When did the "early Christians become Catholic"

[ConfusedTim]

Lots of protestants seem to be happy with the early teaching of the chirch and call those that were involved the first Christians etc but never seem able to attribute the collation and protection of the bible or anything else that is good to the Catholic church. So what i was wondering is when do non catholics see as Catholicism starting?

 

[Trishie]

Just to let you know the meaning of ‘Catholic’. The word means “Universal” .

The “Catholic Church” means, the “Universal Church”, and so it was before the schisms and the Reformation, so you see, it was descriptive of the Christian Church, the universal Christian Church.
I suppose we could now call it the Original Christain Church…but it is as it is.

I hope that helps,

regards, Trishie

 

[ConfusedTim]

Agreed - as far as i am concerend the Catholic (universal, Roman, whatever else you want to call it) Church has existed since Peter was appointed its leader. However, what do non Catholics think i.e. I know some baptists who always say the early Christians did this that and the other if they are talking about something they agree with or if its a good thing, However, whenever something is bad the church becomes known as the Catholic Church. So i was just looking to find out if there is a defined time when protestants say the early church was different from the Catholic church and on what basis they make that distiction.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Just to let you know the meaning of ‘Catholic’. The word means “Universal” .

The “Catholic Church” means, the “Universal Church”, and so it was before the schisms and the Reformation, so you see, it was descriptive of the Christian Church, the universal Christian Church.
I suppose we could now call it the Original Christain Church…but it is as it is.

I hope that helps,

regards, Trishie

The brother of a friend was in the army and stationed in the South in the 40’s. When they tried to rentaccommodations for their families, they were always asked their religion and refused when they said Catholic. They asked the chaplain what to do since they had to get shelter for their families and couldn’t deny their faith. The chaplain told them to just tell the truth - “First Church of Jesus Christ”. It worked perfectly.

 

[sambos671]

Most protestants would say the Catholic Church as it is now was slowly infiltrated false teachings evidence by the Early Church Fathers but culminated in Constantine making an unholy aliance between the Secular Civil Government in Rome and the Christian church shortly after the eddict of Milan. That the church naturally took on hiarechial format from Roman Civil government since many leaders were incorporated into government at that time. Constantine is regarded by them never to really be a christian because of some confusion he had with Sun worship and support of Arius followers evidence in his death bed baptism. That at this point the “unholy” union allowed for long held mystery religions to be incorporated with christian beliefs culminating in the Roman Catholic church. That from this point on the “true” christian believers (protestant in nature) were persecuted and killed by the Roman Catholic Church.

That is what the protestants say anyway.

 

[Soutane]

The early Christians became Catholic at Pentacost.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Just to let you know the meaning of ‘Catholic’. The word means “Universal” .

The “Catholic Church” means, the “Universal Church”, and so it was before the schisms and the Reformation, so you see, it was descriptive of the Christian Church, the universal Christian Church.
I suppose we could now call it the Original Christain Church…but it is as it is.

I hope that helps,

regards, Trishie

Yes, Jesus called His church the “Universal” church, so why aren’t you in it? The Universal church is the Catholic church. Let us not forget what the letters to the churches are in Revelation. They are addressed to the Catholic church and the Catholic church only.

 

[Soutane]

Yes, Jesus called His church the “Universal” church, so why aren’t you in it? The Universal church is the Catholic church. Let us not forget what the letters to the churches are in Revelation. They are addressed to the Catholic church and the Catholic church only.

I do believe that Trishie is quite Catholic.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I do believe that Trishie is quite Catholic.

ok sorry

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s an interesting question, but one that most don’t spend a lot of time on. It seems extremely important to a few RC’s here to establish their primacy. Having been RC for a number of years, I was never taught that primacy was necessary to my faith, but it seems that some do demand that they be recognized as so. It seems some linchpin, although I cannot understand why.

