When did the "early Christians become Catholic"

[Non_Serviam]

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.

I’m sorry if pointing out your inconsistency was uncomfortable for you, but it’s a clear matter of record that Victor did this-if you feel better attempting to rationalize it away, then continue for as long as it works for you. Personally, I hold to a higher respect for Apostolic truth than that. If the later words of popes hold more value to you than those of Apostles, I’m glad to see that you’ve made that explicit here. I’ll leave you to them.

 

[Non_Serviam]

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.

There is information in that period-unfortunately, it doesn’t support the claims for authority made by later popes. Forged documents were used by some later popes in an attempt to deal with this lack of evidence and to provide support for the authority that they claimed-is this some of the written history that you would show me, or would you have not mentioned that part of papal history because it doesn’t support your thesis.

There is clear evidence of a plural episcopacy, even in Rome at the time of Clement-there is a clear record of bishops being asked to provide wisdom in disputes outside of their territory. Read the Epistle of Clement and see how he refers back to the Apostolic teaching in Scripture for the support of his counsel-no reference to tradition outside of Scripture there.

Victor showed none of this respect for Apostolic tradition-look at the response of Irenaeus who agreed that the majority of believers used the same date as Rome but joined with the other bishops in opposing Victor when he claimed authority that he did not possess.

Seems like the written history isn’t the friend you thought it would be.

Elvisman, how do you reconcile supporting the office that claims to represent the Apostles that at the same time tried to compel others not to obey Apostolic teaching?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The interesting thing about forged documents is that, in order to have effect, they typically mirror the truth. For instance, if you want to pass off as real a bogus math proof, you start with 2+2=4.

The citation of truth in a forgery does not falsify the truth cited. Nor does it legitimize the document.

As far as attempts to twist history goes, I’ve seen some very strong attempts to turn history against the Church. They are much better than the attempts here, though like the attempt here, they failed.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Hisalone]

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.

MDK asked to be shown evidence. You have provided NONE. You have attacked him as being ignorant for not accepting as true beliefs you have yet to prove. Peter was not appointed pope a position that is not biblical. Was he first amoung equals? The Roman Church has made that point moot by insisting of supremacy and infallibility. Just as the Israelites were corrupted shortly after their high water mark in David so the Roman Church was corrupted a few generations after Christ. And the gates of hell will not prevail does not mean that there will never be error or corruption. It does mean at the end of the day Christs Church will not succomb to Satan

 

[Hisalone]

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.

You have been asked on numerous occassions by a different members to refrain from the fonts and colors ----for good reason yet you refuse to be considerate of others. Therefore you should be shown no consideration,

 

[Hisalone]

The interesting thing about forged documents is that, in order to have effect, they typically mirror the truth. For instance, if you want to pass off as real a bogus math proof, you start with 2+2=4.

The citation of truth in a forgery does not falsify the truth cited. Nor does it legitimize the document.

As far as attempts to twist history goes, I’ve seen some very strong attempts to turn history against the Church. They are much better than the attempts here, though like the attempt here, they failed.

Blessings,

Gerry

Again you fail to address the issues presented and twist history so as to meet your prescibed position.

 

[Trishie]

I do believe that Trishie is quite Catholic.

Thank you Soutane. What you said in your quiet way brought tears to my eyes. Yes I am.

 

[ConfusedTim]

MDK asked to be shown evidence. You have provided NONE. You have attacked him as being ignorant for not accepting as true beliefs you have yet to prove. Peter was not appointed pope a position that is not biblical. Was he first amoung equals? The Roman Church has made that point moot by insisting of supremacy and infallibility. Just as the Israelites were corrupted shortly after their high water mark in David so the Roman Church was corrupted a few generations after Christ. And the gates of hell will not prevail does not mean that there will never be error or corruption. It does mean at the end of the day Christs Church will not succomb to Satan

So are you saying that betweem 150AD and the reformation 1400 years later there was NO Church

 

[ConfusedTim]

MDK asked to be shown evidence. You have provided NONE. You have attacked him as being ignorant for not accepting as true beliefs you have yet to prove. Peter was not appointed pope a position that is not biblical. Was he first amoung equals? The Roman Church has made that point moot by insisting of supremacy and infallibility. Just as the Israelites were corrupted shortly after their high water mark in David so the Roman Church was corrupted a few generations after Christ. And the gates of hell will not prevail does not mean that there will never be error or corruption. It does mean at the end of the day Christs Church will not succomb to Satan

The bible is NOT prescriptive and as someone who I presume believes in sola scriptura your arguments are on very shaky ground.

