The origins of the RC Denomination?

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.
Would they have been game enough to contradict Constantine as to his opinionof himself?
 
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
Constantine could have meant "I am one of you Christians." That is, a supporter. Remember, at that time Christianity was barely tolerated, had just recently been severely persecuted by Diocletian which only ended officially in 313. To declare oneself a Christian was a big deal. That is hard to understand now living in a country where Christianity is seen as a normal thing, if less common than of old. In 4th century Rome it was a huge deal to even say you were a Christian. So when Constantine said "I am one of you", he need not have meant that he was a bishop. In fact there is no supporting evidence that the Church generally recognized him as a bishop. That would just be just your opinion.

His words speak for themselves.
No, they don't. They are suggestive to someone looking for evidence of what they want to believe, but they certainly don't speak for themselves - especially considering they are coming only from Constantine. You have yet to acknowledge the problem of relying only on an Emperor's own words about his position.


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.
The recognition of the role of the bishop of Rome was less formal prior to Constantine, who helped formalize it. But there is no indication that this move was contrary to the will of the rest of the Church.


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?
It probably was. That is evidence of Constantine bending to the will of the Church rather than the Church bending to the will of Constantine.

His main concern in co-opting Christianity was to use it to maintain the unity of his empire.
As you said at the top, "this is your opinion." And it doesn't even make sense when you consider what Christianity was at the time. Remember, the Roman Empire was only 10% Christian. You don't promote unity in an empire by embracing a minor and recently-persecuted religion that 90% of the people thought little of. It would be something like in the United States if a politician tried to united the country by making Islam the national religion. It would not help him. No, embracing Christianity at that time was a risk that Constantine took - probably for superstitious reasons relating to the winning of certain battle. But certainly not for shrewd political reasons.
 
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.
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.

Thats a great line. What your pope thinks he is and what he actually is are two different things. There is no papacy in the n.t. so there is no office of pope. This was created after the apostolic era by men.
 
There is no papacy in the n.t. so there is no office of pope. This was created after the apostolic era by men.
Do you know what else was created after the apostolic era by men? Church buildings. Structures built expressly for gathering and worship. In the Scriptures there were no Christian buildings made specifically for worship. The Christians of the bible met for worship wherever was convenient - an upper room, in one of their homes. But there were no dedicated buildings for worship spaces mentioned in the bible. So if church buildings were created by men after the apostolic era, they must not be of God, right? Do you know who makes dedicated church buildings besides Catholics? It is Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinist Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, Assemblies of God, etc. If Catholics are to be condemned for establishing the title of "Pope", then all these other religions are to be condemned for establishing buildings specifically for worship, which of course is ridiculous. And so it is ridiculous to condemn Catholics for having a pope.
 
Do you know what else was created after the apostolic era by men? Church buildings. Structures built expressly for gathering and worship. In the Scriptures there were no Christian buildings made specifically for worship. The Christians of the bible met for worship wherever was convenient - an upper room, in one of their homes. But there were no dedicated buildings for worship spaces mentioned in the bible. So if church buildings were created by men after the apostolic era, they must not be of God, right? Do you know who makes dedicated church buildings besides Catholics? It is Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinist Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, Assemblies of God, etc. If Catholics are to be condemned for establishing the title of "Pope", then all these other religions are to be condemned for establishing buildings specifically for worship, which of course is ridiculous. And so it is ridiculous to condemn Catholics for having a pope.
Hmm, I don't see an office of church buildings in the n.t. I don't see any church teaching that submitting to a church building is necessary for my salvation. Church buildings aren't the vicar of christ or the head of the church or infallible. Your analogy is not even remotely close.

But thanks for admitting the papacy isn't a n.t. thing.
 
Do you know what else was created after the apostolic era by men? Church buildings. Structures built expressly for gathering and worship. In the Scriptures there were no Christian buildings made specifically for worship. The Christians of the bible met for worship wherever was convenient - an upper room, in one of their homes. But there were no dedicated buildings for worship spaces mentioned in the bible. So if church buildings were created by men after the apostolic era, they must not be of God, right? Do you know who makes dedicated church buildings besides Catholics? It is Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinist Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, Assemblies of God, etc. If Catholics are to be condemned for establishing the title of "Pope", then all these other religions are to be condemned for establishing buildings specifically for worship, which of course is ridiculous. And so it is ridiculous to condemn Catholics for having a pope.

