Boniface III, Found the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanRyan1088
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanRyan1088

Guest
Who or What is this, did this Boniface III find the Catholic Church? I thought Jesus did?
 
The reason I ask is because i found this little chart.

TIME

PLACE

FOUNDER

CHURCH

606 A.D.

Rome

Boniface III

Roman Catholic

1520 A.D.

Germany

Martin Luther

Lutheran

1534 A.D.

England

Henry VIII

Episcopalian

1536 A.D.

Switzerland

John Calvin

Presbyterian

1550 A.D.

England

Robert Browne

Congregational

1607 A.D.

Holland

John Smythe

Baptist

1739 A.D.

England

John Wesley

Methodist

1830 A.D.

America

Joseph Smith

Latter Day Saints (Mormon)

1830 A.D.

America

William Miller

Adventists

1866 A.D.

America

Mary Baker Eddy

Christian Scientist

1872 A.D.

America

Charles T. Russell

Jehovah’s Witnesses

I almost fell outta my chair when i saw Roman Catholic,
Boniface III
 
It would help to let us know where you found that list. At least it’s a refreshing break from the usual Catholic Church founded by Constantine in 312 A.D. schtick. Maybe they thought if they move up the date it would make the Church even less old. 😃
 
fifthwardcoc.org/pages/believes.html

It was in the “MEET AND GREET” section, a fellow poster posted it, The thread was called " Whats Your Religion", I believe the posters name was Latisha 1903. I believe the web-site is Chruch of Christ.
 
RomanRyan:

Hola!!! :hmmm:

Yes, Latisha1903 has used this “information” in other threads (To Non-Catholics: Why Peter was the First Pope). 😦 Boniface became pope a year after his predecessor, Sabinian, died. Biniface was pope for only 8 months. Boniface renewed the supremacy of the Roman Church over all others. The Patriarch of Constantinople renounced any dominant universal influences he may have had. I’m paraphrasing from a book titled “The Popes” by Dr. Jenaro Perico Garcia, First Ed., Editorial Basilio Nuñez, S.A. de C.V.

Maybe this is why some people such as Latisha1903 think Boniface “created” the Catholic Church. I can’t believe people throw around dates and supposed events as if they were true and fact, without qualifying the information, nor giving supporting work. :confused: In the book I quoted, you will find a good bibliography.

RomanRyan: Rest assured that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in the year 33 AD, and it is the only one with this distinction (and will always be). In it, we can find the whole Truth, there is nothing partial about it. 🤓

Take care, buddy!!! 👍

Jorge.
 
40.png
RomanRyan1088:
Who or What is this, did this Boniface III find the Catholic Church? I thought Jesus did?
Click to expand...
Just look at the reference:

Boniface III

If there was a third, what about the first and second? Clearly Boniface III could not have founded the Catholic Church because he was the THIRD pope named Boniface.
 
40.png
theMutant:
Just look at the reference:

Boniface III

If there was a third, what about the first and second? Clearly Boniface III could not have founded the Catholic Church because he was the THIRD pope named Boniface.
Click to expand...
:dancing: :clapping:
 
**
**606 A.D.
Click to expand...
Rome**
Click to expand...
Boniface III

Roman Catholic

Oops, back then, Catholics weren’t addressed as “Roman” Catholics. This term was coined by Henry VIII who hated the Pope, and wanted to call all catholics “Roman” to distinguish them as one in union with Rome/Pope. Of course, we have been used to that term now, but it isn’t the offical title of the Catholic Church–it’s simply “Catholic Church.”

Therefore, the term above is misleading and not true. Of course, Bonafice III succeeded the pope before him. The one who wrote this doesn’t know about the history of the Catholic Church at all or just want to mess with the Catholic Church.

Pio**
 
hlgomez said:
** **
****Oops, back then, Catholics weren’t addressed as “Roman” Catholics. This term was coined by Henry VIII who hated the Pope, and wanted to call all catholics “Roman” to distinguish them as one in union with Rome/Pope. Of course, we have been used to that term now, but it isn’t the offical title of the Catholic Church–it’s simply “Catholic Church.”

