Did you ever wonder who...

[tigger 2]

That's WASN'T your point.
YOU said that the Catholic Church didn't even exist at the time of Irenaeus - and I just blew that idiotic lie right out of the water . . .

Oh, REALLY??
Let's take a look . . .

The Early Church Fathers believed that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, that it taught infallibly and that the clergy was made up of three ranks; bishop, priest, and deacon.

While the Apostle John was STILL alive - Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch spoke of . . .
- Following your Bishop as obediently as you would follow Christ because he is a type of "FATHER"
- Obeying the clergy as you would the Apostles
- Giving Deacons the same reverence as a command of God
- Celebrating the Eucharist
He said, "Without these, it cannot be called a Church."

Irenaeus:
- Gave a comprehensive list of Popes from his own time going ALL the way back to Peter
- He said that Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world
- Said of the Church of Rome: "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.

- They UNANIMOUSLY agreed that the Eucharist was the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
- They UNANIMOUSLY agreed that Infant Baptism was an Tradition handed down by the Apostles.
- They UNANIMOUSLY agreed that Peter was was appointed by Christ as the First earthly leader of His Church.
They UNANIMOUSLY agreed on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
- They UNANIMOUSLY agreed on Mary's Immaculate Conception.
- They UNANIMOUSLY agreed on the Authority of the Church - and on and on . . .

ALL of these statements describe the CATHOLIC CHURCH.
NONE of them sound sound even remotely like the splintered Protestant factions from the 16th century and beyond.

YOUR claim that "no one would be recognized as a Catholic today" has just been obliterated . . .

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (on New Advent):

CATHOLIC

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — [meaning] throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

 

[Enoch111]

[QUOTE="BreadOfLife, post: 532376, member: 7345"] Irenaeus
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).[/QUOTE]
What Irenaeus meant by "the Catholic Church" and what Roman Catholics mean by it are not necessarily the same. "Catholic" essentially means universal, and all Christian churches at that time held to the same fundamental beliefs. So until the time of Constantine, there was a universal or Catholic Church. At the same time, some Bible doctrines had already begun to be modified, even in the writings of Irenaeus.

 

[BreadOfLife]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (on New Advent):

CATHOLIC

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — [meaning] throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

And your point is . . . ?

Notice that in ALL of the examples you just listed - "catholic" is NOT used in reference to the Church, but as an adjective to describe something else.
This is NOT the case with the term "Catholic Church".

Allow me to illustrate this example with an excerpt from the 2nd century document, "The Martyrdom of Polycarp":
Excerpt from The Martyrdom of Polycarp:
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath.

As we have already examined, the words, καθ ολης (katah-holos) is GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal”.

The phrase in The Martyrdom of Polycarp - which, by the way, is ALSO written in GREEK - would be horribly redundant, if not comical. It would go something like this:
"... and the whole whole throughout Church throughout the world ..."

It is blindingly clear that this document is using the term Catholic Church as a TITLE and not a mere description or the wording would make no sense whatsoever.

Try again . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

[QUOTE="BreadOfLife, post: 532376, member: 7345"] Irenaeus
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

What Irenaeus meant by "the Catholic Church" and what Roman Catholics mean by it are not necessarily the same. "Catholic" essentially means universal, and all Christian churches at that time held to the same fundamental beliefs. So until the time of Constantine, there was a universal or Catholic Church. At the same time, some Bible doctrines had already begun to be modified, even in the writings of Irenaeus.[/QUOTE]
WRONG.

In the contemporary document, the The Martydom of Polycarp - as I just showed @tigger 2 in post #43 - the term "Catholic Church" was being used as a TITLE and NOT a mere description of the Church.

This is what the Church was being CALLED - what it was KNOWN as - and is STILL the official title of the Church to this day.

By the way - can you explain to me what a "Roman" Catholic is as opposed to a Catholic??

 

[tigger 2]

Copies of the very few remaining manuscripts of the early Church Fathers were copied, for the most part, many hundreds of years after the originals were written. As is noted by most publishers of the best extant versions, copyists took great advantages of this material, often adding or changing material to agree with the Roman Catholic orthodoxy of their time. The Martyrdom of Polycarp is no exception.

