Actually all early writings but one are in agreement that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome after Peter. The one in opposition was written by Tertullian who was a heretic. There is near universal agreement in historical documents of the succession of Popes, what we have lost is the writings and teachings of Linus and Anacletus. Maybe they will be discovered. Time will tell. Thats not true at all. There were lots of major questions. Gnostics, Arians, Carthasists all questioned the legitamacy of the Church. What is also true is that none of the other major sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople), questioned the authority of the Pope until 1100. Between the fall of Rome in 472 and the split of the Easter Orthodox Churches Rome was at its weakest politically. Why would none of the other sees try to grab the Roman Bishops authority if it was not clearly understood that the Roman Bishop held a special place in the pecking order.
Now you are on a different subject. figures. When did Catholics first start calling themselves " Catholic" ? Just because there was no Historical Pope until Leo has nothing to do with whether or not some Yahoo was calling himself "catholic" or "morphadaliean" or any other name, for that matter. You keep putting words to my credit that I did NOT say. I have no clue what Catholics called themselves in the 2nd century BUT I do know that............. Christians were first called "CHRISTIANS" at Antioch, that's biblical. I see nothing about the term "Catholic" in the bible. I am sure you have some link to some catholic propaganda that states otherwise. Like I said whatever gives you that warm fuzzy feeling... rave on. if this were that then ......your this is bogus...may if all the birds don't chirp and venus aligns with mars yadda yadda yadda... there is no way to get through to you so forget it. man you can make up all the if whens and buts to make yourself sleep good at night if you want but the facts NOT opinion is this..... There is NO biblical reference to a Vicor on earth for Christ, nor mention of a Pope, nor mention of Peter picking one out, nor mention of a Catholic church. ANYWHERE in ANY bible that I am aware of. I do understand that Catholicism was the first ORGANIZED state religion to follow Christianity. Although, there were several splits of Catholicism in the early going. some Catholic churches themselves do not recognize a Pope. AND all the Catholics started out together, even before a "pope" was conveyed. there were already BISHOPS of Smyrna, Rome and Corinth, before there were POPES. So maybe they called themselves Catholics then I don't know. 1st century, second? did the term "pope" and "Catholic" have to emerge in History at the same exact moment? :dis: So did the term "salt" come out at the same moment as "pepper"? Heck maybe 5 minutes after they were called CHRISTIANS at Antioch, they all went outside and decided to call themselves Catholics... I don't know, but if they did, they didn't bother to write it down in the bible or anywhere else for a couple of centuries. Kinda strange since the letters of Paul weren't written yet. He had a perfect oppurtunity to call them all Catholics, instead he called them "bretheren"... which no doubt you will think means catholic :dis: but hey whatever makes you feel all warm inside brother, Rave on. In the long reach of things, it doesn't matter does it? All it amounts to is Pride. You and your church's attempt to claim apostlic sucession. It doesnt validate anything. It certainly isn't Historically accurate and It won't save you, or any other Catholic. I am not saying it condems you either. That's between you and your maker. It's just Pride, and pride goeth before the fall. good day.
You miss the point completely, so here it is. There is ample evidence through the Bible and patristic writings that the earliest Christians beleived what Catholics today beleive. There is absolutely no evidence to support that they beleived what Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, or other "Bible only Christians" believe. The Church established by Christ was practicing and preaching before any of the books of the New Testament were written. That's a factand it raises another intresting question. Who defined the Cannon? What separated Paul's letter to the Corinthians as inspired from other early Christian writings like the Didache? Something had to eventually decide what was inspired and what was not. Who did that, and how. The Apostles didn't leave us a list of the inspired books? How would Christians know?
No there isn't and I see your point exactly.. New testament Christians baptized by immersion. they didn't "sprinkle" a little water on a baby's head and call it baptized. They didn't baptize Infants. New Testament Christians didn't "schedule" a baptism. New Testament Christians didn't call themselves "Catholic or have a Pope" They called themselves Christians...strange that they would do that... Christ...Christians.... wow... :dis: They didn't celebrate Christmas, or have any other relgious holidays. such as Holy days of obligation. No Lent no Advent....etc... etcc... They didn't create fanfare around the Lord's supper. they didn't pray to dead people Like Mary and Joesph. It looks like to me the Catholic church has added alot of un biblical things to the basic Christian Worship. Hence we arrive all the way back to my original point. Catholcism is a perversion of early Christainity.... if it wasn't why did they change the name? Why not be called JUST CHRISTIANS?? what would be wrong with that? That's what they were originally called. works for me. good day
Actually Christians first began to refer to the Church as Catholic near the end of the second century. Individuals did not become known as Catholics until the times of the reformation. Prior to the reformation there was no need to distinguish them as such. Further The term Roman Catholic was not used until the late 17th century.
See the bold up above? I rest my case. 1st century Christians were true followers of biblical worship. Later after many man made rules and traditions, a new religion emerged and they called it Catholicism. What's so hard to understand? History backs this up. The Jews did the same thing, Jesus told the pharisees how they let tradition pervert the law of Moses. Individuals churches within the catholic religion were not even in agreement as to worship, so that statement above about " no need" is hog wash... see greek Orthodox.. etcc... EVERY single new testament 1st century Christian did NOT just UP and start calling themselves "Catholic" because some Bishop of Sam Hill said so. I know this concept may shock you but some actually kept the faith and remained true Christians all along. I guess that is un heard of huh? yeah I guess naturally to your way of thinking, the whole world became Catholic. or they were put to the rack... like the Spainards..... yeah. man they did a brain wash on you LOL
There is no evidence to support this. Sola scriptura did not exist prior to Martin Luthor. The rules and traditions you call man made were practiced by Christians from the beginning. All early Christian writings support this. The Orthodox churches split with the Western Church over the Filioque. Furthermore most of the Orthodox churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Byzantine, Marionite) are know in full communion with Rome. Only the Greek and Russian Orthodox remain seperate. It is likely they will come back fully during our lifetimes. They were all Christian, and beleived essentially the same thing as the Roman Catholics. They just developed slightly different practices. Nor did I say, or even imply they did. The Bishop Ireneus first used the word catholic (lower case intentional), meaning universal, in about 150. The term caught on. By the 7th century the Church was referred to as the Catholic Church by pretty much everyone. The term kind of evolved. Individuals were not referred to as Catholics until the 16th century when the various denominations started popping up and the need for distinction became necessary. It is un-heard of, and not just by me. There is no historical record of a Christian church besides the Catholic Church until the reformation.
Not so fast, my friend. The Coptic Christian Church of Egypt is far older than the Roman Catholic Church. Coptic Christian Orthodox Church And it is only the most well-known. Ancient Christian Churches of Egypt The Eastern Orthodox Christian churches certainly existed before the reformation and has many pre-Roman Byzentine Christian origins as well. The Greek Orthodox History
The Coptic Church is part of the Catholic Church. It is in complete communion with the Vatican, as s the Byzantine rite. The Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Churches are the only Catholic Churches not in Communion with Rome.
No, it isn't. You should have read the link provided. The Coptic Church pre-dates the Roman Catholic Church and is not a part of it. They have their own clergy and their own Pope. The Pope of Alexandria is the head of the Coptic Church. His name is Shenoudai, but I like to call him Elvis. :wink:
