The origins of the RC Denomination?

Atemi said:
Israel.

God even explicitly identifies her as such.

Never once in all of Scripture does God declare Israel is the "Queen of Heaven."
Click to expand...
What do the stars represent?

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the STARS out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born.
 
pilgrim said:
And I think it funny the "histories" that Protestants come up with since they were not around to write any.
Click to expand...
Yes ours are based on facts and the truth.

From the Jerusalem post:

On July 31, 1492, practicing Jews living in Spain had to make a decision: Convert to Christianity or leave.

If conversos – converted Jews – stayed and continued to keep their faith in secret, but were found out by members of the Inquisition or exposed by neighbors, they would be tortured brutally into admitting their “sin” and later be burned, all of which was ordered by the Church.

The Inquisition was first founded in 1478 by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain in a bid to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy.


The King and Queen had approval from Rome for the inquistion and the things that happened. RCs can pretend that there institution is clean but its hands are bloody. This kind of thing is following the Roman Emperors and Satan not Jesus. The inquisitors were Catholic monks and priests. These are not the only people who were forced to convert under threat of death or expulsion. The history that makes RCs proud.
 
Mik said:
From Got Questions:

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?



For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.



Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:



(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.



(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.



(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.



(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.



Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.



The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.



Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Click to expand...

Have you checked the accuracy of this article. The reason I am a Catholic is that when I hear and read articles like this and check out they are not accurate.
 
dingoling. said:
Have you checked the accuracy of this article.
Click to expand...
Have you? It's about your denomination. Or do just want to believe what your leaders say without being a Berean about it?
dingoling. said:
The reason I am a Catholic is that when I hear and read articles like this and check out they are not accurate.
Click to expand...
The reason I am not a catholic anymore is that when I heard and read articles like this and checked them out they were accurate.
 
Mik said:
From Got Questions:

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
=========================end Mik post

Daniel 1:43​
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay,​
they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men:​
but they shall not cleave one to another,​
even as iron is not mixed with clay.​

pilgrim said:
And I think it funny the "histories" that Protestants come up with since they were not around to write any.
=============end pilgrim reply

Well pilgrim;
maybe you can rise to the occasion and prove him wrong
do as Peter says, and defend yourself
do as Peter says and make him ashamed
 
pilgrim said:
And I think it funny the "histories" that Protestants come up with since they were not around to write any.
Click to expand...

Imperial rome kept documents that were produced for official government use, as well as records of public events. And historians were hired to write down what they had seen and witnessed during their lifetimes. Your own institution kept records and documents of its own activities. We know from those records, and other documents of what was said and done in past times. Those records and documents have been preserved.

What your really harping about is that you want only favorable history, and none of the negative. Written history isn't written to coddle your tastes.
 
pilgrim said:
mixed with Protestant opinions. The Catholic Church did not "absorb" paganism. It replaced paganism. See how the good of "making disciples of all nations" is turned into something sinister by Protestantism WHICH WAS NOTICEABLY ABSENT AT THAT TIME?
Click to expand...
The RCC didn't exist in the first century, when Jesus Christ gave that command. So, no, your church didn't make any disciples of anyone. The first century Christians of the Way did so.
 
LifeIn said:
No, the poster posted unsupported claims made by a website.
Click to expand...

The claims can be verified from many other sources. Rc's only want to hear praise about their institution. Well I got news for you. The whole world knows about the negative activities, because your own institution kept records of those negative activities. But not just your institution, but other nations as well. Those claims have been well known for a really long time. And like it or not, there is NO sweeping the history under the carpet.
 
Bonnie said:
The RCC didn't exist in the first century, when Jesus Christ gave that command. So, no, your church didn't make any disciples of anyone. The first century Christians of the Way did so.
Click to expand...
The first century Christians of "the Way" did continuously become the Catholic Church. There is no recorded wide-spread rejection of the Catholic Church by the Christians of the the Way. If Christians of the Way were truly rejecting the Catholic Church as it emerged, there would be a lot more written evidence of that rejection by historians.
 
A new day said:
Imperial rome kept documents that were produced for official government use, as well as records of public events. And historians were hired to write down what they had seen and witnessed during their lifetimes. Your own institution kept records and documents of its own activities. We know from those records, and other documents of what was said and done in past times. Those records and documents have been preserved.

What your really harping about is that you want only favorable history, and none of the negative. Written history isn't written to coddle your tastes.
Click to expand...
I am open to reading any historical documents from the 1st or 2nd centuries that show there was some other Christianity besides the one that eventually was called the "Catholic" Church. So please cite them so we can all know what evidence there is.
 
