Hello All,

I have read with interest all the post on the thread. My question maybe offpoint and i know I may be called ignorant but please bear with me.

I thought there was a time in the catholic church where members were not allowed to read or be found with the scriptures and people were burnt if caught. (I read it somewhere a long time ago), and even now reading the bible is not mandated or encouraged.

I also read somewhere that it was King james (i don't think he was catholic) that is responsible for the wild spread of the bible by translating it to english,

N.B
I am scared of the response to come. I better take cover.

pilgrim.1:

Tease me more, I'm enjoying this drama. This is classic - to confuse "writer" for your effort is quite enjoyable. Sorry, the authors of the Bible were NOT Catholics. I know you still are at pains to convince (confuse, no?) yourself otherwise and force them to be "Catholics" - even Catholics on Nairaland would be too embarrassed at this piece of drama, but it's good entertainment. Enjoy.

If Peter and Paul were not catholics ,How come thhey founded the catholic curch
It is amazing that for more than 1000 years nobody oposed the statement that the church of rome was founded by Petr and Paul until Martin luther came .Those it mean that all those "true christians" that lived in the first ,second and third and forth centuries could not write to refute the claims of saints Hegessipus,Ireneaus,Ignatius,Clement,Augustine ,Jerome and so many other writers of the first four centuries that Petr and Paul founded the church of Rome.

These early wrers in their writings below made it clear that the roman church was founded by the apostles in this statements

St. Ignatius of Antioch implies that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church.[2] In his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 4) of AD 105-110, he tells the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did."

St. Irenaeus of Lyons stated definitively that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of the St. John the Apostle, which puts Irenaeus not far from the authentic teachings of the Apostles. In c. 175-185, he wrote in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):

"Since, however, 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.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…"

Tertullian also writes: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, by being beheaded)."

Dionysius of Corinth also serves as a witness to the tradition.[2] He wrote: "You (Pope Soter) have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter A.D. 170, in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.

Later tradition, first found in Saint Jerome, attributes to Peter a 25-year episcopate (or apostolate) in Rome.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter


So therefore if Peter and Paul founded the catholic church,they were catholics and it wont be wrong to say that catholics wrote part of the Bible

Not to be Insulting but whoever compiled the bible lacked the intelligence to know they they were collating loads of books that fought with each other!

No need to take cover, Joke. You made good observations. The Catholics were NOT the ones who made the Bible available to us as some would have us believe. In fact, just as you said, their leaders were actually preventing the laity and every one else from having access to the Scriptures. One of the ways this was done was restraining it from being translated to popular languages. Anyone who dared it was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. Why? Because allowing general access to the Scriptures would expose the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who constantly misinterpreted the Scriptures for commercial and other personal reasons. (Read the Foxe's Book of Martyrs - and you'll be shocked at the numerous atrocities perpetrated by these people)

Thank God for the great men and women of old who, despite various attempts by the false teachers to destroy and discredit them, refused to be deterred and secretly translated and distributed the Bible for the masses to read!

What, exactly, is your ailment, Chris? 

@pilgrim.1

I saw all that - which was reason why I repeatedly called your attention to the fact that the claim by Catholics that ALL CHURCHES were part of Catholicism (of 'Catholic Church') is false. If the problem was about criss-crosses in replies between you, myself, tpiah and omenuko, what difference does it make who was making that same claim anyhow?

Pilgrim1, if I may. . . .do you believe Jesus Christ started a Church here on earth whereby we are to be joined with.  If you agree, fine.  If not, why not.  From the Bible one can easily read and comprehend that in Jesus Christ there is one Church, not multiple churches that are independent of one another.  Is the Church that Christ built united or divided?  Why would Christ build a divided Church or churches that develop independently from one another (according to you) with separate doctrine and confusion? 

During the time of the apostles, the ‘Church’ was understood to be one.  In other words, there was one Church.  This Church had different communities across different geographical areas (e.g., the church of/in Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Corinth, etc.), but all communities were part of one Church, one faith, one belief.  All churches (sister communities) were part of the one Church founded by Jesus Christ.  It was not meant for them to develop independently of one another.  As such, periodic councils were called to settle disputes and define theological doctrine so that the community of believers would know what is orthodox and what is heterodox (e.g., the first ecumenical council of Jerusalem, Acts 15).

That's where the problem actually is, and the same thing that has brought us thus far - the claim that "ALL CHURCHES were Catholic before the schism" is unfounded and patently false. Several sources I referenced pointed this out, such as the BBC in brief - and you came back dismissing them for not reading the default false assertion you had hoped they would! Anything that does not read "Catholic" or catholicism to you is illogical, whereas we haven't seen any clues about how strong your 'logic' is to bend those references to say what they do not say.

Let me help in clearing this up.  The Church that Jesus founded was one.  Jesus did not create multiple churches.  As the early church developed and grew there came about a necessity to identify or distinguish this Church from the false churches (pseudo-christians).  From the first century, the christian community called this Church, the Catholic Church.  It was termed Catholic, because only this Church could be found all over (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.).  Only this church held onto correct belief.  As opposed to the heterodox christians that were not.  This 2nd century bishop of Antioch says it better:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment 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 also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Ignatius of Antioch was the bishop of Antioch (not Rome) and readily identifies the term ‘Catholic’ in identification of the Church of Christ.  Furthermore, he encourages the followers of Christ to be in allegiance and in communion with their bishops as Jesus is with the Catholic Church.

1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

I’ll quote from a 4th century bishop on what is meant by the Catholic Church:

The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. [size=15pt]And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church[/size]. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350)

The Roman Catholic Church is but one church within the Catholic Church.  The bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is the bishop of Rome.  Just as there are heads or patriarchs to the different sister churches (e.g., Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.), there is also a head or leader to the Catholic Church, namely the Pope.

2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

Jesus founded one Church.  This Church is located in various geographical regions and cultures.  Although the Church was located in different places, it was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.  There was no such thing as developing independently and separately from one another.  If there was a church that was separated from the Catholic Church it was either because of 1) theological reasons, or 2) Political reasons.  It still stands that all orthodox churches originated from the Church of Christ.  This Church began to be identified as the Catholic Church to distinguish it from other false churches.

3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

I don’t understand your question.  If you are asking, ‘where is the Pope in all this,’ then all you have to do you check the history books.  Peter was the first Pope and follow the direct line of succession.  I think you need to tailor you question more.

