Roman Catholic Religion

[Tibby]

Actually the Roman Cult does NOT believe the Bible ((Gods Word)) they believe a non-christian called pope, to me who is a anti-christ.

Honestly, how can you say this when you have members of the “Roman Cult” telling you the opposite?

[avemaria]

A4C - Are you aware that it was the ROman Catholic Church who preserved the Sacred Writings and compiled Sacred Scripture?  Perhaps you ought to thank the Roman Catholic Church for you are indebted to Her for the very Bible you read today!

Pentecost (30/33AD)
The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170) Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

Council of Laodicea (c. 360) A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Council of Rome (382) Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Hippo (393) Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (397) Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405) Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Carthage (419) Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441) Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 45 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.

Vatican I Council (1869-1870) Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."

Don't read much Church history do you?  It's very obvious.

[Ambassador4Christ]

You mean Cult history

[avemaria]

Nope - I mean early Church history, but then again, your "church" history didn't start until the mid 1500's with a man named Luther so - you wouldn't know about what went on prior to this man right?

Volley ----->  serve

[Ambassador4Christ]

Nope - I mean early Church history, but then again, your "church" history didn't start until the mid 1500's with a man named Luther so - you wouldn't know about what went on prior to this man right?

Volley ----->  serve

LOL, Luther LOL
The Church I am in started in Acts chapter nine. Your Cult started around 314 A.D.

Hail May, started in the 1800's

I am still praying for you

[Ambassador4Christ]

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early Christians were all Roman Catholics, and that (aside from the Orthodox Church) all Christians were Roman Catholics until the Protestant Reformation. It claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, ruling from Rome. It also claims that it gave us the Bible.

But do these claims stand up to the test of history? Or are they false credentials?

There is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church began with Emperor Constantine. Many Protestants believe that throughout Church history, there have been many true Christians who were not Catholics, and these Christians were often killed by the Catholic Church. They also believe that Peter was just one of the apostles, and that the Catholic Church only copied and preserved the Bible, which God had already given to us.

EMPEROR CONSTANTINE

On October 28, 312 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine met with Bishop Miltiades. (Catholics would later refer to him as Pope Miltiades. But at the time he was known as the Bishop of Rome.) Miltiades was assisted by Silvester, a Roman who spoke educated Latin, and acted as interpreter. The previous day, Constantine had seen a sign in the heavens: a cross in front of the sun. He heard a voice say, "In this sign you will conquer." He painted crosses on the shields of his soldiers. He won an important battle, and was convinced that it was because of the power of the sign that he had seen. He asked for two of the nails that were used to crucify Jesus. One nail was made into a bit for his horse. Another nail was made a part of his crown, signifying that Constantine ruled the Roman Empire in the name of Jesus. He allowed Miltiades to keep the third nail. [Note 1]

The fact that Constantine saw the cross and the sun together may explain why he worshiped the Roman sun god while at the same time professing to be a Christian. After his "conversion," Constantine built a triumphal arch featuring the Roman sun god (the "unconquered sun"). His coins featured the sun. Constantine made a statue of the sun god, with his own face on it, for his new city of Constantinople. He made Sunday (the day of the sun god) into a day of rest when work was forbidden. [Note 2]

Constantine declared that a mosaic of the Roman sun god (riding in a chariot) was a representation of Jesus. During Constantine's reign, many Christians incorporated worship of the Roman sun god into their religion. They prayed kneeling towards the east (where the sun rises). They said that Jesus Christ drives his chariot across the sky (like the Roman sun god). They had their worship services on Sunday, which honored the Roman sun god. (Days of the week were named to honor pagan gods. For example, Saturday is "Saturn's day," named for the Roman god Saturn.) They celebrated the birth of Jesus on December 25, the day when sun worshipers celebrated the birthday of the sun following the winter solstice. [Note 3]

Historians disagree as to whether or not Constantine actually became a Christian. His character certainly did not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Constantine was vain, violent, and superstitious. His combination of worshiping the Christian God and the old Roman sun god may have been an attempt to cover all the bases. (A similar spirit can be seen in Americans who financially support both opposing candidates during an election. No matter who wins, they expect to have the favor of the person in power.) Constantine had little if any respect for human life. He was known for wholesale slaughter during his military campaigns. He forced prisoners of war to fight for their lives against wild beasts. He had several family members (including his second wife) executed for doubtful reasons. Constantine waited until he was dying before he asked to be baptized. Historians disagree as to whether or not he actually was baptized. [Note 4]