As for this letter the Early Church Fathers says in its original Introductory Notice:

"The following letter purports to have been written by the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Philomelium, and through that Church to the whole Christian world, in order to give a succinct account of the circumstances attending the martyrdom of Polycarp. It is the earliest of all the Martyria, and has generally been accounted both the most interesting and authentic. Not a few, however, deem it interpolated in several passages, and some refer it to a much later date than the middle of the second century, to which it has been commonly ascribed. We cannot tell how much it may owe to the writers (chap. xxii.) who successively transcribed it. Great part of it has been engrossed by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (iv. 15); and it is instructive to observe, that some of the most startling miraculous phenomena recorded in the text as it now stands, have no place in the narrative as given by that early historian of the Church. Much discussion has arisen respecting several particulars contained in this Martyrium; but into these disputes we do not enter, having it for our aim simply to present the reader with as faithful a translation as possible of this very interesting monument of Christian antiquity."


Here is how one respected authority translated the part you have quoted:

"8. But when at length he brought his prayer to an end, after remembering all who at any time had come in his way, small and great, high and low, and all the universal Church (katholikes ekklesias) throughout the world, ...." - The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, Baker Book House. Translated from a thirteenth century manuscript considered 'the best' of the few extant manuscripts.

Translations ot the late-dated manuscripts of the early fathers must not be considered accurate statements of what they originally wrote. This is unlike the thousands of manuscripts of the NT - some of which date back to the second and third centuries.

 

[CoreIssue]

The Catholic Church has a long history of altering documents and even creating false documents.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Catholic Church has a long history of altering documents and even creating false documents.

Another idiotic, unsubstantiated claim to go with your "the Catholic Church didn't start until 335 A.D." manure.

No wonder your own online forum died . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Copies of the very few remaining manuscripts of the early Church Fathers were copied, for the most part, many hundreds of years after the originals were written. As is noted by most publishers of the best extant versions, copyists took great advantages of this material, often adding or changing material to agree with the Roman Catholic orthodoxy of their time. The Martyrdom of Polycarp is no exception.

As for this letter the Early Church Fathers says in its original Introductory Notice:

"The following letter purports to have been written by the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Philomelium, and through that Church to the whole Christian world, in order to give a succinct account of the circumstances attending the martyrdom of Polycarp. It is the earliest of all the Martyria, and has generally been accounted both the most interesting and authentic. Not a few, however, deem it interpolated in several passages, and some refer it to a much later date than the middle of the second century, to which it has been commonly ascribed. We cannot tell how much it may owe to the writers (chap. xxii.) who successively transcribed it. Great part of it has been engrossed by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (iv. 15); and it is instructive to observe, that some of the most startling miraculous phenomena recorded in the text as it now stands, have no place in the narrative as given by that early historian of the Church. Much discussion has arisen respecting several particulars contained in this Martyrium; but into these disputes we do not enter, having it for our aim simply to present the reader with as faithful a translation as possible of this very interesting monument of Christian antiquity."

Here is how one respected authority translated the part you have quoted:

"8. But when at length he brought his prayer to an end, after remembering all who at any time had come in his way, small and great, high and low, and all the universal Church (katholikes ekklesias) throughout the world, ...." - The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, Baker Book House. Translated from a thirteenth century manuscript considered 'the best' of the few extant manuscripts.

Translations ot the late-dated manuscripts of the early fathers must not be considered accurate statements of what they originally wrote. This is unlike the thousands of manuscripts of the NT - some of which date back to the second and third centuries.

This is about as silly an historical argument as there is.

To say that because there are no originals left - the copies that DO exists MUST be spurious because we can't compare them to the originals is mind-numbingly stupid.
These texts were painstakingly copied down by hand - alongside the Books of Scripture - by monks over the centuries. If you trust that they got the Scriptures right - then you also have to trust that they got other documents right, such as The Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistles of Barnabas, etc.

In short - if you don't trust the transcription of these documents - then you CAN'T trust the transcription of the Bible, which was ALSO done by the Catholic Church for some 1400 years.

As for J.B. Lightfoot's translation of the Martyrdom of Poycarp - I have NO problem with it. It's EXACTLY what I said it was. The only difference is that Lightfoot isn't addressing whether it's a title vs. a description. He merely offers the translated text - which STILL presents a problem for the anti-Catholic.