When did the "early Christians become Catholic"

[SpiritMeadow]

The term Roman Church is incorrect. That has never been used by any Church document. It is a hallmark of Anti-Catholic bias which many Non-Catholics have called us. Second, the proper term is Catholic Church as a whole.

Second, the Catholic Church does not include Latin Rites (Roman Rite) but include Eastern Catholics, whose customs and tradition are the same as EO. Yet, they are in full communion with the Pope.

That is between you and the person who openly discusses with you.

There is only One Catholic Church. There are those who claim to be Catholic but they are not. Many people around the world who hear the world Catholic Church, they automatically know that is it is the Catholic Church whose office resides in the Vatican.

Anglican and Lutheran cut themselves off from the historical Church the moment they separated from Pope.

Who in gave them authority to break? I find the justification for the break like justifying to have an divorce (King Henry the Eight) as completely selfish. Yet, God curse the king by denying him an male son.

Actually I don’t use the term Roman Church normally. I use Roman Catholic which plenty of RC’s have assured me is both correct and not offensive in any way. I was taught by nuns who were most specific that the appelation RCC be used to differentiate from all other Catholic churches, orthodox and those claiming apostolic succession. That your opinion is that they don’t have a right to, is of course yours and I respect that. Billions of course don’t agree to your opinion, and certainly neither do I, but as I said, I respect your beliefs, no matter than you don’t seem to respect mine.

 

[Soutane]

I do not in any of the post see him use the word hypocrite.

THAT one was in a delightful PM that he sent me.He has no problem insulting me publicly OR privately.Splendid fellow.

 

[Soutane]

1. I am not your anti-Catholic friend, since I am not anti-Catholic. Please refrain from such language.
2. I, like many others here cannot read your bright blue and red interjections. It is impossible to follow, and I will not read your posts constructed as such.
3. There is nothing wrong with Roman Catholic or Roman Church. Neither appelation is rude or unseemly. They are meant to differentiate you from the EO, and other Catholic churches in the world who also claim to be Catholic and have primacy as the true church, as well as Anglicans, Lutherans and others who claim Catholic as appelation by virtue of apostolic succession.

Apparantly you have read his post or you wouldn’t have responded to it.I concur that you have expressed anti-Catholic sentiments simply because I have read your posts.I also have had the odd run-in with you.Roman Catholic is COMPLETELY acceptable although it ORIGINATED as a slur in England by the Church founded by a petulant and disobedient man,a “King” Henry VIII-you know-the Anglican Church.However Catholics co-opted the implied insult and adopted it as the name of one branch of the Universal Church-the Catholic Church.The proper term is the Latin Rite branch of the Catholic Church.

Roman Church,Roman and Romish are odious slurs calculated to raise the hackles and ire of any Catholic subjected to them.I classify them as bigoted slurs much the same as "Dogan Jew"which I was called in my childhood in Manitoba by a grown woman.

If you didn’t know that these terms are offensive then I am instructing you NOW.Please refrain from such language.WE FIND THEM TO BE OFFENSIVE.If as a Christian you wish to avoid giving offense please conduct yourself in a respectful manner.These self same bigoted slurs have been employed routinely by the King of the anti-Catholic bigots-that horrible man "Reverend"Ian Paisley.Surely you don’t wish to be asociated with that bigot do you?

 

[Soutane]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::hug3:

Why am I not surprised

 

[Soutane]

Actually I don’t use the term Roman Church normally. I use Roman Catholic which plenty of RC’s have assured me is both correct and not offensive in any way. I was taught by nuns who were most specific that the appelation RCC be used to differentiate from all other Catholic churches, orthodox and those claiming apostolic succession. That your opinion is that they don’t have a right to, is of course yours and I respect that. Billions of course don’t agree to your opinion, and certainly neither do I, but as I said, I respect your beliefs, no matter than you don’t seem to respect mine.

"Actually I don’t use the term Roman Church normally"But you use it here.You’ve been instructed that it is offensive.Stop.It’s O F F E N S I V E- offensive.

If you choose to use it now you are doing it deliberately to offend us.Don’t try to confuse the issue.No one has been complaining about the use of Roman Catholic, or Roman Catholic Church which are acceptable but not altogether accurate.If YOU wish to be treated with respect start earning it by employing non-offensive language.I’m sure the nuns taught you to be respectful,didn’t they?

As far as “plenty” of “RCs”( an offensive diminuation in itself) who’ve advised you that “Roman Church” is tickity-boo,I find that very difficult to believe.Apparantly those selfsame “plenty” don’t post here.I have NEVER met ONE Catholic who has found the term anything but offensive.Strange that you have.