Constantine wanted to have a state Church, with Christian clergy acting as civil servants. He called himself a Bishop. He said that he was the interpreter of the Word of God, and the voice which declares what is true and godly. According to historian Paul Johnson, Constantine saw himself as being an important agent of salvation, on a par with the apostles. Bishop Eusebius (Constantine's eulogist) relates that Constantine built the Church of the Apostles with the intention of having his body be kept there along with the bodies of the apostles. Constantine's coffin was to be in the center (the place of honor), with six apostles on each side of him. He expected that devotions honoring the apostles would be performed in the church, and he expected to share the title and honor of the apostles. [Note 5]

Constantine told Bishop Miltiades that he wanted to build two Christian basilicas, one dedicated to the Apostle Peter and one dedicated to the Apostle Paul. He offered a large, magnificent palace for the use of Miltiades and his successors. Miltiades refused. He could not accept the idea of having Christianity be promoted by the Roman Empire. [Note 6]

Constantine rode off to war. By the time that he returned in 314 A.D., Miltiades had died. Bishop Silvester was Miltiades' successor. Silvester was eager to have the Church be spread using Roman roads, Roman wealth, Roman law, Roman power, and Roman military might. Constantine officially approved of Silvester as the successor of Miltiades. Then he had a coronation ceremony for Silvester and crowned him like a worldly prince. No bishop had ever been crowned before. [Note 7] Constantine's actions give the impression that he believed that he had authority over the Church.

Before Constantine's "conversion," Christians were persecuted. Now, instead of facing persecution, Bishop Silvester lived in the lap of luxury. He had a beautiful palace, with the finest furniture and art. He wore silk brocade robes. He had servants to wait on him. Near his palace was a basilica which was to serve as his cathedral. This luxurious building had seven altars made of gold, a canopy of solid silver above the main altar, and 50 chandeliers. The imperial mail system and transportation system were placed at Silvester's disposal. It was now possible to have worldwide church councils. [Note 8]

Read the Book of Acts and the Epistles and compare the Church shown there to the Church of Bishop Silvester. Here is how the Apostle Paul described the kinds of things that he had to endure, as a leader in the early Church.

"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." (2 Corinthians 11:24-27)

After Constantine's "conversion," the Church was radically changed. Suddenly, being Christian resulted in power, prestige, and promotion (whereas previously it had resulted in persecution). Suddenly, by the Emperor's decree, Christianity became "politically correct". So ambitious people joined the Church for worldly reasons. The Bishop of Rome was supported by the military might, political power, and wealth of the Roman Emperor. Worldwide church councils were convened.

This was the birth of the Roman Catholic Church. It was created in the year 314 A.D. by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester.

 

[Ambassador4Christ]

The Roman Catholic Church was created by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester in the year 314 A.D.

The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible, but it did help preserve it. The Bible was copied by monks during the Middle Ages..

Peter did not act like a Pope and he did not describe himself as having any special authority. In the Church meeting that is described in chapter 15 of the Book of Acts, James appears to be the person in authority. He makes the final decision. The Bible shows Peter as being in Jerusalem, not in Rome.

 

Do I hear a Hail Mary

[Ambassador4Christ]

"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions...Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down" (Mark 7:7-13).

[michael_legna]

LOL, Luther LOL
The Church I am in started in Acts chapter nine. Your Cult started around 314 A.D.

Interesting!  Then you should be able to provide a complete line of succession of every bishop and elder ordained through laying on of hands from your current minister all the way back to the apostles then.  I would love to read it.

[Tibby]

LOL, Luther LOL
The Church I am in started in Acts chapter nine. Your Cult started around 314 A.D.

Interesting!  Then you should be able to provide a complete line of succession of every bishop and elder ordained through laying on of hands from your current minister all the way back to the apostles then.  I would love to read it.

When your church history doesn’t start till 1700s, ideas like Apostolic succession are a tad beyond your grasp.   I say 1700s because while the church did split in the 1500s, it remanded very Catholic in nature until the 1700s.

Besides, we are talking to someone who thinks he knows more about Catholicism then all 3 of us combined. He sure gave a lot of information. Anyone who spends this much time studying something they believe is false needs to reassess their priorities.

