Hi hawg,
Well, just so you know, I firmly disagree with that understanding. Those who are called out began without the Catholic organization and they would still exist today if that Catholic organization had never existed. God's word promises that there will always be a remnant.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
Study history and prove yourself wrong all counts.
Study where your bible came from!
Christ gave us apostles, not a new testament. So the early church handed the faith down by "word of mouth and letter" (to use Pauls Phrase) by appointed successors of the apostles- that handing down "paradosis" is the word now translated as tradition. Study the early writings - eg ignatius to Smyrneans, (he and polycarp disciples of John the apostle, so first generation successor christians), you see a church that was liturgical, sacramental, believed in real presence in eucharist only valid if conducted by succession bishops or their appointees. In short the acorn that became the catholic church.
Do you have succession bishops or appointees in your church to perform a eucharist of the real presence? If you don't you are not following Christs church!
Christ gave the power to "bind and loose" doctrine ( that is pronounce inspired interpretation of it ) separately we see in scripture, to both to successors of Peter - the office of keys , and also to the apostles together, which is how councils came to be, the first we see in Acts.
Later councils opposed many heresies, and also - later- decided the Canon that you call the new testament. As scripture tell us, the "pillar and foundation of truth is the church" - "the household of God", and you see how that is manifested acting through councils
Other than sects declared heretical, eg gnostics, arians, The church was a united whole. Now study what those fathers believed who chose your new testament, and see that they were vociferous for example in support of veneration of , and asking for the intercession of Mary. In short it WAS THE CHURCH, which was the catholic church. Take Augustine - who presided the final council that decided your new testament at Hippo - in seeking authority against donatism, lists ALL the bishops of Rome from the first as opposers of donatism. Why so - Why did he choose to cite the list of names of all the popes as successors of Peter? Because Rome was THE (divinely) appointed AUTHORITY as successor of Peter, and those who decided your new testament clearly believed it so!.
The only reason other fragments got named is when they schismed away.
Till then the church did not need a name, it was Christs Church. It was given a description "catholic". universal. It did not need a name. Only when others moved away did it retain the description, so title that became its name.
The modern - and provably false - man made tradition of "sola scriptura" - did not exist and could not exist until the printing press , the ability to read, and living standards allowing people to own a bible allowed the cult of "bible christians". Proof it is a falasy is seen in the fact that with the bible alone, ignoring both authority and history, protestants have mutually exclusive interpretations of every aspect of doctrine. From eucharist, to baptism, ife issues, LGBT, salvation, clergy ....you name it protestants disagree on it for the very reason that Luthers empowering of "the priesthood of all believers" to determine doctrine is both unscriptural a #FAIL.
Sola scriptura is the doctrine that launched 10000 schisms, and the need to name churches at all.
Meanwhile the "pillar of truth is the church" - the one that has lasted 2000 years doctrine essentially unchanged. because truth does not change. Meanwhile all others blow with populist wins on LGBT issues, contracteption, abortion and so on...because they are founded on other than Christ. They are founded on the whims of the one who decided he did not like the doctrine of other churches, so schismed away to form a new church in the founders image (eg Luther as one of the first) not the image of Christ.