A new day said:
Now, where did I say scandals are applauded? Whenever any non-rc has pointed to a sex scandal within the rcc, .... rc's rush to defend the rapist, instead of recognizing that the action of the priest was wrong. When a GROWN man molests a child, it is done against the child's will, and therefore the activity is RAPE.

We get the impression from rc's on here, that they don't give a care what happens to children who are unable to defend themselves from a GROWN man. It is the type of responses posted. When it happens in other denominations, the allegation is investigated, and when found true, the offender is tossed out on his ear. NOT moved to another location so he can continue unhampered somewhere else.

Higher ups in the rcc, know about the offense, but opt to sweep it under the carpet. Any rc priest who is bold enough to speak out, against this atrocious crime is tossed out on his ear.

Not saying or doing anything about something like this, does have a name for it.... "sins of omission" and they are just as wrong and sinful as "sins of commission". It is the failure to act, when a person should be pro-active. Not turn a blind eye.
Click to expand...
No one gives you that impression. That is how very biased against the Church you are. You don't think investigations happen? You don't think clergy are tossed out? Where have you been?
 
LifeIn said:
I am open to reading any historical documents from the 1st or 2nd centuries that show there was some other Christianity besides the one that eventually was called the "Catholic" Church. So please cite them so we can all know what evidence there is.
Click to expand...

I'm not the thread starter. Very early on the church was teaching error, paganism really; which is why Jesus rebuked it. Below was spoken by Jesus,

Revelation 2:4-5
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

Revelation 2:15-16
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 2:20-23
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Revelation 3:1
These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

Revelation 3:17
You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
 
A new day said:
I'm not the thread starter. Very early on the church was teaching error, paganism really; which is why Jesus rebuked it. Below was spoken by Jesus,....
Click to expand...
Uh, you are not presenting the evidence that I asked for. Let me expand on what is needed. If there was some other church besides the one that became known as the Catholic church that dominated 1st and 2nd century Christianity, where are the historical documents of that church denouncing Pope Sixtus the first, for example, who lead the Church from 115 AD to 125 AD for example, or Pope Hyginus who led the Church from 136 AD to 140 AD, or Pope Victor I who led the Church from 189 AD to 199 AD? There is a rich set of historical documents, not Church documents, but documents from secular historians, documenting that Church. So by the year 200 AD the Church had already assumed the name "Catholic" this church was well known in the Roman Empire and beyond. But if there was some other Church that was more "real" than the Catholic Church, there must be some documents, equivalent to today's "Got Questions" website, calling out the Catholic Church for being a fake Christianity. It is unimaginable that the "real" church would have remained silent during those years. So please cite the historical evidence from the "real" Christians of that era. Where is the rebuke of Ambrose of Milan, a prominent member of the Catholic Church? Where is the rebuke of Augustine of Hippo for his supposed heresy of supporting the Catholic Church? If history is as you say, and the "real" Christians were not in the Catholic Church, where are the histories describing them?
 
Last edited:
There was no concept of a universal bishop presiding over the church until Constantine’s corruption of the faith. How do we know this? Let’s take a look at the Word of God vs. the word of man.

Matthew 20:25-28: But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Acts 10:25-26: When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

Here is the closing line of Unam Sanctam by Boniface VIII:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Now let’s examine the words of Constantine acting in his capacity of Pontifex Maximus of Rome. I will only post the pertinent sentences from his writings, but I will cite which of his writings they are from so you can read the whole letter if you so choose. Being a politician, Constantine sure liked to…pontificate.

Letter from Constantine to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and to Marcus:

Since many such communications have been sent to me by Anu-linus, the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is said that Caecilianus, bishop of the city of Carthage, has been accused by some of his colleagues in Africa, in many matters; and since it seems to me a very serious thing that in those provinces which Divine Providence has freely entrusted to my devotedness, and in which there is a great population, the multitude are found following the baser course, and dividing, as it were, into two parties, and the bishops are at variance -- it has seemed good to me that Caecilianus himself, with ten of the bishops that appear to accuse him, and with ten others whom he may consider necessary for his defense, should sail to Rome, that there, in the presence of yourselves and of Retecius and Maternus and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, as you may understand to be in accordance with the most holy law.

