Here you go....
Bump for later read
There are extant, in Greek, sixty canons of a Council of Laodicea. That this assembly was actually held, we have the testimony of Theodoret ("In Coloss.", ii, 18, P.L., LXXXII, 619). There has been much discussion as to the date: some have even thought that the council must have preceded that of Nicaea (325), or at least that of Constantinople (381) It seems safer to consider it as subsequent to the latter. The canons are, undoubtedly, only a resume of an older text, and indeed appear to be derived from two distinct collections. They are of great importance in the history of discipline and liturgy; Protestants have often, but quite without reason, invoke one of them in opposition to the veneration of angels.
It’s interesting to me anytime the councils are studied. I often wonder, if so many Protestant scholars acknowledge not only that they existed, but also that they were Catholic councils, why is it so difficult to believe the Council that met at Jerusalem in Acts was also a Catholic council? Simply because the word “Catholic” wasn’t used specifically to describe it? To me, that sounds like the lame argument, “Since the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible, it can’t be true”.
The word monotheism isn’t in the Bible either, does that mean “monotheism” isn’t true?
Anyway, it’s interesting to me. A point of curiosity. I’ve never heard anyone explain where the Catholic Church came from (other than some shadowy, if not outright flimsy, connection to Constantine) if one also concedes that the councils throughout history were Catholic. Seems to me it’s not much of a stretch to believe during the time of Christian persecution via Rome, most evidence of Catholicity has been destroyed, as that was just a given fact at the time, and thus not as important to preserve as the Scriptures themselves.
I guess Constantine is as good a scapegoat as any though; even though he had little to do with Catholicism, practically speaking; I’ve never seen any evidence that shows he did at least. So we have this Catholic Church/Roman Empire conglomerate just popping out of no where in the 4th Century, even though there’s scant historical evidence for that other than, perhaps, the most ironic twist of historical fact of all time: the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. How that “proves” that the Church was started by him is beyond me though.
Oh and as far as the “Church changing the Sabbath”, a common SDA/offshoot thereof argument, there are many ways to address such, however, the brass tacks, main point is that this shows, historically, that Christians respected both the power AND authority of the Church, not the “Bible” (sola scriptura) to determine doctrine and/or rules of Christian living.
Unless one wants to posit the existence of some “underground church”, thoroughly invisible throughout history, one must reach this conclusion: The early Christians behaved pretty much like the Catholics and Orthodox do today, they believed the Church to be the primary means by which the Holy Spirit teaches, and instructs the believer.
Too bad those early believers didn’t have Ellen G. White, et. al. to lead them to the truth; oh well, I guess they deserve to be in Hell for being born at the wrong time in history. < /sarc >