The origins of the RC Denomination?

pilgrim said:
Romans 13: 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Well, look at that. Seems that his claims were right.
Click to expand...
As the nuns taught us only if it is not going against God's commandments. So then according to your understanding everyone should have just bowed down to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin to name a few.
 
balshan said:
Oh sure you can believe that and deny the truth.

Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published. Both scientists held the same theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, a theory now known to be true. However, the Church disapproved of this theory because the Holy Scriptures state that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. from inquiries journal
Click to expand...
You are so wrong about Galileo. His book was banned not because it proposed heliocentrism but because his book was written not in the form of straightforward science but in the form of a fictional dialog with the Pope in which the Pope is portrayed as a fool. The Church did not ban him for his science.
 
LifeIn said:
What you have illustrated is Constantine exercising (or at least thinking he is exercising) worldly power - to send such and such Bishop here or there, or call a synod. There is no evidence of Constantine exercising doctrinal authority. Which doctrine of the Church today was ordered by Constantine? Anything in the Catechism? In any official Church document? Any historical evidence of such a doctrine from Constantine being adopted universally? No.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion. Perhaps you should go back and read post 214.

These passages don't exactly sound like Constantine exercising worldly power:

and since it seems to me a very serious thing that in those provinces which Divine Providence has freely entrusted to my devotedness,

but also against me myself, to whose care, by His heavenly Decree, He has entrusted the direction of all human affairs

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.

I have written to them under divine direction. (I though only the pope/magisterium could operate under divine direction?)
Maybe read that one again.

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;

6 passages written by Constantine, claiming he is working under divine direction. Just as you believe the bishop of Rome does. He also believed he was numbered amongst the bishops:

I call on Divine Providence to assist me in the task, while I interrupt your dissension in the character of a minister of peace.

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's words speak for themselves. He considered himself a bishop working under Divine Authority. That fact cannot be disputed per his own words. Constantine's doctrinal legacy is that of a Supreme Pontiff over the universal church, praying to the dead and theophagy for starters. So unless you can post a letter written by a BOR exercising Divine Authority over the universal church, as I have done with Pope Constantine's writings, all you have is conjecture that is tainted by your Rome-colored glasses.
 
balshan said:
Oh sure you can believe that and deny the truth.

Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published. Both scientists held the same theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, a theory now known to be true. However, the Church disapproved of this theory because the Holy Scriptures state that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. from inquiries journal

I mean the RCC in its revisionist history has probably whitewashed their reaction but the truth is out there.
Click to expand...
So was it wrong for the Church to follow Scripture?
 
Kerwyn said:
Thank you for your opinion. Perhaps you should go back and read post 214.

These passages don't exactly sound like Constantine exercising worldly power:
Click to expand...
Two points about Constantine's writing:

1. He is not establishing doctrine that even became part of Catholic teaching. (If so, please cite that teaching from a Church source, not from Constantine's words, which brings us to.....)

2. He is speaking for himself, which proves nothing. You can call yourself a bishop of the Church too. That won't make you one, and it will not make the Church accept your proclamation What you need to establish your claim is to provide evidence of how the Church responded to his proclamations.


Kerwyn said:
Constantine's words speak for themselves. He considered himself a bishop working under Divine Authority.
Click to expand...
Most emperors consider themselves as acting under Divine Authority. There is nothing unique in that.

Kerwyn said:
That fact cannot be disputed per his own words. Constantine's doctrinal legacy is that of a Supreme Pontiff over the universal church, praying to the dead and theophagy for starters.
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence that praying to dead saints began with Constantine? Where is your evidence that Constantine was the one who started the idea that Holy Communion was the body of Christ?
 
LifeIn said:
Two points about Constantine's writing:

1. He is not establishing doctrine that even became part of Catholic teaching. (If so, please cite that teaching from a Church source, not from Constantine's words, which brings us to.....)