(314AD) Letter of Constantine to Ablavius (or Ælafius):

I confess to your Lordship, since I am well aware that you also are a worshipper of the most High God, that I consider it by no means right that contentions and altercations of this kind should be hidden from me, by which, perchance, God may be moved not only against the human race, but also against me myself, to whose care, by His heavenly Decree, He has entrusted the direction of all human affairs, and may in His wrath provide otherwise than heretofore.

(314AD) Letter of Constantine to Chrestus (Crescentius), bishop of Syracuse:

When some began wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy worship and celestial power and Catholic doctrine, wishing to put an end to such disputes among them, I formerly gave command that certain bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care.

(315AD) Letter of Constantine to Celsus:

But after you have read this letter, you should make it plain both to Caecilian and to them, that when by the Divine Goodness I come to Africa, I shall render it most clear to all, both to Caecilian, and to those who are acting against him, by reading a perfectly plain judgement, as to what and what kind of worship is to be given to the Supreme God, and with what manner of service He is pleased. Also, by diligent examination, I shall acquaint myself to the full with the things which at the present time some persons fancy they can keep dark through the allurements of their ignorant minds, and shall drag them into the light. Those same persons who now stir up the people in such a war as to bring it about that the supreme God is not worshipped with the veneration that is His due, I shall destroy and dash in pieces.

And since it is sufficiently clear that no one may hope to obtain the honors of a martyr with that kind [of Martyrdom] which is seen to be foreign to the truth of religion, and is altogether unbecoming, I shall without any delay cause those men whom I shall ascertain to have acted against that which is right and against religion itself, and whom I shall discover to have been guilty of violence in their worship, to undergo the destruction which they have deserved by their madness and reckless obstinacy. Wherefore, let them also know for certain what they ought to do to secure full credence after they have invoked their own salvation, since I am going most diligently to search into the things which concern not merely the people, but also those clerics who are in the first places, and shall pass judgement in accordance with that which is most clearly in the interests of truth and religion. I shall also make these persons see what worship and what kind of worship is to be given to the Divinity, for by no means do I believe that I can in any way escape the greatest guilt otherwise than by refusing to close my eyes to that which is wicked. What can be done by me more in accordance with my constant practice, and the very office of a Prince, than, after having driven away errors and destroyed all rash opinions, to bring it about that all men should show forth true religion and simplicity in concord, and to render to Almighty God the worship which is His due?

(323AD) Law of Constantine respecting piety toward God and the Christian Religion sent to the Provinces of Palestine:

(And by Divinity is meant the one who is alone and truly God, the possessor of almighty and eternal power: and surely it cannot be deemed arrogance in one who has received benefits from God, to acknowledge them in the loftiest terms of praise.) I myself, then, was the instrument whose services He chose, and esteemed suited for the accomplishment of his will.

Believing, therefore, that this most excellent service had been confided to me as a special gift, I proceeded as far as the regions of the East, which, being under the pressure of severer calamities, seemed to demand still more effectual remedies at my hands.

And now, since it appears by the clearest and most convincing evidence, that the miseries which erewhile oppressed the entire human race are now banished from every part of the world, through the power of Almighty God, and at the same time the counsel and aid which he is pleased on many occasions to administer through our agency; it remains for all, both individually and unitedly, to observe and seriously consider how great this power and how efficacious this grace are, which have annihilated and utterly destroyed this generation, as I may call them, of most wicked and evil men; have restored joy to the good, and diffused it over all countries; and now guarantee the fullest authority both to honor the Divine law as it should be honored, with all reverence, and pay due observance to those who have dedicated themselves to the service of that law.

(323 or 324AD) Letter of Constantine to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter:

I call that God to witness, as well I may, who is the helper of my endeavors, and the Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold reason for undertaking that duty which I have now performed. My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the system of the world, then suffering under the malignant power of a grievous distemper.

For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.

(323 or 324AD) Letter of Constantine to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter:

Feeling myself, therefore, compelled to address you in this letter, and to appeal at the same time to your unanimity and sagacity, I call on Divine Providence to assist me in the task, while I interrupt your dissension in the character of a minister of peace. And with reason: for if I might expect, with the help of a higher Power, to be able without difficulty, by a judicious appeal to the pious feelings of those who heard me, to recall them to a better spirit, even though the occasion of the disagreement were a greater one, how can I refrain from promising myself a far easier and more speedy adjustment of this difference, when the cause which hinders general harmony of sentiment is intrinsically trifling and of little moment?

Permit me, who am his servant, to bring my task to a successful issue, under the direction of his Providence, that I may be enabled, through my exhortations, and diligence, and earnest admonition, to recall his people to communion and fellowship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top