I have found nothing so far that indicates that Rome was accepted as the leader of the early church. As good a claim certainly would have come from Jerusalem it seems to me. Paul never mentions Peter as being in Rome, certainly not as it’s bishop when he wrote Romans. Nor is there reference in Acts to this. I have read some of the ECF, and I have so far seen no evidence that Rome was deferred to as authority, although certainly a particular bishop may have been requested to give his opinion on some matter in another church. I don’t see any orders eminating. I believe the very first reference to the world Catholic occured in 110 or so.

It seems odd of course that Constantine, a civil ruler should be calling the Church to council if indeed the Bishop of Rome was in charge of the entire church.

As I said, I don’t find a lot of Protestants or other catholic communities expending much energy on this issue. But I haven’t spent time on Protestant forums. Perhaps there they have the same intense need to prove something.

In the end, it seems that many think the psalmist and other gospels inaccurate in claiming that God judges the heart. Some apparently think he judges the form and ritual as more important.

I have been told here that there is nothing but the Roman church. All others are by definition heretical. That means there is nothing to Christendom, it consists of only the Roman Church, all others being less than Christian by definition. That would be a sad thing indeed, because it would suggest that the mission has fallen far short of what most believe today. Worse yet, I have seen RC’s profess that any RC who is not in full agreement with all dogma is not really RC at all… This further reduces the church to several millions it would seem.

The upshot is that it is most hard to know what RC’s believe, since there are so many many interpretations. In this they are not alone of course. The same could be said of nearly every denomination.

 

[MDK]

Lots of protestants seem to be happy with the early teaching of the chirch and call those that were involved the first Christians etc but never seem able to attribute the collation and protection of the bible or anything else that is good to the Catholic church. So what i was wondering is when do non catholics see as Catholicism starting?

They were always Catholic. They just started calling themselves Catholic no later than about the year 105. It’s the same Church, but adopted a descriptive name.

From the time you were conceived until the time you got your name, you didn’t become a different person. After you received your given name, you didn’t become a different person. You grew and developed the entire time, but you were always you whether given a name or not.

 

[elvisman]

It’s an interesting question, but one that most don’t spend a lot of time on. It seems extremely important to a few RC’s here to establish their primacy. Having been RC for a number of years, I was never taught that primacy was necessary to my faith, but it seems that some do demand that they be recognized as so. It seems some linchpin, although I cannot understand why.

I have found nothing so far that indicates that Rome was accepted as the leader of the early church. As good a claim certainly would have come from Jerusalem it seems to me. Paul never mentions Peter as being in Rome, certainly not as it’s bishop when he wrote Romans. Nor is there reference in Acts to this. I have read some of the ECF, and I have so far seen no evidence that Rome was deferred to as authority, although certainly a particular bishop may have been requested to give his opinion on some matter in another church. I don’t see any orders eminating. I believe the very first reference to the world Catholic occured in 110 or so.

It seems odd of course that Constantine, a civil ruler should be calling the Church to council if indeed the Bishop of Rome was in charge of the entire church.

The Early church was being persecuted. Do you honestly believe that they could just call a council to order publicly? Constantine legalized Christianity.

As for the Early Church Fathers - apparently you haven’t read much. You should - there’s a lot there, my anti-Catholic friend:
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force** (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).**

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ummm . . .shall I go on?

I have been told here that there is nothing but the Roman church. All others are by definition heretical. That means there is nothing to Christendom, it consists of only the Roman Church, all others being less than Christian by definition. That would be a sad thing indeed, because it would suggest that the mission has fallen far short of what most believe today. Worse yet, I have seen RC’s profess that any RC who is not in full agreement with all dogma is not really RC at all… This further reduces the church to several millions it would seem.

The upshot is that it is most hard to know what RC’s believe, since there are so many many interpretations. In this they are not alone of course. The same could be said of nearly every denomination.

Please refrain from labels such as “Roman church”. It’s a derogatory term and against forum rules.

As for “different interpretations”, one need only to hop from Protestant church to Protestant church to feed from a smorgasbord of differing, bickering beliefs.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’d say one event that knocked the church’s bubble a bit off plumb was at the end of the end century when pope Victor acted in the spirit of Diotrophes, attacking those who wished to remain faithful to the Apostolic teaching they had received from John and sought to exclude them from fellowship for not submitting to his preference instead.

