Were there any Catholic church buildings between 50AD - 300AD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter littlebird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

littlebird

Guest
Can anyone name any Catholic church building that existed between 50AD - 300 AD anywhere on Earth ?
 
The Aqaba Church in Aqaba, Jordan, late 3rd century

The Megiddo Church in Israel, late 3rd century

The Dura-Europos Church, in Syria, dated to c. 241.

These dates are just the dates of the ruins found. The actual Churches very well could have been built or used as such in the 1st or 2nd century.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
The Megiddo Church in Israel, late 3rd century
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s archeological guide to the Holy Land has a four-page entry for Megiddo (pp. 342-346), in which the word “church” is never mentioned.
My copy is the fourth edition, published in 1998. The current edition is the fifth (link below), which I haven’t had a chance to check.

 
Last edited:
Were these Catholic church buildings ( Agaba, Megiddo, Dura-Europos) ?
 
Yes, they were.

The earliest one even has icons painted all over it.

Christ heals the paralytic:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Christ the good shepherd:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Were they called Catholic churches at the time that they were built ?
 
Early Church meaning the pre-Nicene Orthodox Catholic Church.
 
So your answer is “NO” correct ? There were no churches between 50AD - 300AD that were called Catholic , or that used the word Catholic in the name of the church at that time ?
 
I see what you’re trying to do, yes they were called Catholic, because that was the only Church to exist.
 
Last edited:
There was only Christianity: One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, One Gospel: One Body of Christ.

As the Church developed new understanding was Unfolded… unfortunately, as the number of Christians and geography increased so did the thirst for “autonomy” (self-governance) and “geographic” identity began to take place; yet, the Church, in the most part, remained Catholic (Universal) as One Body till the schisms (East-West) and revolt (Luther and those that followed).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
It was just the Church at this time period. No schism. No Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Just the Church. Though there were many heresies in this timeperiod.
 
A better question would be “when did people begin leaving the original Church?”
It seems the purpose of this thread is to deny the Catholic church’s rightful place as the Church Christ founded.
 
Yes, the Church has been called Catholic since at least St Ignatius of Antioch. That is because there was one Lord, One Faith, one Baptism, as it says in the Writ.

The early Church was persecuted so they didn’t use special buildings very often, they often were in catacombs.
 
Hi!

In Spanish football has a different meaning… it is also kind of confusing since the “football” comes in contact with the foot only in very specific times… in North American football.

In Latin American parley it is actually: “Fútbol Americano,” as to distinguish it from the sport “soccer” where the ball and foot and in constant contact. Since fútbol (soccer) has gained popularity in the US, should we then stop calling “football” football since we only use our foot at the kick-off, turn-overs, and extra points-goals?

The Church, the Body of Christ existed as One from her Founding. While non-Catholics seek to name themselves “church this or that or 1st, 2nd, etc.” as a means to demonstrate their separation from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is “Catholic” because of her designation by Christ, Universal:
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (St. Matthew 28)
Click to expand...
Consider too, right from Scriptures, that only when Jesus’ or Apostolic Authority Teaching is challenged, is there a need to define doctrine:
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. 28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? 30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Corinthians 12)
Click to expand...
Maran atha!

Angel
 
Not quite accurate, because we know from St. Ignatius of Antioch, that the term Catholic was in use.
 
Hi, Kei!

Excellent observation.

Too many times people who claim to seek the Truth do so from the 16th century’s perspective–no Church history to be applied, unless from the sterile and sanitized revisionism that their “founders” have proposed as “the historical church.”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
ok. My apologies. I simply do not know how to ask a simple question.

I am not trying to do anything other than know what the first Catholic church was called that had the word “Catholic” in it’s name. I didnt realize that there would be no answer and that this would be such a monumental task.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top