by them creating more tax free jobs through proliferation of small not-for-profit “religious” corporations formed by every KJV carrying mom-n-pop in every town, village and rural community in the country. The Mormons have been setting up farms and buying up huge tracts of tax free land all around the country for decades and now the protestants are starting to catch on to it too.

What a country! A sure sign of an eminent social or economic melt down is when “everyone” starts doing something…

James

 

[abcd]

The Catholic Church is free from Error as promised by Jesus Christ but not every person in the church is free of error. Even one of the Apostles was a traitor, but that didn’t stop Jesus, nor will it stop HIS Catholic Church. It is 2,000 years old and will be here till the end of time. Get used to it folks, its here to stay because Jesus said so.

MEMAW:
this kind of argument is useless because a catholic does not know the definiton of “Church”

 

[abcd]

I think economists and government are counting on the Protestants to rescue the economy by them creating more tax free jobs through proliferation of small not-for-profit “religious” corporations formed by every KJV carrying mom-n-pop in every town, village and rural community in the country. The Mormons have been setting up farms and buying up huge tracts of tax free land all around the country for decades and now the protestants are starting to catch on to it too.

What a country! A sure sign of an eminent social or economic melt down is when “everyone” starts doing something…

James

James,

If I don’t become catholic, how many more years is added to my time in purgatory?

 

[Memaw]

Some would say that everyone was part of the Jerusalem church before that (not I, however). Some have posited eschatalogical consummation to make a full-circle Jerusalem case. I don’t think there has ever been a time that geography fully defined the church, or ever shall be.

The beauty of the church is it’s international scope and transethnic efficaciousness. I won’t waste my breath defending Eastern, Western, Reformation, Coptic, or any other expression of the church. All of their histories are quite spotty.

There was a time I couldn’t say this (when young and combative), but it is wonderfully liberating to not be against any expression of the God’s kingdom. I enthusiastically refer to those who identified with historic Catholicism–among my heroes are Aquinas, Pedro Claver, et al. But I also appreciate everyone from Chrysostom, to MLK, to Desmond Tutu, all from very different traditions, and in my view, pillars of the one true church, ambassadors of the kingdom of God.

“Some” can say whatever they want, but the TRUTH is the TRUTH and Jesus said, "I AM the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE. and HE founded the Catholic Church and prayed that ALL be one in HIM. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

MEMAW:
this kind of argument is useless because a catholic does not know the definiton of “Church”

This kind of statement only shows your ignorance.

 

[abcd]

This kind of statement only shows your ignorance.

Sorry that you do not know the answer to my statement.

I guess that add another thousand years to my time in purgatory.

 

[Memaw]

The problem being that what is meant by the term “the Catholic Church” has itself changed over the course of 2000 years of history. Today what is meant is what is known to some as the Roman Catholic Church, a institutional organization with its seat at Rome. But when Ignatius spoke of the Catholic Church he meant something different than that which is meant today:

It was saying that no matter where one was in the world, it didn’t matter what country, what ethnicity, what bishop was presiding, that there was just one church that was universal and all Christians are one in it, no matter what other difference there might exist between them. Iraneus would put it like this: This is what it means to be “catholic”, this is the “catholic Church” (small “c” on catholic, large “C” on Church) spoken of in the apostles creed. And this catholic or universal church still exists, not as headed by the Pope in Rome, but as headed by Christ in the hearts and minds of those who belong to him every local congregation and no congregation scattered around the globe.

So, how does anyone answer when the Catholic Church came into existence? I don’t think you can point to a precise time. The Catholic Church as the term is used today was NOT present when Jesus established the Church on Peter. I don’t think it was yet present with the passing of the apostolic age. I don’t think it was even present at the time of the writings of Ignatius and Iranesous, though you can see some of the things that would become foundation stones used by the Catholic Church in their writings. Yet, by the time of Leo IX and the Great Schism it was clearly institutionalized. I think one could make an argument for the transition occurring sometime around the time of Leo I, but there isn’t going to be any hard and fast date.