No, this isn’t a “great apostasy” with the whole church falling away, but it is a key event in which an erring church leader sought to usurp for himself the reverence given to the Apostles and Apostolic teaching and who was not sufficiently chastised for doing so, only resisted by the other bishops and not disciplined.

Of course if the early church model of a plural episcopate hadn’t been weakened in Rome as a result of frequent martyrdoms and persecution, the other Roman leaders might have simply stopped his temper tantrum before it started and saved all of us the division that exists today.

 

[MDK]

I’d say one event that knocked the church’s bubble a bit off plumb was at the end of the end century when pope Victor acted in the spirit of Diotrophes, attacking those who wished to remain faithful to the Apostolic teaching they had received from John and sought to exclude them from fellowship for not submitting to his preference instead.

No, this isn’t a “great apostasy” with the whole church falling away, but it is a key event in which an erring church leader sought to usurp for himself the reverence given to the Apostles and Apostolic teaching and who was not sufficiently chastised for doing so, only resisted by the other bishops and not disciplined.

Of course if the early church model of a plural episcopate hadn’t been weakened in Rome as a result of frequent martyrdoms and persecution, the other Roman leaders might have simply stopped his temper tantrum before it started and saved all of us the division that exists today.

Peter was appointed head of the Apostles from the start, so you’ve got a bit of a problem in your writings. Another problem is that you don’t display any understanding of what the office of the Prime Minister of Christ’s earthly Kingdom is protected and not protected from doing. Next, it doesn’t seem that you really understand the context and what Vicrot did and why people responded as they did. I have to admit, that if I was that ignorant of the faith, I probably wouldn’t be interested in it either. It’s when we learn the faith and what it means and doesn’t mean, that the beauty is seen. I could never be interested in nor satisfied with falsehoods. I ask you to please at least learn the truths, rather than promoting false ideas.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Peter was appointed head of the Apostles from the start, so you’ve got a bit of a problem in your writings. Another problem is that you don’t display any understanding of what the office of the Prime Minister of Christ’s earthly Kingdom is protected and not protected from doing. Next, it doesn’t seem that you really understand the context and what Vicrot did and why people responded as they did. I have to admit, that if I was that ignorant of the faith, I probably wouldn’t be interested in it either. It’s when we learn the faith and what it means and doesn’t mean, that the beauty is seen. I could never be interested in nor satisfied with falsehoods. I ask you to please at least learn the truths, rather than promoting false ideas.

What you call ignorance I call the inability to be seduced by circular reasoning. To date, no Catholic on this board has been able to show examples of the papal authority claimed by later popes to have been used or recognized prior to 150 AD. Just because someone with an interest in the matter comes along decades or centuries later and says that this passage means he has authority over everything, doesn’t make it so.

Now if you’d like to marshal some facts for your case instead of your your prejudices and presuppositions, bring them on-otherwise your certainty falls into the same category as Mormon bosom-burning-subjective belief given an air of certainty by the believer.

 

[MDK]

What you call ignorance I call the inability to be seduced by circular reasoning. To date, no Catholic on this board has been able to show examples of the papal authority claimed by later popes to have been used or recognized prior to 150 AD. Just because someone with an interest in the matter comes along decades or centuries later and says that this passage means he has authority over everything, doesn’t make it so.

Now if you’d like to marshal some facts for your case instead of your your prejudices and presuppositions, bring them on-otherwise your certainty falls into the same category as Mormon bosom-burning-subjective belief given an air of certainty by the believer.

Ignorance is simply ignorance. There’s no real way to dress it up. Why do you create false tests? You display a lack of background and I don’t see a willingness to opt for truth. You simply set yourself as the standard, and so will always be wrong. For instance, why do you reject Christ by rejecting those He sent?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Ignorance is simply ignorance. There’s no real way to dress it up. Why do you create false tests? You display a lack of background and I don’t see a willingness to opt for truth. You simply set yourself as the standard, and so will always be wrong. For instance, why do you reject Christ by rejecting those He sent?