4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

Each sister church had administrative jurisdiction over an agreed upon geographical region.  Now, when theological disputes arose, many times the Pope had the final say, at other times a council had the final say (as long as the Pope was in agreement with the council).

gen2genius:

No need to take cover, Joke. You made good observations. The Catholics were NOT the ones who made the Bible available to us as some would have us believe. In fact, just as you said, their leaders were actually preventing the laity and every one else from having access to the Scriptures. One of the ways this was done was restraining it from being translated to popular languages. Anyone who dared it was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. Why? Because allowing general access to the Scriptures would expose the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who constantly misinterpreted the Scriptures for commercial and other personal reasons. (Read the Foxe's Book of Martyrs - and you'll be shocked at the numerous atrocities perpetrated by these people)

Thank God for the great men and women of old who, despite various attempts by the false teachers to destroy and discredit them, refused to be deterred and secretly translated and distributed the Bible for the masses to read!

Source please. . . .thanks

Does the location of where he was writing from make him a pope? You're arguing away from location having anything to do with the papacy, and then asking about the same thing on location as if that has anything to do with being a pope.

Can you not read, and can you not comprehend the english language anymore? If you can't you should go and demand all your school fees back.

I stated that the location doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Peter was Pope, he could be in Nigeria and still be Pope.
I then went on to state "AND EVEN AT THAT" as in even if the location of Rome had anything to do with Peter being Pope he would still be Pope because he is shown as being in Rome because he wrote 1&2 Peter from Rome.

Take the time to read, or do I have to break it down for ya?

How does your hasty illogical ranting address your own claim? Reading what the quotes say precisely is one thing, trying to bend it to be Catholic by default is quite another thing. I haven't seen the dots connected in yours and it would be of great help to yourself to bring it forth

This is only your opinion, there are those who would disagree with you, and as such your opinion is extrememly irrelevant. Keep that in mind as you reply to me.

I was open minded, sad you closed your mind and tried to bend everything you read back to catholicism. Being open minded is the reason why people engage in a discussion, not the other way round as you supposed.

Keep deluding yourself, others have pointed it out to you. Maybe you should start paying attention. You think because you engage in a discussion it means you're open minded, if that's the case doesn't me obliging to discuss with you make me open minded and therefore put a hole in your point?

Girl go and learn what open minded means, because someone does not agree with you does not make them close minded.

That's okay - and up until now NO CATHOLIC has come forward to show anywhere that the writers of the Bible were Catholics. NONE. Even Catholic sources do not make such an otiose claim

Actually we have, if you'd actually taken the time to read what I wrote earlier, I believe on page 2 instead of confusing me and Omenuko you would have seen that I provided proof of it.
We've stated continuously that there are documents from the early christians calling the church and its members Catholic, and those documents date as far back as 99AD. Infact one of those who called the Church Catholic was a disciple of St. John and the successor of Peter in Antioch. Do some search and you will find it.

That's not my problem - we were all having a fine discussion until you came in with your noise.

It became your problem when you decided to confuse me and Omenuko. I didn't make any noise, I made statements and backed it up, and you decided to talk about something completely different.

That's where the problem actually is, and the same thing that has brought us thus far - the claim that "ALL CHURCHES were Catholic before the schism" is unfounded and patently false. Several sources I referenced pointed this out, such as the BBC in brief - and you came back dismissing them for not reading the default false assertion you had hoped they would! Anything that does not read "Catholic" or catholicism to you is illogical, whereas we haven't seen any clues about how strong your 'logic' is to bend those references to say what they do not say.

For this reason, I left a couple of questions to help sort this issue out for Catholics on Nairaland, viz:

    1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

    2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

    3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

    4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

WHY are Catholics on this forum shying away from these questions? Where do we find "Catholicism" in ALL CHURCHES from the very start?

If you may, please offer some answers or pointers and let's discuss - it doesn't matter what logic you claim, just address them and let's sort these misadventures out for many Catholics on this forum.

Cheers.

Ok I've already shown this to you, even though you choose to turn a blind eye to it, I even used the source YOU provided to prove that the Church YOU were talking about was indeed Catholic at one point. It's amazing how you completely missed it.

But I will oblige again and answer your questions AGAIN.

1. The Catholic Church is what it is today. The Universal Church. Catholic meaning Universal, all Christians meaning Universal. But Catholic isn't the name of the Church Christ founded, Catholic is a description and it remains today one of the descriptions of the Church contrary to what non-catholics believe. It is called Catholic today because there are divisions, but let it be known that among those you call Catholic when we are together we call ourselves THE CHURCH. Because we know Christ did not found a division of Churches but one church.

To better understand this, one also has to understand the other descriptions of the Church, the Church is not only Catholic, She is also ONE, HOLY, and APOSTOLIC.
The Church is ONE because she is united all over the world with One belief, in this belief all her members are United as Christ prayed that His Church be in Unity. We are United by our communion together at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no matter where we are in the world we are all connected, and when one suffers we all suffer. When one sins we all are wounded by that sin. This is clearly evident by the scandals that have rocked the Church by individual member's actions. The rest of us have suffered because of the actions of a few.

The Church is HOLY, because she is the body of Christ and because he is Holy, his body will also be Holy. Thus she is infallible, because he is infallible. This however does not mean that the individual members are infallible or without sin. But it means that because the Church is Holy she cannot teach error on matters of faith and error, and she has never taught error on matters of faith and morals.

The Church is APOSTOLIC, as evident in the Bible the handing on of the faith was done by the apostles, and Jesus gave his authority to his apostles and gave them the power to baptise, to preach the gospel, to heal, to forgive, and to offer his body and blood as a sacrifice when he established the Priesthood at the Last Supper.

So the Church that was founded by Christ is the same one as we have today called the Catholic Church.

The only ones that see the Catholic Church as anything different from the Early Churches are those who are non-catholics, this does not include the schismatics as they also have valid sacraments, they too are catholics and it is just our leaders that are taking too much time uniting us again.

2. They were part of one Church or what you know as the Catholic Church today, because there was only One Church with the same beliefs. During councils all leaders of the churches (antioch, jerusalem, rome, greece, egypt, ethiopia, etc) met to handle heretics. Therefore by their presence in these councils they were a part of the Catholic Church because they were still in union with the Bishop of Rome. There was never a dispute that Peter is Pope, there was never a dispute that he was the leader of the apostles, there was however dispute on the power of the Bishop of Rome, Rome erred and so did those who chose to leave the Church with the exception of the Maronites, they claim that they were never out of union with the Bishop of Rome. Most of the problems that arose came from definitions of theology, quite frankly when you look at it today they are all saying the same thing with different words, and that's what brought the east and the west together in recent times. Those who refused to come in union with the Bishop are still very hurt from the fighting that existed between the east and the west.
Why is it that the Catholic Church as you know it today still claims to be the true church?
Because Christ promised to lead his Church into All truth, to say that the Catholic Church today isn't the true church is to say that Christ never kept to his promise.