The Catholic Church evolved over time. It is like asking when did the wolf become a dog. There was a time when there was a canine that was not a dog that eventually became a dog. And there was a time when there was a catholic Church that was not the Catholic Church. And sometimes between then and now both evolved. But to put a date on it, and say that the first dog was born on this date or that the Catholic Church began on that date, it is an impossible question that one could not have answered even if you had been there. But just as it is clear that a dog is descended from a wolf but is not a wolf, so to it is clear that the Catholic Church is descended from the catholic Church but is not the same as the catholic Church spoken of by Ignatious.

You need a good course in Church History, see what happens when you come up with your own conclusions and don’t even know what you are talking about.

 

[guanophore]

Everybody makes that claim. It may never be resolved, because there are so many “true” churches.

In fact, the very proposition that one did not separate from the other is impossible. And the Roman and Eastern churches were not the only permutations even pre-Reformation.

That is why I proclaim the kingdom of God. That’s the foundation of the church, and that which has always existed.

Yes, there have been many separations. However, they will all be healed, because Jesus wants unity.

“…members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Eph 2:19-22

The rub comes when we start bickering about who is truly the recipient of the Apostolic Succession, since the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church.

 

[Memaw]

Sorry that you do not know the answer to my statement.

I guess that add another thousand years to my time in purgatory.

What is your problem, are you here just to start an argument. It is clear you do not like the Catholic Church and are just wanting to bash it, but I won’t waste my time with you. What are you afraid of, the TRUTH. Go start your own Forum but don’t be surprised if your the only one on it.

 

[Joero]

If someone were visiting a town, and inquired of a local person, “Can you give me directions to the nearest catholic church”, which Church do you think they’d point out?

Maybe, on their part, of couse they would direct the person to their particular church, since they believe they are catholic. But when the person realizes afterward, that’s another story!

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church is free from Error as promised by Jesus Christ but not every person in the church is free of error.

How are you defining “the Catholic Church”?

Edwin

 

[JustaServant]

What is your problem, are you here just to start an argument. It is clear you do not like the Catholic Church and are just wanting to bash it, but I won’t waste my time with you. What are you afraid of, the TRUTH. Go start your own Forum but don’t be surprised if your the only one on it.

Could have left some meat for the others in the pack!

 

[Contarini]

If someone were visiting a town, and inquired of a local person, “Can you give me directions to the nearest catholic church”, which Church do you think they’d point out?

That’s a bad argument when Augustine used it, and it’s a bad argument today.

There are Catholics out there who think they are not Christians, because they hear Protestants use the word “Christian” to exclude Catholics. Are they right?

If you go into many towns in the U.S. and ask for a Christian church, they will point you to a church of the “Restorationist” movement (Christian Churches and Churches of Christ). Does this have any theological significance?

You can’t argue from nomenclature. Just because Augustine did it doesn’t make it right. Even Homer nods.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

First Post on this site.

Think about this in a completely historical sight. There was no reason to define Christianity as Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant until the Schism and the Reformation. Until then everyone who was a Christian was a member of the Roman Church. The term Catholic had to be adopted to define the True Church from those who fallen away.

Welcome to CAF jre. Indeed there were reasons, and we can see them already present in the New Testament, that the Church had to be defined in a visible manner. There were dozens of heresies just in the first three centuries. That is how the true Church could be recognized as one (in unity with the bishops), holy, catholic, and apostolic.

There was no separate Roman Rite for almost 600 years, when political changes separated the East and West from each other. For that reason, everyone was “catholic”, just as they are today. The Latin Rite is only one of 23 Catholic Rites, it just happens to be the largest in the Western world.

 

[Contarini]

abcd;3339170:

Isn’t it typical of general prejudice against the Catholic faith that so-called “Bloody Mary”, killed a fraction of the numbers that so-called “Good Queen Bess” killed, and yet look at the monikers history gives them.

“History” doesn’t give them these monikers. (“History” is not a person!) English-speaking “Whig” Protestants have given them these monikers.

What work of historical scholarship in the past 50 years uses these terms?

Edwin