I take from your continued engaging in ad hominem arguments, that you have no evidence to provide either. I am sure Victor appreciates your unquestioned support of him, and I’m sure the Apostle John forgives you for belittling his teaching as a consequence.

It must be difficult to claim to protect the teaching of the Apostles at the same time as you support those who set it aside-may I ask how you deal with the logical inconsistency of that position? Perhaps if I could understand that, I would have fewer doubts about the “truth” you profess to possess.

Since you accept those who opposed Apostolic teaching I could also ask you why you reject the teaching of him who Christ loved?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Please refrain from labels such as "Roman church". It’s a derogatory term and against forum rules.

May I second that comment,

As for "different interpretations", one need only to hop from Protestant church to Protestant church to feed from a smorgasbord of differing, bickering beliefs.

and elaborate of this one?

The hopping you refer to can take place within churches that claim to be “Anglican” of some kind. They run the gamut from new age vestigal Christian to sola scriptura evangelical Protestantism.

Even if we assume that there are many many different versions offered of the teachings of the Church among Catholics, there is a basis for choosing between them: The Teaching of the Church is explicitly laid out (for example, in the Catechism), and her Bishops have teaching authority protected from error through their union with the Vicar of Christ. Nothing comparable exists outside the See of Peter.

The Church has always been Catholic. Those who left her abandoned that catholicity, their feeble attempts at claiming otherwise not withstanding.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[MDK]

I take from your continued engaging in ad hominem arguments, that you have no evidence to provide either. I am sure Victor appreciates your unquestioned support of him, and I’m sure the Apostle John forgives you for belittling his teaching as a consequence.

It must be difficult to claim to protect the teaching of the Apostles at the same time as you support those who set it aside-may I ask how you deal with the logical inconsistency of that position? Perhaps if I could understand that, I would have fewer doubts about the “truth” you profess to possess.

Since you accept those who opposed Apostolic teaching I could also ask you why you reject the teaching of him who Christ loved?

Wrong. I’m discussing behavior, not attacking you. If the shoe fits, I recommend, however, getting different shoes. I have seen behavior like yours, though. There is no display of seeking truth, rather slamming by innuendo and false standards claimed that in the end, don’t really mean what they are shown to.

Further behavioral ignorance is in not knowing who I support. I support God, and His Church, the Body of Christ. It’s the same Church and Body and Bride of Christ that you attack. So, your once again false claim falls short…

St. Peter is recorded in Scriptures advising against the exact behavior you are eager to engage in, namely that there are Scriptures hard to understand, which the ignorant twist to their own destruction. I hope you come around to the truth.

In truth, I do not reject teaching of Christ. Please get it straight and keep it as such.

When you’re ready to receive the truth, you will. Until then, you or anyone else behaving like you, will continue to wallow in the self created quagmire of falsehoods that will never lead one to Christ. When you are ready to listen to Christ, you will listen to those He sent. These are the Pope and Bishops in union with the Pope in God’s one Church.

I’ll pray for you, as I do for myself and others that we all come to know more about Christ and become closer to Him. Our mother Mary will help in this, as she always points the way to her Son.

 

[elvisman]

What you call ignorance I call the inability to be seduced by circular reasoning. To date, no Catholic on this board has been able to show examples of the papal authority claimed by later popes to have been used or recognized prior to 150 AD. Just because someone with an interest in the matter comes along decades or centuries later and says that this passage means he has authority over everything, doesn’t make it so.

Now if you’d like to marshal some facts for your case instead of your your prejudices and presuppositions, bring them on-otherwise your certainty falls into the same category as Mormon bosom-burning-subjective belief given an air of certainty by the believer.

So - because of a 75 or so year window of scant information, you are going to discount the next 500 years of writings regarding the Early Church? Talk about a cop-out!
MOST of recorded history was scant during this time, let alone the recorded history an upstart religion. Thank GOD for oral Tradition.

As for the comparison to "Mormon bosom-burning-subjective belief" - we actually have recorded history - written and oral - Church and secular- to back up our claims.