Or if one were to say that the Catholic Church today isn't the same as the Catholic Church then, it is up to the person making that claim to prove that assertion. Proof will have to be provided on the beliefs of the early christians and compare it to the beliefs of the Catholic Church today and tell us the difference.

3. The papacy has always existed. Maybe I should allow you to do some research on these churches first so that you can formulate a well informed "question" If infact you look at the churches that have existed from the apostles you will see that there is a papacy, and even for those who are not in union with the Bishop of Rome, they also name for themselves a Pope. For example Pope Shenouda of Alexandria, I have provided a link on him take your time and read through the website. Tell me what the difference is with the Pope in Rome. You can definitely do some more research on it. As it is too broad for me to place here.

http://www.copticpope.org/

4. The Bishops of each Church had jurisdiction over each other, just as the Bishops of each Doicese in the Latin Rite has jurisdiction over his own diocese, the Bishop of Rome is what we'd call the first among equals. Personally I don't think that explains it well, but to be straight to the point, the Bishop of Rome has the final say on matters for the whole Church, both east and west, but each individual Bishop has his own authority in his own diocese.

Hope that helps a lot

~Lady~:

This is only your opinion, there are those who would disagree with you, and as such your opinion is extrememly irrelevant. Keep that in mind as you reply to me.

You didn't realize it was merely your opinion you were hastily replying to and yet mixing up issues for yourself, no? You should always bear that in mind, as the several times I appealed for calm and resolve simply went overboard.

~Lady~:

Can you not read, and can you not comprehend the english language anymore? If you can't you should go and demand all your school fees back.

I stated that the location doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Peter was Pope, he could be in Nigeria and still be Pope.
I then went on to state "AND EVEN AT THAT" as in even if the location of Rome had anything to do with Peter being Pope he would still be Pope because he is shown as being in Rome because he wrote 1&2 Peter from Rome.

Take the time to read, or do I have to break it down for ya?

How has that said anything between location and being a pope?

Chrisbenogor:

Not to be Insulting but whoever compiled the bible lacked the intelligence to know they they were collating loads of books that fought with each other!

That happens when more than one guy compiles or write a book. The bible struggles with continuity at times.

To me, the Catholic Church is in the same box as the church of morons. I dont consider them Christianity

@Omenuko,

Omenuko:

@pilgrim.1

Pilgrim1, if I may. . . .

Yes, you may - I could endure a conversation any day with someone who able to engage in one.

Omenuko:

do you believe Jesus Christ started a Church here on earth whereby we are to be joined with.  If you agree, fine.  If not, why not.  From the Bible one can easily read and comprehend that in Jesus Christ there is one Church, not multiple churches that are independent of one another.  Is the Church that Christ built united or divided?  Why would Christ build a divided Church or churches that develop independently from one another (according to you) with separate doctrine and confusion?

I believe the Lord Jesus Christ started a Church - the same which is known as the Body of Christ. What is antithetical to this is the idea that the said Body of Christ has anything to do with Catholicisim. That was why I asked a few questions earlier in the previous page to sort this issue out. I haven't seen any Catholic come forward to discuss them.

Omenuko:

During the time of the apostles, the ‘Church’ was understood to be one.  In other words, there was one Church.  This Church had different communities across different geographical areas (e.g., the church of/in Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Corinth, etc.), but all communities were part of one Church, one faith, one belief.  All churches (sister communities) were part of the one Church founded by Jesus Christ.  It was not meant for them to develop independently of one another.  As such, periodic councils were called to settle disputes and define theological doctrine so that the community of believers would know what is orthodox and what is heterodox (e.g., the first ecumenical council of Jerusalem, Acts 15).

Well said.

Omenuko:

Let me help in clearing this up.  The Church that Jesus founded was one.  Jesus did not create multiple churches.  As the early church developed and grew there came about a necessity to identify or distinguish this Church from the false churches (pseudo-christians).  From the first century, the christian community called this Church, the Catholic Church.  It was termed Catholic, because only this Church could be found all over (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.).  Only this church held onto correct belief.  As opposed to the heterodox christians that were not.  This 2nd century bishop of Antioch says it better:

I'm sorry, many Catholics here and elsewhere are the ones confusing "[b]c[/b]atholic" for "[b]C[/b]atholic" - and that was why I have repeatedly quoted faith69's allusion to bend this to mean 'Roman Catholic', and therefore asked Catholics on Nairaland to sort out this issue for themselves. The term 'catholic' was not used as a denominational title such as we have the 'Catholic Church' referring to the Roman Catholic institution - that is where the problem is, and until this is sorted, I'm afraid Catholics will continue to wave that weak excuse endlessly around.

Omenuko:

Ignatius of Antioch was the bishop of Antioch (not Rome) and readily identifies the term ‘Catholic’ in identification of the Church of Christ.  Furthermore, he encourages the followers of Christ to be in allegiance and in communion with their bishops as Jesus is with the Catholic Church.

Ignatius did not identify the term 'catholic' to the Church in the sense that Catholics do today.

Omenuko:

I’ll quote from a 4th century bishop on what is meant by the Catholic Church:

The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350)

The Body of Christ among the apostles did not give the Church any such names - A. D. 350 is far removed from the apostles - and is it any wonder that we don't find any such terms ('catholic') so plastered as a NAME of any church in the BIBLE? Men who come later and claiming all sorts are not authority when they claim things which they nowhere can substantiate in Scripture. So much for Cyril to claim that it was called this and that - whereas the apostles nowhere made such a claim anywhere. NONE.

Omenuko:

The Roman Catholic Church is but one church within the Catholic Church.  The bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is the bishop of Rome.  Just as there are heads or patriarchs to the different sister churches (e.g., Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.), there is also a head or leader to the Catholic Church, namely the Pope.

Thank you, Omenuko - that was precisely what I've been asking catholics to sort out. Now can you see why your inital assertion was unbalanced and why I appreciate you coming back to contextualize it on the previous page? And can you see why I deliberately asked those questions and repeatedly quoted faith69's assertion as to how Catholics are mixing issues up for themselves?

Omenuko:

Jesus founded one Church.  This Church is located in various geographical regions and cultures.  Although the Church was located in different places, it was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Apt.

Omenuko:

There was no such thing as developing independently and separately from one another.  If there was a church that was separated from the Catholic Church it was either because of 1) theological reasons, or 2) Political reasons.  It still stands that all orthodox churches originated from the Church of Christ.  This Church began to be identified as the Catholic Church to distinguish it from other false churches.

