Replies

Philippi fits CynicalBear's criteria as a not-Catholic-Church??

You'll have to present your evidence, which at this point amounts to zero.

Here's a bit of evidence that the Church at Philippi fit Catholic criteria::

Paul preached for the first time on European soil in Philippi (Acts 16:12-40). He taught them his belief in and practice of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, the same belief and practice in all of the Churches. (1 Corinthians 10:16 "The cup of thanksgiving that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" The word for "thanksgiving" is "Eucharistia".)

Paul was accompanied by Silas & Timothy, the first links of Apostolic Succession, having been discipled and trained in leadership by Paul himself. According to the New Testament, Paul visited the city on two other occasions, in 56 and 57 and --- continuing his teaching, governing and supervisory role (episkopos = supervisor)--- was clearly exercising authority over them when he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians around 61-62.

The continuing development of Christianity in Philippi is attested to by a letter from Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna addressed to the community in Philippi between AD 110 and 140, as well as by funerary inscriptions.

Polycarp, an Apostolic Father and successor of St. John the Evangelist (the chain went John --> Polycarp --> Irenaeus) one again exemplifies episcopal authority and Apostolic Succession. One of his letter's important features is its use and citation of other early Christian writings, many of which later came to be part of the New Testament. Thus canonicity of Scripture was linked to Apostolic Succession.

The first church described in the city is a small structure (proseuche) designated a meeting-house. When Paul was staying in Lydia's house, the Christians used to gather in this designated building,the proseuche, for prayer. By 1-2 centuries later, this had been replaced by the Basilica of Paul, identified by a mosaic inscription on the pavement, which was mentioned by the bishop Porphyrios, who was present at the Catholic Council of Serdica.

Next, the complex cathedral which took the place of the Basilica of Paul at the end of the 5th century, constructed around the earlier, octagonal church, rivaled the churches of Constantinople.

A very good example of how the growing church progresses from worshipping in a small chapel, to a basilica, to a Cathedral.

It was visible, not "just" invisible.
It was hierarchical.
People met in set-aside meetinghouses, which early on were replaced by bigger church buildings.
They had apostolic succession.
They had both clergy and laity.
There was Baptism as one of the means of salvation.
There was Communion/Eucharist as one of the means of salvation.
Sacred tradition itself came first, and defined what later came to be listed as canonical Scripture.
Was there a 66 book called the Bible? No. There was a lot of reliance on oral tradition (preaching), and what the Holy Spirit was imparting to the church.
The need for a written word became necessary later because of the need to summarize orthodox beliefs, settle controversies and refute error.
The message of salvation did not set up a false dichotomy between "faith" and "works." They believed that the only saving faith is a living faith, and faith without works is dead (as St. James said in his Epistle.)
They were liturgical from the beginning, cf. the Apologia of Saint Justin (100 – 165 AD), which clearly lays out the basic form which is still used in the Church to this day:St. Justin, First Apology, Chap. 65.

Philippi was solidly a part of the Catholic Church. It matches criteria for Catholicism. I missed any distinctive signs of CynicalBearIsm.

Do you want to add any evidence to the contrary? Let me know.

If not, I will go on, maybe tomorrow, to analyze Thessalonica.