The origins of the RC Denomination?

1Thess521 said:
nope . it was a rebuke to your pont that we should submit to the authority of the RCC because they managed to get some theology correct .
Click to expand...
That would indeed be a rebuke of dingoling's point if that were dingoling's point. But it was not. The point dingoling made is that every other church has got their theology wrong. Having the correct theology may not be sufficient to declare authority, but it is necessary.
 
LifeIn said:
That would indeed be a rebuke of dingoling's point if that were dingoling's point. But it was not. The point dingoling made is that every other church has got their theology wrong. Having the correct theology may not be sufficient to declare authority, but it is necessary.
Click to expand...
How do you know, did you read Dingoling's mind????????????????
 
LifeIn said:
Here is an example. Methodius (bishop and martyr who died in 311) wrote this prayer to Mary:

Hail to you for ever, you virgin mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the bread of life. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. Hail, you overshadowing mount of the Holy Ghost. You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you before the beginning, making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father — the Prince of Peace, who in a marvellous manner showed Himself as less than all littleness. Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honours, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away.

So Constantine could not have been the founder of prayer to the dead saints. Do you concede this point?
Click to expand...
Point conceded. This creates another question in my mind which I will have to look into. It does not change the fact that Constantine fancied himself the first pope.
 
Kerwyn said:
Point conceded. This creates another question in my mind which I will have to look into. It does not change the fact that Constantine fancied himself the first pope.
Click to expand...
I don't know what Constantine fancied himself to be. He may indeed have had such thoughts. However it only matters what he actually was - not what he believed he was. And that can only be established by what other people said, not what he said. In particular, I would like to know what Miltiades (bishop of Rome 311-314) and Sylvester I (bishop of Rome 314-335) had to say about Constantine. There is no doubt that Constantine played an important role in the development of a more formalized organization structure in the Church, which certainly did not start out fully-developed, and that he had a hand in pushing for Julius I to be bishop of Rome in 337. But it was the Church gathered that confirmed the choice. It was not merely forced on them by Constantine, who was seen as an ally and not an enemy of the Church. The eventual independence of the Church from Roman Emperors was asserted in the resolution of the Arian heresy. Despite the support for Arianism by Constantine, the Nicene Creed rejected Arianism with the words:
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

The Arian heresy asserted that Jesus was the Son of God, made in time by God, and did not exist from the beginning with God. This is obviously rejected by the words "born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made.." This despite the fact the Constantine preferred the Arian view, and his son who succeeded him, Constantius II, firmly adopted Arianism. Nevertheless, the Nicene Creed, which went against the preference for two Roman Emperors, persists right up to today in the form decided by the Church, and not by Emperors. Confronting the Arian heresy was a chief task for the Council of Nicaea.

The relationship between religious leaders and political leaders has always been a challenging one. On one hand the Church desires peace and order for the good of people's lives and therefore looks for help from political leaders to incorporate elements of Christian morality in society more broadly. On the other hand the Church cannot totally abandon its responsibility to place the Gospel above all secular authority, which often goes astray. That is why there is such a problem today in Communist China where the government insists on having the power to appoint bishops and priests in China without Vatican authority. The Church is resisting for fear of compromising the mission of the clergy in the service of immoral purposes of the Chinese government. This tension has existed throughout time and requires us to remember that we are "in the world" but not "of the world" so that we do not let worldly power supplant our mission to bring the good news of Jesus Christ.

In summary, Constantine may have played a significant role in the growth of the Church, but his influence did not permanently tether the Church to secular authority.
 
dingoling. said:
But Jesus said that a city on a hill cannot be hidden. The only history of the Christian faith is that of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Enough baloney to stock TWO delis!

It took hundreds of years for the early church to morph into the bloated behemoth it is today, with its many unbiblical doctrines, especially the 4 Marian Dogmas and Indulgences.

It is arrogant in the extreme for the RCC to think it is the only Christian church on earth and that it alone has the truth.

As for History, what about the EO church? What about that very old church from India, that purports to go back to the Apostle Thomas? Or Christianity in Ethiopia? And as much as you might hate to admit it, the Reformation is also part of the history of the Christian Faith. Live with it.
 
LifeIn said:
I don't know what Constantine fancied himself to be. He may indeed have had such thoughts. However it only matters what he actually was - not what he believed he was. And that can only be established by what other people said, not what he said. In particular, I would like to know what Miltiades (bishop of Rome 311-314) and Sylvester I (bishop of Rome 314-335) had to say about Constantine. There is no doubt that Constantine played an important role in the development of a more formalized organization structure in the Church, which certainly did not start out fully-developed, and that he had a hand in pushing for Julius I to be bishop of Rome in 337. But it was the Church gathered that confirmed the choice. It was not merely forced on them by Constantine, who was seen as an ally and not an enemy of the Church. The eventual independence of the Church from Roman Emperors was asserted in the resolution of the Arian heresy. Despite the support for Arianism by Constantine, the Nicene Creed rejected Arianism with the words:
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

The Arian heresy asserted that Jesus was the Son of God, made in time by God, and did not exist from the beginning with God. This is obviously rejected by the words "born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made.." This despite the fact the Constantine preferred the Arian view, and his son who succeeded him, Constantius II, firmly adopted Arianism. Nevertheless, the Nicene Creed, which went against the preference for two Roman Emperors, persists right up to today in the form decided by the Church, and not by Emperors. Confronting the Arian heresy was a chief task for the Council of Nicaea.

The relationship between religious leaders and political leaders has always been a challenging one. On one hand the Church desires peace and order for the good of people's lives and therefore looks for help from political leaders to incorporate elements of Christian morality in society more broadly. On the other hand the Church cannot totally abandon its responsibility to place the Gospel above all secular authority, which often goes astray. That is why there is such a problem today in Communist China where the government insists on having the power to appoint bishops and priests in China without Vatican authority. The Church is resisting for fear of compromising the mission of the clergy in the service of immoral purposes of the Chinese government. This tension has existed throughout time and requires us to remember that we are "in the world" but not "of the world" so that we do not let worldly power supplant our mission to bring the good news of Jesus Christ.

In summary, Constantine may have played a significant role in the growth of the Church, but his influence did not permanently tether the Church to secular authority.
Click to expand...
Again, this is your opinion. Constantine's own words say he was actually a bishop:

at which I myself was present, as one among yourselves

I assembled at the city of Nicaea most of the bishops; with whom I myself also, who am but one of you

He also had the ability to remove bishops without Vatican authority:

I will immediately send some one who shall depose you by my command, and shall remove you from your place.

His words speak for themselves. Is there a letter from a BOR correcting the emporer?

This also has nothing to do with the church being tied to secular authority. This has to do with his influence in creating the idea of a universal bishop (pope) at the head of the church, which was an unknown concept prior to his involvement.

As far as his views on Arianism, it doesn't matter that it was settled contrary to what he believed. How do we know his attitude wasn't changed after the council? His main concern in co-opting Christianity was to use it to maintain the unity of his empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top