Two things here:

(a) The 'Catholic Church'  with the papacy could be taken from yours to mean that it did not start as that denomination from the onset - I take this from the highlighted words ("began to be";

(b) there were churches that developed independently from other churches yet had fellowship one with another as far as keeping the faith was concerned. The Church as the Body of Christ was 'catholic' in the sense of its being 'universal' across geography and time - that is a different thing from its being 'Catholic' as an institution.

Omenuko:

I don’t understand your question.  If you are asking, ‘where is the Pope in all this,’ then all you have to do you check the history books.  Peter was the first Pope and follow the direct line of succession.  I think you need to tailor you question more.

Oh c'omon, Omenuko. We know that Peter was no Pope anywhere - it is the institution of the Papacy that tried to make Peter its "pope". Biblical and apostolic Christianity knows nothing of the papacy in Catholicism, and the claim that Peter was the first Pope is as false as the many unsubstantiated claims of the Vatican.

Omenuko:

Each sister church had administrative jurisdiction over an agreed upon geographical region.  Now, when theological disputes arose, many times the Pope had the final say, at other times a council had the final say (as long as the Pope was in agreement with the council).

Take the example of Acts 15 for such a council - who was the "pope" there that was presiding over the meeting and had the last say?

ThiefOfHearts:

To me, the Catholic Church is in the same box as the church of morons. I dont consider them Christianity

lol what about jehovah witnesses?

@pilgrim1.

Thanks for trying your best to enlighthen them. I must confess that i can be very playful at times even to the extremes of blatant flirting and at times i can be very serious to the point of keeping people at a distance. Hence the truth is that I can't stand repititive posts that keep recycling the same questions and answers. I easily get bored of doing the same thing over and over again, hence why i sometimes go missing on the religious thread cus i don't really see myself answering the same questions without the people even acknowleding or considering a single line of the answers.
Its almost like most people already have their minds made up based on wat they have been taught rather than studying to show themselves approved.


@lady

1. Notice that i never called you an idiot hence i was suprised that you accuse me of doing so.

2. I actually decided to be friendly and build on out past interactions on this nairaland, hence to say i am suprised by your vitriol would be an understatement. I tut you and I would have come around to have an understanding of being polite and cordial. Even KAG seems to be the most cordial and polite person to discuss with on NL out of atheists, catholics and muslims, despite that we both had a little bit of brief history.

3. If you take time to notice my posts, you would notice that they are based on scriptures and have answers in the scriptures.

4. Once again let me repeat, there is no central church according to the bible. Even the Messiah Himself made this obvious wen he refered to the 7 churches in the book of revelation. He never called any of the churches by the name "catholic". No where in the bible do you find where the bible says whether or not the Messiah created a so called Catholic Church.

5. There is only one Spiritual Church (aka the bride of the Messiah aka the body of the Messiah).

6. There is no central physical church, hence why the Messiah himself refered to separate physical churches in the book of revelation.

8. The catholic church was created out of amalgamation of socio-political manenours and not from scriptures.

9. I would be grateful for you to please respond to my previous posts line by line using the Bible alone. I do not reckon with any other source apart from the bible.


Thank you.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

If Peter and Paul were not catholics ,How come thhey founded the catholic curch

Where did they tell you that they founded any church and plastered the name "Catholic" on it?

There's something you have forever been missing out on: the term 'catholic' [lower case 'c'] is not to be confused for the 'Catholic church' with the system of the papacy. You would have to decide which of the two between Paul and Peter assumed a papacy in any church they founded - and show this from their own epistles.

chukwudi44:

It is amazing that for more than 1000 years nobody oposed the statement that the church of rome was founded by Petr and Paul until Martin luther came .Those it mean that all those "true christians" that lived in the first ,second and third and forth centuries could not write to refute the claims of saints Hegessipus,Ireneaus,Ignatius,Clement,Augustine ,Jerome and so many other writers of the first four centuries that Petr and Paul founded the church of Rome.

Lol, are we to take that as a comic relief? I can't understand who exactly you're promoting as the founders of the church of Rome - make up your mind: was it Peter or Paul?

The kind of assertions you make as the above is borne out of tradition, not out of a balanced and fair reading of the epistles from the pens of the apostles themselves. Read Paul's epistle to the Romans - did he inidcate that he went there to found the Church there together with Peter? When? Where? How?

Indeed, there were many different expressions of the faith between the first and fourth centuries - and many of these Christians were concerned to see Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:29-30 being fulfilled before their very eyes, and that was partly why they held councils to sort out heresies. Is it not queer that the Roman Catholic church had sought to discredit some of those who refuted her heresies? Where and when did Mariolatry begin - from the first century apostles? Where did the many peculiar doctrines of Catholicism emerge that have found no expression from Scripture - did they begin with the apostles?

chukwudi44:

So therefore if Peter and Paul founded the catholic church,they were catholics and it wont be wrong to say that catholics wrote part of the Bible

I understand you; however, what do you understand by the term 'catholic' before assuming to plaster that title on the apostles? Until you sort that out, you will still have problems grasping this simple matter. Has it ever occured to you that no single individual was referred to as 'catholic' in discourses of the first century church history? WHY?

pilgrim.1:

@Omenuko,

Oh c'omon, Omenuko. We know that Peter was no Pope anywhere - it is the institution of the Papacy that tried to make Peter its "pope". Biblical and apostolic Christianity knows nothing of the papacy in Catholicism, and the claim that Peter was the first Pope is as false as the many unsubstantiated claims of the Vatican.

Take the example of Acts 15 for such a council - who was the "pope" there that was presiding over the meeting and had the last say?

1. The biblical time period makes it impossible for Peter to be a Pope.

2. There is no scripture showing that Peter was ever a Pope.

3. Also the biblical time period makes it impossible for Paul to be a Pope.

4. Also there is no scripture showing that Paul was ever a Pope.

5. The only evidence that Peter was claimed to be a Pope is evidences that can be traced back to the catholic church itself. its almost like asking an armed robber to submit his own statement as evidence that was he/she is saying is true. How they don't see this is really astounding for even me to comprehend.


Hence i must confess that it really worries me and tires me and perplexes me that some catholics simply do not see that their claiming that Peter or Paul were Popes is as completely false and baseless as saying Moses was the first muslim. There is absolutely no correlation or connection between Peter and the rise of the so called Papacy in the Roman Catholic Church.

@No2Atheism,

No2Atheism:

@pilgrim1.