Lot of difference between having a place to meet and fellowship, and establishing a human in place of the Holy Spirit. The title "pope" or "vicar of Christ" implies that a man, who is creation, has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church. This is something the rcc decided upon for itself. But it is NOT what Jesus said. He did NOT establish a human to take His place, but the Holy Spirit.

The title and its role as used by the rcc is condemned. For such is taking what belongs to the Holy Spirit, and ascribing the Holy Spirit's work to someone else. God will not give His glory to another because it is immoral for someone to take credit for something he or she did not do. Most people understand that siphoning off the reputation of others or accepting accolades due to someone else is dishonest and dishonorable.

For a human being to attempt to take credit for God’s actions is the height of hubris. Since God is the one from whom glory comes, He will not let stand the assertion that glory comes from mankind

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
 
Hmm, I don't see an office of church buildings in the n.t. I don't see any church teaching that submitting to a church building is necessary for my salvation. Church buildings aren't the vicar of christ or the head of the church or infallible. Your analogy is not even remotely close.
Analogies don't have to match, except in the one area that is the point. Your point was that there wasn't a formal office of Pope in N.T. times. So all I needed to do was to find something else that was not a thing during N.T. times but is still common with almost all Christians.


But thanks for admitting the papacy isn't a n.t. thing.
No problem. They certainly did not call Peter "Pope" at that time.


The title "pope" or "vicar of Christ" implies that a man, who is creation, has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church.
In your dreams.
 
In your dreams.

Yeah? Well....

ccc 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Certainly goes against Scripture, for Jesus said the Holy Spirit would take His place, not a man.

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever—

John 16:13
However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.
 
Yeah? Well....

ccc 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Certainly goes against Scripture, for Jesus said the Holy Spirit would take His place, not a man.

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever—

John 16:13
However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.
Seems like members of the rc denomination have unbiblical explanations for everything. Just make things up as they go along. The blind do not see. IMHO
 
Analogies don't have to match, except in the one area that is the point. Your point was that there wasn't a formal office of Pope in N.T. times. So all I needed to do was to find something else that was not a thing during N.T. times but is still common with almost all Christians.



No problem. They certainly did not call Peter "Pope" at that time.



In your dreams.
No analogies do have to match up. They cannot be on totally different things. You just proved that the RCC could sell off all those elaborate buildings and do something worthwhile with all that money.

We were told that the pope was Christ representative. If that is the case then they reveal a very poor example of Jesus, no wonder people are turning away from the church. I mean the popes did not expose sin, allowed children to be molested and harmed that is just the recent scandal. Jesus would do none of those things. So he does not and never has represented Jesus.
 
Yeah? Well....

ccc 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Certainly goes against Scripture, for Jesus said the Holy Spirit would take His place, not a man.

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever—

John 16:13
However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.
Well we know that they fail as pastors/shepherds for a start. They have no power from God whatsoever. They are not in scripture.
 
Analogies don't have to match, except in the one area that is the point. Your point was that there wasn't a formal office of Pope in N.T. times. So all I needed to do was to find something else that was not a thing during N.T. times but is still common with almost all Christians.



No problem. They certainly did not call Peter "Pope" at that time.



In your dreams.
Analogies don't have to match,

Then its not an analogy;

analogy

ə-năl′ə-jē

noun​

  1. A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
  2. A comparison based on such similarity.
What you compared where apples and oranges. But in your worldview that would be an analogy. The fact is the papacy is said to be an office instituted by Christ, he is the vicar of Christ, he is infallible...All of those things would necessarily have to be in the bible. The bible isn't silent on church structure or hierarchy. Its not silent on who Jesus said would come 'in His place' i.e. vicar. We know who is a sinner, who isn't. We know who prayer goes to. We know that no person has ever been said to be infallible in the bible. So you got a lot of work to do before you start suggesting church buildings are analogous to the papacy.
 
Yeah? Well....

ccc 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Jesus had more power than this. So it is wrong to say the pope has the same power as Jesus had.

No analogies do have to match up. They cannot be on totally different things.
Those would be "equivalences". "Analogies" only have to match up in the ways that were being used in the argument. When you make an argument that is too broad, it is much easier to refute it with an analogy. To refute a narrower argument one needs an analogy that matches more closely.

You just proved that the RCC could sell off all those elaborate buildings and do something worthwhile with all that money.
And so could the Protestants do with their churches.


We were told that the pope was Christ representative.
Right. His representative. Not his replacement.
 