 

[Soutane]

**
That is a great distraction; but try answering the question if you are able. You also made another claim; that is that sola scriptura is a heresy; please elaborate and show this; again only if you are able. I’m sorry that the obvious offended you.**

Don’t address me until you apologise to me.Your reiteration of the original insult"I’m sorry that the obvious offended you"has been reported to the forum moderator.AGAIN.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Apparantly you have read his post or you wouldn’t have responded to it.I concur that you have expressed anti-Catholic sentiments simply because I have read your posts.I also have had the odd run-in with you.Roman Catholic is COMPLETELY acceptable although it ORIGINATED as a slur in England by the Church founded by a petulant and disobedient man,a “King” Henry VIII-you know-the Anglican Church.However Catholics co-opted the implied insult and adopted it as the name of one branch of the Universal Church-the Catholic Church.The proper term is the Latin Rite branch of the Catholic Church.

It was pretty much his first post to me, and I read through it with difficulty, informing him I would not read others. Why is this your concern? If you have been reading, I have said that I infrequently use the term Roman Church, and I have no problem not using it again. I don’t recall any run-ins as you suggest but my apologies if you were hurt enough to recall them. I apologize for upsetting you. I cannot speak to what happened in England and will accept your explanation. I’m sure most people have moved on. Your pejorative interjections about Henry are unnecessary to this discussion and serve to promote your annoyance at Anglicans I guess. Would you prefer I use LRBCC as an appellation?

Roman Church,Roman and Romish are odious slurs calculated to raise the hackles and ire of any Catholic subjected to them.I classify them as bigoted slurs much the same as "Dogan Jew"which I was called in my childhood in Manitoba by a grown woman.

As I said, I’ve used Roman church infrequently and have no problem not using it.

If you didn’t know that these terms are offensive then I am instructing you NOW.Please refrain from such language.WE FIND THEM TO BE OFFENSIVE.If as a Christian you wish to avoid giving offense please conduct yourself in a respectful manner.These self same bigoted slurs have been employed routinely by the King of the anti-Catholic bigots-that horrible man "Reverend"Ian Paisley.Surely you don’t wish to be asociated with that bigot do you?

Thanks for your “instruction” You don’t need to shout, you’ve said this three times now. I read it correctly the first time, as you can see. I have not been disrepectful, and your claim is odious since I cannot be claimed to be so when I was unaware that a term Roman Church is offensive. Neither word is such by obvious usage. You have no reason to bring forth Parsley to me if that is who you mean. I find him odious on many grounds, and most certainly would find anti-Catholic sentiments equally so.

Please calm down and stop being so belligerent. You way over the top.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

"Actually I don’t use the term Roman Church normally"But you use it here.You’ve been instructed that it is offensive.Stop.It’s O F F E N S I V E- offensive.

If you choose to use it now you are doing it deliberately to offend us.Don’t try to confuse the issue.No one has been complaining about the use of Roman Catholic, or Roman Catholic Church which are acceptable but not altogether accurate.If YOU wish to be treated with respect start earning it by employing non-offensive language.I’m sure the nuns taught you to be respectful,didn’t they?

You are quite wrong in this. Unless you monitor every thread, it would be best not to claim what you don’t know. I find your tone very offensive. You have no call to order me around like you run something here. Civility is required or I shall refuse further conversation.

As far as “plenty” of “RCs”( an offensive diminuation in itself) who’ve advised you that “Roman Church” is tickity-boo,I find that very difficult to believe.Apparantly those selfsame “plenty” don’t post here.I have NEVER met ONE Catholic who has found the term anything but offensive.Strange that you have.

Try reading through “Why Anglicans think they are Catholic” and see. A lady named Trinity something, things otherwise. Again, you are simply outrageous in your intemperate remarks. And cease rolling your eyes. It’s unbecoming. Your so inaccurate as well, for I didn’t say that plenty of RC’s said Roman church was not offensive. I SAID Roman Catholic was termed inoffensive by them. Your out of control anger disallows you to read correctly. Collect yourself and start again.

 

[Soutane]

**

It was pretty much his first post to me, and I read through it with difficulty, informing him I would not read others. Why is this your concern?

Because the use of colour was being attacked instead of the argumentation.You were not the original offender.

If you have been reading, I have said that I infrequently use the term Roman Church, and I have no problem not using it again.

Then don’t it’s offensive.

I don’t recall any run-ins as you suggest but my apologies if you were hurt enough to recall them. I apologize for upsetting you.