Thanks for trying your best to enlighthen them. I must confess that i can be very playful at times even to the extremes of blatant flirting and at times i can be very serious to the point of keeping people at a distance. Hence the truth is that I can't stand repititive posts that keep recycling the same questions and answers. I easily get bored of doing the same thing over and over again, hence why i sometimes go missing on the religious thread cus i don't really see myself answering the same questions without the people even acknowleding or considering a single line of the answers.
Its almost like most people already have their minds made up based on wat they have been taught rather than studying to show themselves approved.

The thing tire me sometimes, but it's okay. . because the one thing one could do to help them is perhaps to endure meaningless repetitions even when they're saying absolutely nothing. All this ojoro wey dem dey play since is what amazes me - anything that does not square with Catholicism must by heresy, but whatever answers to Catholicism (whether wrong or outright false) is "perfect logic".

No2Atheism:

Hence i must confess that it really worries me and tires me and perplexes me that some catholics simply do not see that their claiming that Peter or Paul were Popes is as completely false and baseless as saying Moses was the first muslim. There is absolutely no correlation or connection between Peter and the rise of the so called Papacy in the Roman Catholic Church.

Lol, which was why I would just like them to make up their minds.

Anyhow, I admire your resolve to outline issues and point back to Scripture for your own replies. Cheers.

"Source please. . . .thanks"

Come on buddy, do you really need a source? Are you saying the things I mentioned are new to you

I'm sorry, many Catholics here and elsewhere are the ones confusing "catholic" for "Catholic" - and that was why I have repeatedly quoted faith69's allusion to bend this to mean 'Roman Catholic', and therefore asked Catholics on Nairaland to sort out this issue for themselves. The term 'catholic' was not used as a denominational title such as we have the 'Catholic Church' referring to the Roman Catholic institution - that is where the problem is, and until this is sorted, I'm afraid Catholics will continue to wave that weak excuse endlessly around.

Oh yeah, well can you interpret the below quotes for me.  Give me you understanding of what these bishops mean when they refer to the Church of Christ as the 'Catholic Church'.  Because, the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today.  It is not only and adjective (describing a noun) it is also used as a pronoun, as in the actual name of the their Church.

"All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and [size=15pt]bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna[/size]. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline, one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size], But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size] possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the [size=15pt]doctrine of the Catholic Church[/size], in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

Ignatius did not identify the term 'catholic' to the Church in the sense that Catholics do today.

The way Ignatius uses the term 'catholic' is the exact same way the Catholic Church today uses the term.

"The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."  Catechism of the Catholic Church, 312.

The Body of Christ among the apostles did not give the Church any such names - A. D. 350 is far removed from the apostles - and is it any wonder that we don't find any such terms ('catholic') so plastered as a NAME of any church in the BIBLE? Men who come later and claiming all sorts are not authority when they claim things which they nowhere can substantiate in Scripture. So much for Cyril to claim that it was called this and that - whereas the apostles nowhere made such a claim anywhere. NONE.

See above quotes. . . .

Thank you, Omenuko - that was precisely what I've been asking catholics to sort out. Now can you see why your inital assertion was unbalanced and why I appreciate you coming back to contextualize it on the previous page? And can you see why I deliberately asked those questions and repeatedly quoted faith69's assertion as to how Catholics are mixing issues up for themselves?

Your welcome . . .I respect your opinion and understanding of what you believe the Church of Christ is, but it is not the historical (meaning 1st and 2nd century christians) understanding of what constitutes the Church of Christ.

Two things here:

(a) The 'Catholic Church'  with the papacy could be taken from yours to mean that it did not start as that denomination from the onset - I take this from the highlighted words ("began to be";

No, the 'Catholic Church' to me is that very same Church that Jesus founded.  Just because the early christians (starting from the 1st century) began to identify that same church as the 'Catholic Church', does not mean it changed its name or a new denomination was formed.  The Catholic Church is the nomination.  All other churches are denominations.

(b) there were churches that developed independently from other churches yet had fellowship one with another as far as keeping the faith was concerned. The Church as the Body of Christ was 'catholic' in the sense of its being 'universal' across geography and time - that is a different thing from its being 'Catholic' as an institution.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fellowship.'  The churches that were in communion with one an other were part of the same Church.  Those that separated themselves from the Catholic Church were identified as being heterodox.  In addition to the Catholic Church being universal, it had one belief, one doctrine, and one faith.  Like I posted earlier, the Catholic Church today is comprised of many different churches and cultures.  All churches have there own adminstrative functions.  But, if ever there was any theological dispute the Pope would step in.

Take the example of Acts 15 for such a council - who was the "pope" there that was presiding over the meeting and had the last say?

The Pope was Peter and he was in agreement with the decision of that council.  He is the one that gave his testimony to not forcing the gentiles to perform Jewish rites.  The Pope does not have to preside over a council.  There are many ecumenical councils that the Pope did not attend.  He does not have preside over a council for him to be in agreement. I guess I don't understand your reasoning in the above qoute.

Omenuko:

Oh yeah, well can you interpret the below quotes for me.  Give me you understanding of what these bishops mean when they refer to the Church of Christ as the 'Catholic Church'.  Because, the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today.  It is not only and adjective (describing a noun) it is also used as a pronoun, as in the actual name of the their Church.

"All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and [size=15pt]bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna[/size]. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline, one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size], But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size] possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the [size=15pt]doctrine of the Catholic Church[/size], in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

The way Ignatius uses the term 'catholic' is the exact same way the Catholic Church today uses the term.

"The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."  Catechism of the Catholic Church, 312.

See above quotes. . . .

Your welcome . . .I respect your opinion and understanding of what you believe the Church of Christ is, but it is not the historical (meaning 1st and 2nd century christians) understanding of what constitutes the Church of Christ.

No, the 'Catholic Church' to me is that very same Church that Jesus founded.  Just because the early christians (starting from the 1st century) began to identify that same church as the 'Catholic Church', does not mean it changed its name or a new denomination was formed.  The Catholic Church is the nomination.  All other churches are denominations.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fellowship.'  The churches that were in communion with one an other were part of the same Church.  Those that separated themselves from the Catholic Church were identified as being heterodox.  In addition to the Catholic Church being universal, it had one belief, one doctrine, and one faith.  Like I posted earlier, the Catholic Church today is comprised of many different churches and cultures.  All churches have there own adminstrative functions.  But, if ever there was any theological dispute the Pope would step in.

The Pope was Peter and he was in agreement with the decision of that council.  He is the one that gave his testimony to not forcing the gentiles to perform Jewish rites.  The Pope does not have to preside over a council.  There are many ecumenical councils that the Pope did not attend.  He does not have preside over a council for him to be in agreement.  I guess I don't understand your reasoning in the above qoute.