 

[firstmode]

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.

Those catholics that believe that other Christians are doomed to hell are not following the VERY liberal catechism:

• 839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”[325] The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,[326] “the first to hear the Word of God.”[327] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,[328] “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”[329]
• 840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
• 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]
• 842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .[331]
• 843 "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.’

 

[Non_Serviam]

The interesting thing about forged documents is that, in order to have effect, they typically mirror the truth. For instance, if you want to pass off as real a bogus math proof, you start with 2+2=4.

The citation of truth in a forgery does not falsify the truth cited. Nor does it legitimize the document.

As far as attempts to twist history goes, I’ve seen some very strong attempts to turn history against the Church. They are much better than the attempts here, though like the attempt here, they failed.

Blessings,

Gerry

First of all, if there is true information in a forged document, but the forgery isn’t acknowledged, there is still a falsehood being disseminated. The other interesting point is that they speak to the character of those who use them, regardless of whether the information in them is true or not.

The truth is some popes put their office and continued leadership above the truth. Not all of them did, and that speaks well of those who resisted the temptation to do so.

If there existed real proof of the early church of Clement and Linus claiming this authority, don’t you think it would have been brought out during the reformation-instead we have the citations of “Fathers” being quoted hundreds of years after the fact.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked the other two: How do you reconcile supporting the office that claims to represent the Apostles that at the same time tried to compel others not to obey Apostolic teaching?

 

[Seeking12]

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.

**Hi Spirit,

I found your post very interesting; you seem part Catholic and part Protestant…someone in the middle; yet the differences in theology between Catholics and fundamental Protestants are polar opposites. I said all of that to ask; where do you stand in relation to the basic teaching on salvation?**

 

[Mannyfit75]

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?

Catholicism had its foundations upon Peter and the Apostles, and Jesus as the cornerstone of this Church. The first document that describe the Christian Church as Catholic is from the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The Epistle of to the Smyrnaeans (circa 110 AD) states the following:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

In those days, there were five major metropolitan Sees or Churches.

1. Jerusalem, Judea: established by St. James, brethren of the Lord.
2. Antioch, Syria: established by Peter
3. Rome: established by Peter and Paul.
4. Constantinople, Turkey: established by Andrew (brother of Peter).
5. Alexandria, Egypt: established by Mark.

The word 'See" comes from the Latin for seat, “sedes.”

The center of Christian worship in those days is the Eucharist, whom many early Christians believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

This strongly supported by the writings of the Gospel of John, Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians about properly receiving communion worthily. St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, the Apostle, made it clear in his letters.

He wrote:

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

In sort terms, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, whom he given the keys of the kingdom to Peter, and then granted the same authority to the rest of the Apostle. However, the keys remain with Peter and his successors, whom was succeeeded by Linus and down to our modern day Pope, Pope Benedict XVI.

The word Pope was not used in those days, but the office of the Papacy was always there. Seek Christ first and his Church and find the Church that holds the keys of the kingdom.

If you were a former Catholic, come back home. The mother Church misses you. The Church is the Body of Christ, as well as his Bride. Do you want to be a part of the historical Church?

 

[Mannyfit75]

First of all, if there is true information in a forged document, but the forgery isn’t acknowledged, there is still a falsehood being disseminated. The other interesting point is that they speak to the character of those who use them, regardless of whether the information in them is true or not.

The truth is some popes put their office and continued leadership above the truth. Not all of them did, and that speaks well of those who resisted the temptation to do so.

If there existed real proof of the early church of Clement and Linus claiming this authority, don’t you think it would have been brought out during the reformation-instead we have the citations of “Fathers” being quoted hundreds of years after the fact.