Then its not an analogy;

analogy

ə-năl′ə-jē

noun​

  1. A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
  2. A comparison based on such similarity.
What you compared where apples and oranges.
Actually, it is sometimes appropriate to compare apples and oranges. If the question was about higher costs of groceries in the produce section, one might say that the price of apples went up less than the price of oranges due to a freeze in Florida. But I bolded the key phrase in the definition above: "in some respects". Note that this is not "in all respects".


But in your worldview that would be an analogy. The fact is the papacy is said to be an office instituted by Christ
Instituted but not in its final form, which developed over time.

, he is the vicar of Christ, he is infallible..
Only in very specific and rare instances. The concept of papal infallibility has been grossly distorted. How many instances can you cite where the Pope spoke "ex cathedra" - that is, from the chair of Peter, and therefore infallible? Not even papal encyclicals are considered by the Church to be truly infallible. The most common infallibility rests with the Magisterium - not the Pope. That is the Church gathered in agreement.
 
The eventual independence of the Church from Roman Emperors was asserted in the resolution of the Arian heresy.
This is a false statement. One of the grievances of the Donatists was that the Catholics were too cozy with the secular authorities. When Augustine of Hippo became bishop, his goal was to root out Donatism and bring the Donatists back into the Catholic fold. He had this to say to Vicentius, bishop of Cartenna in 408:

"For originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew to be avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the words of those who controverted it, but by the conclusive instance to which they could point. For in the first place, there was set over against my opinion my own town, which although it was once wholly on the side of Donatus was brought over to the Catholic unity by the fear of the Imperial edicts... There were so many others which were mentioned to me by name, that from the facts themselves, I was made to own that to this matter the word of Scripture might be understood as applying, "Give opportunity to a wise man and he will become wiser."

"brought over to the Catholic unity by the fear of the Imperial edicts". 408, which is after the Council of Nicea and the settling of the Arian heresy, and we have Catholic bishop Augustine writing about civil authorities coercing believers to toe the Catholic line. Do you concede the point?
 
Constantine could have meant "I am one of you Christians."
Again, your opinion. He was writing to bishops. Given the context, he numbered himself among them.
No, they don't. They are suggestive to someone looking for evidence of what they want to believe, but they certainly don't speak for themselves - especially considering they are coming only from Constantine.
OpinionIt probably was. That is evidence of Constantine bending to the will of the Church rather than the Church bending to the will of Constantine
Opinion. It could also be evidence of him not really caring about theology and wanting to get to the whole unity thing.
As you said at the top, "this is your opinion."
And I will keep on saying that until you can produce a letter from a BOR refuting anything Constantine said, because that is first-hand testimony by the man who was there. All you have posted in regards to the issue is your opinion. I understand that you have to submit to the RCC's authority and spew the corporate line; I'm sure you know that they have a credibility problem with some of the folks around here.
 
and the Whore of Scripture
Rides (a bridle in its mouth) upon the beast

James says​
Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths,
that they may obey us;
and we turn about their whole body.
4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great,
and are driven of fierce winds,
yet are they turned about with a very small helm,
whithersoever the governor listeth.​

she will ride there in control
but eventually, they will turn on her

-----------the Whore of Scripture-----------
Rev. 17
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast,
these shall hate the whore,
and shall make her desolate and naked,
and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will,
and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast,
until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
 
Jesus had more power than this. So it is wrong to say the pope has the same power as Jesus had.

The quote in blue came from your own roman catholic catechism, VERBATIM. ccc does stand for roman catholic catechism, right? And I gave you the number. Your post to me previously said "in your dreams", which implied I was lying; so I showed you what your own institution claims. What your institution is claiming about the rc pope, is NOT even hinted in Scripture.

And Yes, ALL power, glory and honor belongs to God. The pope has no power period. Even when the apostles healed the lame man, they took ZERO credit for it. Scripture tells us that Jesus IS God, Himself. Jesus has no beginning and no end. He is an UN-created being.

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Acts 3:12
When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you?
Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?
 
Again, your opinion. He was writing to bishops. Given the context, he numbered himself among them.


Opinion. It could also be evidence of him not really caring about theology and wanting to get to the whole unity thing.

And I will keep on saying that until you can produce a letter from a BOR refuting anything Constantine said, because that is first-hand testimony by the man who was there. All you have posted in regards to the issue is your opinion. I understand that you have to submit to the RCC's authority and spew the corporate line; I'm sure you know that they have a credibility problem with some of the folks around here.
I had to fix my post cut/paste got wonky.
 
Back
Top