1. Don't you think there is a problem with your responses when not one of your responses is based on the Bible, but instead are based on questionable catholic church material.

2. Please give us your definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

3. Is there a different between the words Roman Catholic [/i]and [i]catholic

4. What is the relationship between your definition and the present day Roman Catholic church.

5. Show via the bible:
  - When the Catholic church started.
- When the Roman Catholic church started.
  - How Peter became a Pope.
  - When Peter became a Pope.

@Omenuko,

No vex, abeg indulge me again. Let me point out something from a line in your reply:

Omenuko:

And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350)

Before I go on, let me quote from ~Lady~

~Lady~:

1. The Catholic Church is what it is today. The Universal Church. Catholic meaning Universal, all Christians meaning Universal. But Catholic isn't the name of the Church Christ founded, Catholic is a description and it remains today one of the descriptions of the Church contrary to what non-catholics believe.

The point is that 'Catholic' was NOT a name of any church or even the Church founded by Christ. The term 'catholic' today is used as a denominational appellation to describe the system headed by the Papacy; yet, that was not what we find in the work of the apostles at any time. Men who came much later may make a lot of claims here and there - such as Cyril of Jerusalem in your quote; but where did Cyril get the idea that 'Catholic' was the "peculiar name" of the Church Christ brought into existence?

Second, anyone quoting Cyril as above to buttress anything in this regard is playing a queer game. Nowhere did the apostles teach such a thing as that the Church is "the mother of us all". That appellation ('the mother of us all') is found in Galatians 4:26 and describes "Jerusalem which is above" and not the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, composed of every born-again Christian throughout the history of Redemption in Christ, and is itself prophetically the bride of Christ.

So, dear Omenuko, how could we as the Church be at the same time our own mother to be called 'the mother of us all'? This is why when we quote so-called church fathers, we ought to put on our thinking caps and not just swallow whatever they say hook-line-and-sinker. Cyril of Jerusalem got it wrong there, and his false statement is still false long after his death! If the best that any Catholic can do is reharsh such fallacies in abject disregard of the teachings of the apostles, we no longer have to wonder why Catholics just swallow anything even when it is patently false and yet cannot be able to buttress such claims from Scripture.


However, I shall take the time to make some outline as to the distinction between 'catholic' and 'Catholic'. The Church founded by Christ has nothing to do with the Romish Papacy - absolutely nothing. It does not matter how many so-called church fathers have made unsubstantiated claims in abject denial and contradiction to apostolic teaching - whatever such claims may be, where they are false, nothing can be waved as cosmetic to cover them: they are quite simply FALSE. Cyril didn't get everything wrong; but that line in your quote supposedly ascribed to him is patently false - 'Catholic' was never appended as a "peculiar name" to the Church (the Body of Christ).

1. Don't you think there is a problem with your responses when not one of your responses is based on the Bible, but instead are based on questionable catholic church material.

No

2. Please give us your definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Christ in Rome.

3. Is there a different between the words Roman Catholic and catholic

The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.  Catholic means universal (roughly translated).

4. What is the relationship between your definition and the present day Roman Catholic church.

Like I said, the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.

5. Show via the bible:
 - When the Catholic church stated.
 - How Peter became a Pope.
 - When Peter became a Pope.

Sorry, I don't practice 'sola scriptura'. . . .which is unbiblical by the way.

Omenuko:

No

You ought to be, because it shows that you are exalting human words above the Creator's words.
You ougth to be, because it shows that you are implementing wat is known as circular reasoning; in that you are using catholic oriented sources to justify questionable catholic statements.
You ought to be, because Logic dictates that an independent source that is guaranteed not to lie is the only means of truly finding out the truth.
you ought to be, because the Bible is that truly independent source.

Omenuko:

The Church of Christ in Rome.

Omenuko:

The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.  Catholic means universal (roughly translated).

Omenuko:

Like I said, the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.

1. Please wat is the difference between the "Church of Christ in Rome" and the "Catholic Church in Rome".

2. How come you do not see the contradiction between claiming something is universal and was not even the first church, considering that no where in the Bible does it say or show that there was ever a universal church in Rome.

3. Please can you please clarify your usage of the word Catholic, since you are using interchanging between the meanings "roman's universal church" or "everybody's universal church in Rome"

Omenuko:

Sorry, I don't practice 'sola scriptura'. . . .which is unbiblical by the way.

1. So what is your basis of salvation and how are u sure of your salvation.

2. How is it unbiblical if you choose not practise "sola scriptura" or are u not intending to say it is un-sola-scriptura because u do not practise sola-scriptura

Omenuko:

2. Please give us your definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Christ in Rome.

Okay.

Omenuko:

3. Is there a different between the words Roman Catholic and catholic

The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.  Catholic means universal (roughly translated).

It's good to know you see things this way; even so, it is quite another thing how Catholics use the term 'catholic' when speaking about the Church (the Body of Christ). Many times, Catholics use that term as if it speaks about their own denomination with the papacy - and that is what needs to be addressed.

Omenuko:

4. What is the relationship between your definition and the present day Roman Catholic church.

Like I said, the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.

Here again is a misnomer: you cannot make something UNIVERSAL to be constrained to just a limited location! Rome is NOT a universal location, so what's this talk about 'Catholic Church' in Rome? It sounds really weak and quite confused for anyone to use the term in quite that fashion, which is the huge mistake many people have made and continue to perpetrate to this hour. Any wonder then why the idea that "Catholic" was the "name" of the Church cannot be soundly defended by those who make such claims?

Omenuko:

5. Show via the bible:
 - When the Catholic church stated.
 - How Peter became a Pope.
 - When Peter became a Pope.

Sorry, I don't practice 'sola scriptura'. . . .which is unbiblical by the way.

That's quite suspicious - Catholics who claim to have the faith and also that they gave the Bible to the world are the same people who cannot point to the same Bible for what they affirm? That's seriously defective; but you have your right to what you practise. The simple thing is that you're demonstrating that non-Catholics cannot take the Catholic Church (denomination) any seriously - it does not surprise anyone that Catholicism did not begin with the apostles.

No2Atheism:

2. How come you do not see the contradiction between claiming something is universal and was not even the first church, considering that no where in the Bible does it say or show that there was ever a universal church in Rome.

