ECT CATHOLICS ARE THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS: A Documented Fact of Ecclesiastical History

[Cross Reference]

And what difference is that supposed to make?
But anyway,

"Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch
The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "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."[11][12][13]
Of the meaning for Ignatius of this phrase J.H. Srawley wrote:
This is the earliest occurrence in Christian literature of the phrase 'the Catholic Church' (ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία). The original sense of the word is 'universal'. Thus Justin Martyr (Dial. 82) speaks of the 'universal or general resurrection', using the words ἡ καθολικὴ ἀνάστασις. Similarly here the Church universal is contrasted with the particular Church of Smyrna. Ignatius means by the Catholic Church 'the aggregate of all the Christian congregations' (Swete, Apostles Creed, p. 76). So too the letter of the Church of Smyrna is addressed to all the congregations of the Holy Catholic Church in every place. And this primitive sense of 'universal' the word has never lost, although in the latter part of the second century it began to receive the secondary sense of 'orthodox' as opposed to 'heretical'. Thus it is used in an early Canon of Scripture, the Muratorian fragment (circa 170 A.D.), which refers to certain heretical writings as 'not received in the Catholic Church'. So too Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, says that the Church is called Catholic not only 'because it is spread throughout the world', but also 'because it teaches completely and without defect all the doctrines which ought to come to the knowledge of men'."

Sorry, that won't do. Iggy was only a commentator. You know, one who held an opinion.

 

[brewmama]

Actually, you have it backwards.

Many of the early Christians, like those in Rome, did not fully forsake their pagan ways.

Those that succumbed to return to the worshiping of pagan gods and idols eventually formed the Roman Catholic church.

So, although the RCC does use a Bible, it is deeply distracted by old time pagan fundamentalism.

Wow, such talk about Christians martyred for the faith. It seems way too common here. You should study actual history instead of anti-Catholic lies and propaganda being propagated by bigots. Please open your mind and expand your historical knowledge.

 

[brewmama]

Sorry, that won't do. Iggy was only a commentator. You know, one who held an opinion.

More disrespect, this time for a disciple of the Apostle John and a martyr. If you are going to ignore all historical references and writings, you severely limit yourself, both in being able to mount an argument and in knowing the faith. Why would you want to do that? It's baffling.

 

[Cross Reference]

More disrespect, this time for a disciple of the Apostle John and a martyr. If you are going to ignore all historical references and writings, you severely limit yourself, both in being able to mount an argument and in knowing the faith. Why would you want to do that? It's baffling.

I don't care who was. That, by you, is no more than saying Pope Francis is as well. We all know better, even you.

 

[brewmama]

I don't care who was. That, by you, is no more than saying Pope Francis is as well. We all know better, even you.

What? Who was what? Pope Francis is what?

 

[Cross Reference]

What? Who was what? Pope Francis is what?

You tell me? I may have it all wrong and need to be corrected.

 

[brewmama]

You tell me? I may have it all wrong and need to be corrected.

I dunno. I just posted this,

"More disrespect, this time for a disciple of the Apostle John and a martyr. If you are going to ignore all historical references and writings, you severely limit yourself, both in being able to mount an argument and in knowing the faith. Why would you want to do that? It's baffling."

 

[Cross Reference]

I dunno. I just posted this,

"More disrespect, this time for a disciple of the Apostle John and a martyr. If you are going to ignore all historical references and writings, you severely limit yourself, both in being able to mount an argument and in knowing the faith. Why would you want to do that? It's baffling."

I have no respect for error foisted on an unlearned people easily persuaded by fear of loss of their eternal life. I believe that is what the CC camp is all about, don't you?

 

[brewmama]

I have no respect for error foisted on an unlearned people easily persuaded by fear of loss of their eternal life. I believe that is what the CC camp is all about, don't you?

No, certainly not. (If CC is Catholic Church). You didn't answer my question. Why would you purposely ignore all historical writings and teachings? Of leaders in the Church who knew and learned directly from the Apostles?

 

[Cross Reference]

No, certainly not. (If CC is Catholic Church). You didn't answer my question. Why would you purposely ignore all historical writings and teachings? Of leaders in the Church who knew and learned directly from the Apostles?

#1 you assume too much. However, did they learn from the Apostles?? If true, which ones. 1,2 many or, none? And if you say they learned why would you just assume they did come away having their own opinions after having observed for themselves those whom they followed? In the case of iggy, no disrespect intended, why not simply rely upon the writing of John? You know, his gospel? His letters?

 

[brewmama]

#1 you assume too much. However, did they learn from the Apostles?? If true, which ones. 1,2 many or, none? And if you say they learned why would you just assume they did come away having their own opinions after having observed for themselves those whom they followed? In the case of iggy, no disrespect intended, why not simply rely upon the writing of John? You know, his gospel? His letters?

Of course I do. But why limit yourself, when there is a lot that isn't in there? Letters were sent mainly if there was a problem, not for everyday management, worship, etc.

And of course they learned from the Apostles. All of them. Why do you think they were so adamant about Apostolic Succession? Why do you ignore them all?

 

[oatmeal]

Wow, such talk about Christians martyred for the faith. It seems way too common here. You should study actual history instead of anti-Catholic lies and propaganda being propagated by bigots. Please open your mind and expand your historical knowledge.

Your history is of little value.

Jesus Christ had other priorities.

John 17:17

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Luke 4:4

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luke 4:17-21

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course I do. But why limit yourself, when there is a lot that isn't in there?

But why presume upon what isn't written that by doing so, make up your own account of things?

 

[brewmama]

Your history is of little value.

Jesus Christ had other priorities.

John 17:17

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Luke 4:4

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luke 4:17-21

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Yes, the Apostles and evangelists used the Old Testament to show that Jesus was the Messiah. So? What is it that you think that proves?

 

[brewmama]

But why presume upon what isn't written that by doing so, make up your own account of things?

The whole point of it is that we do NOT make up our own account of things. You do. That is what you are doing. We have the fullness of faith protected by Apostolic Succession.

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book."

""I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.…


"I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready."

You limit yourself. According to the Bible.

 

[Cross Reference]

The whole point of it is that we do NOT make up our own account of things. You do. That is what you are doing. We have the fullness of faith protected by Apostolic Succession.

You have nothing of the sort protecting you. That is just more of your religious doctrine coming through.

How so am I making up anything when it is you who revere the words of opinion above the words of Jesus and original true Apostles or otherwise make Jesus' words to be supportive of your religion?

 

[brewmama]

You have nothing of the sort protecting you. That is just more of your religious doctrine coming through.

How so am I making up anything when it is you who revere the words of opinion above the words of Jesus and original true Apostles or otherwise make Jesus' words to be supportive of your religion?

Because you (not just you) cherry pick certain verses of the bible and make up your own interpretation of them, which does not necessarily agree with other parts of scripture. Is that what you are accusing me of doing? There is no disagreement between Scripture and tradition in my Church, or between some parts of Scripture and others, as there is in yours. I do not revere any opinions over Jesus' or the Apostles' words, again that is you. Why do you think I posted scripture, and why do you ignore it?

 

[Arsenios]

Sorry, that won't do.
Iggy was only a commentator.
You know, one who held an opinion.

So are you and I...

A.

 

[Arsenios]

I don't care who was... (a disciple of Paul.)

Turning holy men into hog swallop seems to be a specialty of the house here...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

In the case of iggy,
no disrespect intended

The Bible does say that it is bad for anyone to br telling lies, yes?

Bp. Ignatius was a martyr for Christ as YOU are called to be IF you are willing to FOLLOW HIM...

Calling him iggy is not beneficial for your soul...

Arsenios