Au contraire YOU were upset enough to complain to the moderator

I cannot speak to what happened in England and will accept your explanation. I’m sure most people have moved on.

Just trying to put things into perspective

Your pejorative interjections about Henry are unnecessary to this discussion and serve to promote your annoyance at Anglicans I guess. Would you prefer I use LRBCC as an appellation?

It IS irritating when it’s YOUR ox that’s being gored,isn’t it?

As I said, I’ve used Roman church infrequently and have no problem not using it.

Then don’t

Thanks for your “instruction” You don’t need to shout, you’ve said this three times now. I read it correctly the first time, as you can see. I have not been disrepectful, and your claim is odious since I cannot be claimed to be so when I was unaware that a term Roman Church is offensive.

But you’ve been advised by “plenty” of “RCs” that it is NOT offensive.What would have occassioned your inquiry of these “plenty” other than a “concern” that it is indeed offensive.Please don’t be disengenuous.

Neither word is such by obvious usage.

Oh yes it is and you have been so advised

You have no reason to bring forth Parsley to me if that is who you mean. I find him odious on many grounds, and most certainly would find anti-Catholic sentiments equally so.

His name is Paisely,Ian Paisely,not Parsly sorry to have to correct you again.

Please calm down and stop being so belligerent. You way over the top.

Belligerent,moi?I’m not the one using words calculated (or not) to offend.I generally subscribe to being over the top as it is an expression that originated in the trenches of WWI and adequately describes my reaction to ANYONE who insults my Faith.It’s the Irish Catholic in me.Thanks mom!!!

 

[Soutane]

Try reading through “Why Anglicans think they are Catholic” and see. A lady named Trinity something, things otherwise. Again, you are simply outrageous in your intemperate remarks. And cease rolling your eyes. It’s unbecoming. Your so inaccurate as well, for I didn’t say that plenty of RC’s said Roman church was not offensive. I SAID Roman Catholic was termed inoffensive by them. Your out of control anger disallows you to read correctly. Collect yourself and start again.

I stand corrected.I misread that part of your post.I find it quite amusing that you characterise my posts as angry and belligerant as I am having a great time and the other patrons at the library are becoming annoyed at my guffaws.Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Soutane]

Librariy’s closing.See you next week.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

**

Belligerent,moi?I’m not the one using words calculated (or not) to offend.I generally subscribe to being over the top as it is an expression that originated in the trenches of WWI and adequately describes my reaction to ANYONE who insults my Faith.It’s the Irish Catholic in me.Thanks mom!!!

Sorry but I don’t complain to moderators–I’m a bit above that practice, I have only done that once and that was months ago. I decided that I could be an adult. I see no further point in conversing. You seem obsessed with arguing for no good reason. Take care.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Here you go, here is a Bible cannon WAY before NICEA ever happened. This gives a good sign that all the early churches were ALREADY using the majority of the Bible at a very early date WAY before NICEA.

OLD TESTAMENT

Mlito (C. 170)

Melito was bishop of the church in Sardis, an inland city of Asia Minor. His list gives the Hebrew canon minus Esther, and makes no mention of any of the disputed books. This list was published abroad and recommended by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea.

But in the Extracts made by him the same writer * gives at the beginning of the Introduction a catalog of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows: “Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting! Since you have often, in your zeal for the Word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire Faith, and have also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient books, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the Word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, 1 two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon’s Proverbs or Wisdom, 2 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, 3 the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. 4 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.*

Cite your source, my friend.

 

[firstmode]

Ok, look up Melito in any history book and look when he wrote his cannon list in any history book and read it for yourself.

Seriously, I do not have to Vouch for St. Melito and his writings do I? The Bishop of Smyrna!

 

[firstmode]

Cite your source, my friend.

Melito, one-time Bishop of Smyrna (and a saint even according to Catholic sources), stated that the books of the Old Testament were those that he listed. And those that he listed were those from the Palestinian Jews (the so-called protocanonical books) and did not include one book from the additional ones that the Hellenists preserved (sometimes called deuterocanonical books). And note that Melito, according to Catholic sources, knew that the Jews had not accepted the books of the Hellenistic Alexandrians.

 

[firstmode]

The Bible was pretty much canonized, documented, around 170AD.

The early churches all had the old testament books and some, most, or all of Paul’s letters, as they were gathered and shared between churches, and some if not all the gospels going back to the time that they were written.