Linus, no documents to support any Epistle that he wrote. Perhaps, there were destroyed by Roman authorities. However, Clement of Rome does offer some light to the matter. For one he extorted the Corinthians

Clement writes to the troubled congregation in Corinth, where certain “presbyters” or “bishops” have been deposed (the class of clergy above that of deacons is designated indifferently by the two term Clement calls for repentance and reinstatement of those who have been deposed, in line with maintenance of order and obedience to church authority, since the apostles established the ministry of “bishops and deacons”.He mentions “offering the gifts” (the Eucharist) as one of the functions of the higher class of clergy. The epistle offers valuable insight into Church ministry at that time and into the history of the Roman Church. It was highly regarded, and was read in church at Corinth along with the Scriptures c. 170

I’ll ask you the same question I asked the other two: How do you reconcile supporting the office that claims to represent the Apostles that at the same time tried to compel others not to obey Apostolic teaching?

The answer to this question is lies with another question. Did Jesus gave his Apostles authority? If he did not, there should be no Apostolic Succession. I do not think Jesus Christ intended to end his Church to reign up until the death of the Apostle.

Jesus understand the Judaic Kingdom from his Jewish upbringing. He is from the line of David, and we were told often that Jesus’ kingdom will have no end. The idea or belief that he did not gave any authority to his Apostles, would shorten his kingdom. You might as well brand Jesus as one of the great deceiver.

However, we know as devote Christians, Jesus is exactly who he claims to be. The Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity. God made flesh. He was not a deceiver. I firmly believe that those who departed from historical Church are far removed from historical Christianity.

Other than the Catholic Church, I affirmed that the Eastern Orthodox also carry this part of historical Christianity. Protestantism abandon many tradition Christian beliefs and practices and create new doctrines such as the concept of OSAS, the Rapture, and that being saved requires “the sinners prayer” (which is not actually taught in Scripture). As far as I know from both Tradition and Scripture, to be saved requires believing and be baptized.

Peter’s first preaching told the people of Jerusalem, that they have to believe and be baptism in the forgiveness of their sins. This is what most Tradition & Orthodox Christians have affirmed for 2,000 yrs.

 

[Soutane]

You have been asked on numerous occassions by a different members to refrain from the fonts and colors ----for good reason yet you refuse to be considerate of others. Therefore you should be shown no consideration,

What hubris,what chutzpa.PLEASE keep up the use of colour in your posts-it is quite…colourful.Whereas I CAPITALISE words to emphasise them you use color which is quite creative.

Because the poster employs a style that Hisalone does not care for he/she feels it is acceptable to use words and descriptors that offend Catholics.Amazing,sad,and quite revealing.

 

[elvisman]

You have been asked on numerous occassions by a different members to refrain from the fonts and colors ----for good reason yet you refuse to be considerate of others. Therefore you should be shown no consideration,

I’ll try - just for you!

---

PS - Get over it.
The reason people complain about silly things like this is because they have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Hisalone]

What hubris,what chutzpa.PLEASE keep up the use of colour in your posts-it is quite…colourful.Whereas I CAPITALISE words to emphasise them you use color which is quite creative.

Because the poster employs a style that Hisalone does not care for he/she feels it is acceptable to use words and descriptors that offend Catholics.Amazing,sad,and quite revealing.

**What is revealing **is that **NUMEROUS **members of this forum community have said the same thing. Yet Elvis is not considerate of others There is a good reason for this request, when you click on **the quote function **his post becomes unreadable.

 

[Soutane]

**What is revealing **is that **NUMEROUS **members of this forum community have said the same thing. Yet Elvis is not considerate of others There is a good reason for this request, when you click on **the quote function **his post becomes unreadable.

Wow!This post of yours is a great improvement.Keep it up.

I notice you did not address my criticism of you indicating that it is justified in using terminology CALCULATED to offend Catholics simply because a poster employs a style that irritates you.This too is very revealing.

 

[Soutane]

**What is revealing **is that **NUMEROUS **members of this forum community have said the same thing. Yet Elvis is not considerate of others There is a good reason for this request, when you click on **the quote function **his post becomes unreadable.

Really?Seems quite readable to me.

 

[Seeking12]

**What is revealing **is that **NUMEROUS **members of this forum community have said the same thing. Yet Elvis is not considerate of others There is a good reason for this request, when you click on **the quote function **his post becomes unreadable.

**HisAlone,

I would concur about the colors, but it is easier just to avoid the ridiculous. Think about how much time it takes to add all that color; but if that is all you have, then be good at it.

God bless you brother in Christ! **