2. He is speaking for himself, which proves nothing. You can call yourself a bishop of the Church too. That won't make you one, and it will not make the Church accept your proclamation What you need to establish your claim is to provide evidence of how the Church responded to his proclamations.



Most emperors consider themselves as acting under Divine Authority. There is nothing unique in that.


Where is your evidence that praying to dead saints began with Constantine? Where is your evidence that Constantine was the one who started the idea that Holy Communion was the body of Christ?
Click to expand...
Thank you again for your opinion on Constantine's writing.

From the CCC:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.

Webster: theophagy : the sacramental eating of a god typically in the form of an animal, image, or other symbol as a part of a religious ritual and commonly for the purpose of communion with or the receiving of power from the god

Do you have a letter from a BOR prior to 313 stating that we receive communion to become a God? If not, it's only your opinon.

962 "We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers" (Paul VI, CPG § 30).

Where is your evidence praying to the dead occurred before Constantine? Do you have a letter from a BOR prior to 313 blessing this practice? If not, it's only your opinion. We all know praying to the dead is a pagan practice, as is theophagy. Please provide a letter written by a BOR prior to 313 AD making praying to the dead a doctrine of the church. We all know the pagans prayed to the dead, and God's word says not to communicate to the dead. Do you recall the Solomon/Shmuel episode?

Most emporers do think that they act under divine authority, this is true. However, as far as I know after the Roman Empire they were not considered to be a god on earth.

He is speaking as a bishop, not an emporer:

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,

Sure I can call myself a bishop. What I can't do is convene synods, remove bishops from their posts or determine what kind of worship is worthy of the Creator. However, Constantine believed all of these things were well within his purview, per his own words. You can deny them all you want; again, they speak for themselves
 
Kerwyn said:
Where is your evidence praying to the dead occurred before Constantine?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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...

Heretics arose immediately. The Catholic church is the result of the heretical stream.
 
Mik said:
Again, I get why you are avoiding the article. The history of the rc denomination is ugly. The truth can be unbearable when it destroys the foundation of what one believes. For a member of the rc denomination, the true history (not the rc version) of the rc denomination is devastating and the defense/avoidance measures kick in. I was in your shoes, I know.
Click to expand...
Amen Mik!
Roman Catholics are experts at how to avoid the truth, the irrefutable history of their denomination, and God's Holy Word. They are unfamiliar and uneasy about stating the truth, even when it is right before their eyes, as in the biblically recorded fact that the early church celebrated Communion frequently and their actions are recorded in the Book of Acts, where God's own words tell us how the apostles and disciples celebrated Communion after Jesus' ascension into heaven:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles'
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread,
and in prayers. Acts 2:42

And they, continuing daily with one accord
in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,
did eat their meat with gladness. Acts 2:46
 
Our Lord's God said:
Heretics arose immediately. The Catholic church is the result of the heretical stream.
Click to expand...
Just the opposite is true. The Catholic Church has been fighting heresy from the time of the early church to today. The only thing that is not heretical is the teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
dingoling. said:
Just the opposite is true. The Catholic Church has been fighting heresy from the time of the early church to today. The only thing that is not heretical is the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

“Indeed the devil thinks more true thoughts about God in one day than a saint does in a lifetime, and God is not honored by it. The problem with the devil is not his theology, but his desires. Our chief end is to glorify God, the great Object. We do so most fully when we treasure him, desire him, delight in him so supremely that we let goods and kindred go and display his love to the poor and the lost.”​

-J Piper
 
1Thess521 said:

“Indeed the devil thinks more true thoughts about God in one day than a saint does in a lifetime, and God is not honored by it. The problem with the devil is not his theology, but his desires. Our chief end is to glorify God, the great Object. We do so most fully when we treasure him, desire him, delight in him so supremely that we let goods and kindred go and display his love to the poor and the lost.”​

-J Piper
Click to expand...
That's a nice quote. Thanks for sharing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top