If they did not have all the scripture at the time or all the revelation, it does not matter. They were Christ followers, experienced the miracles, spoke in tongues, prophesied, gave words of wisdom, etc. They even had a position in the church for a prophet in those days. They had the power of the Holy Spirit alive in them, they did not put out the Spirit’s flame, but they took was what good from prophecy. They may not have had all the scripture, but they had enough to be followers of Christ and to understand the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[dawid]

The Bible was pretty much canonized, documented, around 170AD.

The early churches all had the old testament books and some, most, or all of Paul’s letters, as they were gathered and shared between churches, and some if not all the gospels going back to the time that they were written.

If they did not have all the scripture at the time or all the revelation, it does not matter. They were Christ followers, experienced the miracles, spoke in tongues, prophesied, gave words of wisdom, etc. They even had a position in the church for a prophet in those days. They had the power of the Holy Spirit alive in them, they did not put out the Spirit’s flame, but they took was what good from prophecy. They may not have had all the scripture, but they had enough to be followers of Christ and to understand the power of the Holy Spirit.

Prior to the written books of the New Testament, the early Church was based on the books of the Old Testament and sacred Tradition derived from Jesus and handed down by His Apostles and their successors.

The Greek OT Bible used during Jesus’ time was the Septuagint which was translated for the many Greek-speaking Jews.

Melito, one-time Bishop of Smyrna (and a saint even according to Catholic sources), stated that the books of the Old Testament were those that he listed. And those that he listed were those from the Palestinian Jews (the so-called protocanonical books) and did not include one book from the additional ones that the Hellenists preserved (sometimes called deuterocanonical books). And note that Melito, according to Catholic sources, knew that the Jews had not accepted the books of the Hellenistic Alexandrians.

The selection of books of the Bible for the Christian Canon was invoked during the latter part of the fourth century under the Pope Damsus and his Magisterium. While there was debate over the content of the Canon on the books of the Bible, only the pope has the authority to invoke matters of doctrine and teaching.

In AD 90, the Jews in Palestine decided on their Biblical Canon and rejected the Septuagint. This was probably due to their being invaded by the Romans and the Greek influence. The Eithiopian Jews still use the Septuagint.

 

[sdtouchton]

Peter’s commission:
Here are some of the attributes of Jesus Christ which He passed on and shared with Peter by working through him…

Jesus is:
Peter is:

The Good Shepherd, John 10:11-14
Shepherd of the Church, John 21:17

The Door of the Sheep, John 10:7
John 20:21-23, 21:17

The Rock, 1Corinthians 10:4
Matthew 16:18

The Foundation, 1Corinthians 3:11
Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 2:20

The Key Holder, Revelation 3:7
Matthew 16:19

Infallible, John 14:6
Luke 10:16, 22:28-32

The Recipient of GOD’s Word, John 5:30
Matthew 16:17, Acts 15:7

Having the Authority, Matthew 28:18
Matthew 18:15-20, Acts 2:14-40, 15:7

A Worker of Miracles, Mark 2:2-12
Acts 3:6-12, 5:15

Able to raise the dead, John 11:43-44
Acts 9:36-42

The Invisible Head of His Church, Eph 5:23-24
The Visible Head of Christ’s Church, Matt 16:18

Have you ever read Psalms 127:1?
“Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.”

Now show me the verse(s) in the Bible which gives the authority to any human creature to found another church other than the ONE CHURCH which Jesus Christ founded?
Show me the verse(s) which authorizes anyone to simply hold up a Bible and proclaim, “This is my authority”.
home.inreach.com/bstanley/auth.htm

 

[Seeking12]

Try reading through “Why Anglicans think they are Catholic” and see. A lady named Trinity something, things otherwise. Again, you are simply outrageous in your intemperate remarks. And cease rolling your eyes. It’s unbecoming. Your so inaccurate as well, for I didn’t say that plenty of RC’s said Roman church was not offensive. I SAID Roman Catholic was termed inoffensive by them. Your out of control anger disallows you to read correctly. Collect yourself and start again.

**Hi Spirit,

He is a little short on substance and much on arrogance and pride, but a day is coming where the goats will be separated from the sheep. He has done the same thing to me and has said he has made it known…that was after he said he forgave; yet cannot seem to let it go and move on, but what can you do except pray for the poor soul, which I will do right now as I send this. God bless you; you did nothing wrong.**

 

[elvisman]

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?

Let me ask you this:
**How do you reject the authority given to the Catholic Church by Jesus because of this 75 year period, yet accept the authority of that same Church some 250 years later when canon of Scripture was compiled? **
We have Church history and secular history to support this.

Your point against authority is moot when you trust the Catholic Church to decide the very canon of scripture that you glean your information from.**
How do you, nay - how does ALL of Protestantism reconcile this?