Ah, you have put it even more soundly than I could manage. I was wondering about the same thing: how does the term 'universal' apply to a small region?   Just because some people (so-called church fathers) make all sorts of pretentious claims to make it so does not mean they got it right! Nor were they able to logically make their deductions from any teaching of the apostles. Cyril of Jerusalem is not alone in making unfounded statements about this; but the interesting thing is that his statement is patently false - and those repeatedly quoting such vacuous statements are perpetuating such false ideas.

pilgrim.1:

Ah, you have put it even more soundly than I could manage. I was wondering about the same thing: how does the term 'universal' apply to a small region?   Just because some people (so-called church fathers) make all sorts of pretentious claims to make it so does not mean they got it right! Nor were they able to logically make their deductions from any teaching of the apostles. Cyril of Jerusalem is not alone in making unfounded statements about this; but the interesting thing is that his statement is patently false - and those repeatedly quoting such vacuous statements are perpetuating such false ideas.

thank u jare

@Omenuko,

I didn't ignore your reply [here - post #147]; but as I didn't want to drag on and on to lengthy posts, I made this reply [here - post #149] to capture the essence of your you had stated:

Omenuko:

Oh yeah, well can you interpret the below quotes for me. Give me you understanding of what these bishops mean when they refer to the Church of Christ as the 'Catholic Church'. Because, the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today. It is not only and adjective (describing a noun) it is also used as a pronoun, as in the actual name of the their Church.

Using 'Catholic' as the actual name of any church was dubious - which was why I explained by using the example of Cyril of Jerusalem in your earlier quote. When we quote someone, we ought to be careful to think for ourselves and not just swallow anything and everything they assert just because they said so. Many of the quotes of the so-called 'church fathers' have been demonstrated to be quite naive and far removed from Biblical Christianity - in some cases, one wonders whether such quotes were deliberately made to perpetuate great heresies with Romish authoirty, as in this quote from chukwudi44:

[list]

chukwudi44:

Tertullian also writes: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, by being beheaded)."

[/list]

Bottomline is that no Christian church was named "Catholic" by any of the apostles anywhere. Even among those who used it to falsely claim that it was the name of the Church, one wonders what kind of ojoro they were waving in people's faces to name a local church with a 'universal' term. How could someone be speaking of the "Catholic Church which is in Smyrna", as if Smyrna was larger than a small locality?

Or, how do you explain the assertion in your quote "the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome", as if Rome was the 'universe' and larger than its locality? Remember, you had stated that: "the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today." In other words, the Catholic Church uses the term 'Catholic' today to speak of a system of the papacy with its seat in Rome, no? This was one reason why I repeatedly quoted faith69 -

[list]

faith69:

sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

[/list]

Or, how else does this differ from the fact that many people TODAY understand the term 'Catholic Church' in reference to Roman Catholicism? Were the apostles going about with the stretched and unfounded system of Romish papacy and Catholicism as their message?

One should not just believe everything gullibly, especially where what these so-called church fathers make statements which have no bearing whatsoever on what the apostles taught.

@piligrim.1

Using 'Catholic' as the actual name of any church was dubious - which was why I explained by using the example of Cyril of Jerusalem in your earlier quote. When we quote someone, we ought to be careful to think for ourselves and not just swallow anything and everything they assert just because they said so. Many of the quotes of the so-called 'church fathers' have been demonstrated to be quite naive and far removed from Biblical Christianity - in some cases, one wonders whether such quotes were deliberately made to perpetuate great heresies with Romish authoirty, as in this quote from chukwudi44:

Ok, so let me undstand you clearly.  You (pilgrim.1) are asserting that Cyril of Jerusalem (a bishop) was being dubious and far removed from the Bible for using the term 'Catholic' as a title for the Church of Christ, is that right?  You go on to use this quote to buttress your point to negate chukwudi44's quote where it states that Rome has some form of authority (see below). 

Tertullian also writes: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, by being beheaded)."

You go on to say:

Bottomline is that no Christian church was named "Catholic" by any of the apostles anywhere. Even among those who used it to falsely claim that it was the name of the Church, one wonders what kind of ojoro they were waving in people's faces to name a local church with a 'universal' term. How could someone be speaking of the "Catholic Church which is in Smyrna", as if Smyrna was larger than a small locality?

And dismiss the writings of 1st century bishops because you believe they were on "ojoro" (whatever that is) and state your unbelief in their subscribing the term 'Catholic' to a particle Church in Smyrna. 

You ask:

Or, how do you explain the assertion in your quote "the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome", as if Rome was the 'universe' and larger than its locality? Remember, you had stated that: "the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today." In other words, the Catholic Church uses the term 'Catholic' today to speak of a system of the papacy with its seat in Rome, no? This was one reason why I repeatedly quoted faith69 -

In addition, you ask:

Or, how else does this differ from the fact that many people TODAY understand the term 'Catholic Church' in reference to Roman Catholicism? Were the apostles going about with the stretched and unfounded system of Romish papacy and Catholicism as their message?

I clearly can't tell if you are reading what we are posting.  This whole discussion started because someone made a silly comment about not following the Catholic Church, because yadda yadda yadda. . . .Catholics entered, and stated that the guy must be a hyprocit (or maybe ignorant) because the Bible he is using to castigate the Catholic Church was compiled, safeguarded, and distrubted by that same Church, the Catholic Church.  Not even you, pilgrim.1, can deny this.  All you have to do is check your history books (Catholic and non-catholic). 

Some one then stated something to the effect of, the Catholic Church wrote the Bible (I'm sure the person probably meant New Testament).  This was countered.  Both sides to that argument have valid points.  It was further stated that all churches came from the Catholic Church or put differently, the Catholic Church is the mother of all Churches.  It seemed like you, pilgrim.1, assumed that the term 'Catholic Church' meant Roman Catholic Church.  Well, Lady corrected you a while back and posted all of the churches within the Catholic Church (see list below): 

[size=15pt]Latin/Roman Catholic Church[/size] (over 1 billion members)
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Cairo, (163,849), Egypt (1741)
Ethiopian Catholic Church[1] (metropolia): Addis Ababa, (208,093), Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
Maronite Church[2] (patriarchate): Bkerke, (3,105,278), Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syriac Catholic Church[3] (patriarchate): Beirut,(131,692), Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church[4] (major archiepiscopate): Trivandrum, (412,640), India, United States (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church[5] (patriarchate): Beirut, (375,182), Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church[6] (patriarchate): Baghdad, (418,194), Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
Syro-Malabar Church[7] (major archiepiscopate): Ernakulam, (3,902,089), India, Middle East, Europe and America (date disputed)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (3,510), Albania (1628)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (10,000), Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church[8] (apostolic exarchate): Sofia,(10,107), Bulgaria (1861)
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci[9] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Križevci, Ruski Krstur (21,480) + (22,653), Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church[10] (two apostolic exarchates): Athens, (2,325), Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church[11] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Nyiregyháza, (290,000), Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (63,240), Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Skopje, (11,491), Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church[12] (patriarchate): Damascus, (1,346,635), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic[13] (major archiepiscopate): Blaj, (776,529) Romania, United States (1697)
Russian Catholic Church[14]: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church[15] (a sui juris metropolia[16], an eparchy[17], and an apostolic exarchate[18]): Uzhhorod, Pittsburgh, (594,465), United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Prešov, (243,335), Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[19] (major archiepiscopate): Kyiv, (4,223,425), Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