[michael_legna]

The Roman Catholic Church was created by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester in the year 314 A.D.

Your revisionist history aside no independent historian or scholar holds to this opinion.  Instead of claiming to be an authority yourself try offering some evidence from people who really know what they are talking about.  Quotes from some secular historians would go further to prove your point then your egotisitical babblings.

J.N.D. Kelly a Protestant historian at Oxford accepts the line of succession of Popes all the way to Peter.   So much for your private theory of it starting with Constantine.  You can find Kelly's work in the book The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. ISBN 0-19-282085-0

The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible, but it did help preserve it. The Bible was copied by monks during the Middle Ages..

What body did give us the Bible then?  Who decided what books were and were not to be included in the Canon?  You can't deny one explanation without providing an alternative and remain a constructive participant in the search for truth.

Peter did not act like a Pope and he did not describe himself as having any special authority. In the Church meeting that is described in chapter 15 of the Book of Acts, James appears to be the person in authority. He makes the final decision. The Bible shows Peter as being in Jerusalem, not in Rome.

Peter certainly acted like a Church leader.  It was he that rebuked Ananais when he held back the value of what he was to lay at the apostles feet.  Peter was also the one who made the decision at the Council in Acts.  James was the local Bishop but Peter was clearly in charge of the proceedings.  Finally the Bible clearly teaches that Peter was in Rome as he sends greatings from Babylon in his epistle and that was the code word for Rome.  Besides that not all of history of the day is contained in the New Testament and history clearly shows Peter to be in Rome.  Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies makes it clear that Peter was in Rome and established a Church there.

"The universally known church was founded and organized  at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul."  Ireneaus 1.415

[Tibby]

Bruce L. Shelley and N.R. Needham are 2 more examples of Protestant historians who accept the Apostolic succession and tradition. And all these men are well-known, published authors. Lets see some credible historian argue against this fact. I think you would hard pressed to find one, Protestant or otherwise.

[avemaria]

Tibby - you said, "I say 1700s because while the church did split in the 1500s, it remanded very Catholic in nature until the 1700s."

I humbly disagree.  When Luther split, he dropped all the Sacraments except two.  Because he split from Holy Mother Church, he no longer had the authority to celebrate the Holy Eucharist - so when Luther split, even if he tried to make it resemble Catholism it was NOTHING of the sort.

As far as getting Prots to trace their history.  They can't do it.  You will see someone pop on here and change the subject radically to avoid this.  It's a thorn in their side and they know it just as the Scripture compilation is a thorn in their side.  NO way around it so the best way to deal with it is to avoid the topic altogether. LOL  Wait and see....

We have a proven unbroken line of succession beginning with St. Peter (I could print for everyone if they want).  The argument regarding the Church starting with Constantine is a tired, old - anti-Catholic bunch of nothingness that couldn't hold water if they tried.

I think it best to just go ahead and admit your "church" started with Luther and base an argument from there, then to try to make up some lie that your "church" started in Acts when we all know that to be false.  Look at the writings of the early Church fathers - even a few hundred years after Christ which talked about celebrating the Holy Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin etc....Prots close their eyes to these writings and pretend they don't exist.  Sad.  Very sad.

[Tibby]

I was referring the basic Liturgical mass, which they still keep to an extent, even if they did leave True Catholicism. It wasn’t until around the 1700’s that they really left the basic Liturgical setting. Personally, I have a problem with someone who even considers taking the book of James out, but, despite his tampering with scripture, his anti-Semitism, and his problem with authority, he did bring up a few good points. Even if he did start a movement that gave raise to all forms of insanity and heresy, we should be careful on to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I’ve met many a man who said the true Church died with the Apostles, and that everyone after that were heretics. This is foolishness. My question is, these heretics complied the bible, so shouldn‘t we question a bible heretics made? It didn’t magical form itself. These men who put the bible together, in their own writing, where very Catholic in nature. This can not be argued. Succession a very important part of the Church.

[avemaria]

he did bring up a few good points. Even if he did start a movement that gave raise to all forms of insanity and heresy, we should be careful on to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Read a good, non-prejudicial book about Luther.  I bet you change your mind about that quote.
THrow the whole tub and all out!  The man was a foul-mouthed, womanizing, disgusting man.

I wouldn't take a single word of what he had to say as "good points".