Pilgrim.1, as you can see from the list. . . .the way the title 'Catholic Church' is used today is the exact same way Cyril of Jersulam used it during his time.  There is the Catholic Church in Russua, in Antioch, in Ethiopia, in Ukrain, in Romania, etc.  Do you object to the way the term 'Catholic Church' is being used to describe particular churches or do you not understand why we use it the way we do?  That same Church that Jesus founded is the same Church that early century christians and latter day christians call the "Catholic Church."  I posted a qoute from a 4th century bishop (not from Rome) that gives you the reason why the Church of Christ came to be called the Catholic Church.  I'll post it again:

The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly. . . for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350)

Why was the term Catholic used to describe the Church of Christ?  To identify it among the multitude of false churches that were claiming to also be the "Church of Christ."  You (pilgrim.1) disregarded the above qoute because it was written in the 4th century (note: this was before the approval of the Bible canon by the Pope).  I then posted bishops of the Catholic Church (none of them from Rome, lest you guys claim them to be liers and biased) from the 1st and 2nd centuries who used the term 'Catholic Church' the same way we use it today.  You (pilgrim.1) countered by saying 'where in the Bible' do we find the term 'Catholic Church'?  How ridiculous is that argument?  It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible.  The term Catholic was used both to describe the universality of the Church and also as a way to determine where the Church of the apostles is located (the one founded by Christ). 

You guys conitinue to dilude yourselves in believing the Bible just appeared from no where and had nothing to do with the Catholic Church.  Well, I didn't come here to argue and convert people to the Catholic faith, but rather I came to educate some who ignorantly believe the Bible fell down from heaven.  I think I have provided statements from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century christian bishops that have adequately addressed this topic.     

from pilgrim.1

One should not just believe everything gullibly, especially where what these so-called church fathers make statements which have no bearing whatsoever on what the apostles taught.

The same church fathers that compiled your Bible. . . .go figure.

YAWNS
This thread is boring.

Chrisbenogor:

YAWNS
This thread is boring.

Aww darling how can I make it interesting for you?

Hello All,

I have read with interest all the post on the thread. My question maybe offpoint and i know I may be called ignorant but please bear with me.

I thought there was a time in the catholic church where members were not allowed to read or be found with the scriptures and people were burnt if caught. (I read it somewhere a long time ago), and even now reading the bible is not mandated or encouraged.

I also read somewhere that it was King james (i don't think he was catholic) that is responsible for the wild spread of the bible by translating it to english,

N.B
I am scared of the response to come. I better take cover.

Jokepearl
no need to take cover. You asked a question nicely and you will receive a response nicely.

There wasn't a time that the Catholic Church stopped its members from reading the Bible. That can never be true. That would mean that everyone who heard the gospel, didn't hear the gospel and didn't know their Catholic faith. Certainly that makes no sense because there are writings of non-church leaders who quoted from the Bible in their writings. How is it that they knew the quotes if they didn't know the Bible?

People were not burnt because of this.

The Bible is read everyday in the sanctuary, and in the Traditional Latin Mass communities the Extraordinary Mass, the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is covered each year, in the Novus Ordo Mass or the Ordinary Mass the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is covered over a period of 3 years. The Gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, is covered every year and is actually repeated several times during the year, there is a Gospel reading at every mass, and the words recited during the mass are actually taken from the Bible.

Examples:

During Communion the words of the centurion to Jesus "Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof but say the word and my soul shall be healed" in the Ordinary Form of the Mass it is said "Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed" but beginning next year, the actual translation will be used which is the first one in parenthesis.

Also the Sanctus is sung or recited 3 times, this is composed of the words taken from Isaiah 6:3, Psall 117, and Matt 21.
Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Hosts
Heaven and earth are full of your glory, Hosanna in the highest
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

So as you can see, the Bible is used in all we do. Even the Rosary prayer that every non-catholic dreads is made up of the words in the Bible.

The Ave Maria, is the Hail Full of Grace greeting the angel gives Mary in Luke 1:28 and the greeting Elizabeth gives her in Luke 1:42 "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
It also consists of the Our Father Prayer. Each meditation is a life of Jesus and Mary in the Bible. The Rosary is actually scriptural meditation. If only people would stop going with hearsay from the air, they would see they're actually fighting against what they do themselves.

As for King James, he wasn't Catholic and also wasn't the first to translate the Bible. A man named Tindale (I think that's the correct name) was the first to translate the Bible. But he translated the Bible to include many errors and did so to remove the actual words used by Catholics such as Priest and penance things of that nature, he didn't do this because he wanted to do something for God. He did it because he was against the Catholic Church.
King James came along and agreed that Tindale didn't properly and accurately translate the Bible, so the Bible was translated in his honour, but still contains several misleading and inaccurate translations.
It also was not translated from the Original Bible, because the original manuscripts was destroyed but rather it was translated from the Latin Vulgate which is the first actual translation of all books of the Bible to one language, this is the Official Bible and used by Catholics. It was translated from Latin to Greek, unfortunately the greek that it was translated too lacked some of the words (verbsm adjectives, and so on) of Koine Greek. So it was translated with error and then translated from the greek to english and that is why today there are several errors in the KJV Bible, not to mention that it is missing books of the Bible.

Why was the Bible not mass produced? Well simply for the reason that there was no printing press until the 16th century, Catholicism existed way before then. The Bible had to copied by hand by monks, imagine them copying all of the books of the Bible by hand. It wasn't translated into any other language because Latin was the official language of the Church and pretty much everyone who could afford the Bible (Kings, Princes, Princesses, Dukes, and such) could read and write Latin. Most of the world who were Christian in the West could read and write latin. Even some in the East could understand Latin. And the lay people could pick up the language here and there.

If a Catholic doesn't own a Bible it is because they don't want to own one, and honestly, everything in the Church is made up of Biblical quotes, that if you were to pick up quotes here and there, you can actually put together the Bible yourself.