Therefore, the term above is misleading and not true. Of course, Bonafice III succeeded the pope before him. The one who wrote this doesn’t know about the history of the Catholic Church at all or just want to mess with the Catholic Church.

Pio
Click to expand...

This claim, sounds like a garbled version of the claim that Boniface III was the first Pope.​

If someone reasons from that, it’s easy to see how (since the CC is in some sense “Papal”) the first Pope becomes the founder of it. ##
 
40.png
theMutant:
Just look at the reference:

Boniface III

If there was a third, what about the first and second? Clearly Boniface III could not have founded the Catholic Church because he was the THIRD pope named Boniface.
Click to expand...
Nice rejoinder! Everyone knows that it was Boniface I–or maybe it was Pius I or Stephen I–who founded the Church. That’s just as believable as the claim for Boniface III. There sure is a lot of ignorance out there, much of it directed at the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. Why do so many people insist on remaining ignorant? The effects of Original Sin flourishes.
 
It is also worthy to note that this list claiming 606AD as the founding of the Roman Catholic Church belongs to a group who represent the “Church of Christ”. This is a Protestant sect that sprang from the “Restorationist” movement, that is, the return to the “simple gospel” and was born of the desire for unity. It traces its origins to Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott in the nineteenth century here in America. This information comes from “Handbook of Denominations in the United States” tenth edition by Frank Mead and revised by Samuel Hill. This is a pretty handy source reference covering just about any denomination you can think of. I hope this helps. - Mfaustina1
 
I saw this same claim on a web site that went on further to rail against Pope Stephen binding the Church to the “errant doctrine” of not rebaptizing heretics when receiving them back into the Church. Stephen noted that it was the historical teaching of the Church.

Stephen vs. Cyprian of Carthage. The online Catholic Encyclopedia article on baptism covers this in the section on rebaptism of heretics.

That was 257 AD …

I was a little shocked that the author didn’t notice that Stephen was acting in an authoritative capacity as the Bishop of Rome here, long before Boniface III.

My wife was raised Church of Christ. In my experience most CoC do not hold to such conspiracy theories about the Church. It is a matter simply avoided although they do cite ECF’s against sola fide as propogated by mainline Protestants. Visit Catholic Answers “Father Knows Best” series for details about historical evidence refuting this claim. It is far reaching and the citations are sufficiently numerous.
 
“It traces its origins to Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott in the nineteenth century here in America.”

Actually Stone and the Campbells founded the Christian Church (disciples of Christ), they are a main-stream Protestant denomination and openly affirm this.

The so-called “churches of Christ” were founded in the year 1906, by schismatic members of the Christian Church, who left over mainly two issues:
  1. The use of organs to accompany singing (“cofC” sings strictly acappela only.
    and
  2. The cooperative funding of mission work (“cofC” funds each missionary congregation by congregation).
I was raised “church of Christ” and I consider them to be semi-cultic, They control the behavior of members by the use of shunning, and consider themselves to be the one-and-only Church Christ has. All others are non-Christian.

When I left “Christ and his only Church” shortly after HS graduation I was disowned by my parents, told I was longer a Christian and going to hell.

They splinter at the drop of a hat over such earth shaking issues as whether or not to have a kitchen and dining room (parish hall) on church property.

In fact there are at least seven different sects all claiming the name church of Christ.
  1. The Boston/International “Churches of Christ”, which are a full-fledged cult.
  2. The “grace based” , “c’sofC” which frequently do have instrumental music in their churches.
  3. The main stream “csofC” which do not use musical instruments, but do have Sunday School classes.
  4. The anti “cs of Christ” which consider sunday school classes “unscriptural”.
  5. The anti “churches of Christ” whic have sunday school but consider church support of “institutions” (like orphanges, and Universities) “unscriptural”.
  6. The anti “churches of Christ” who do not have sunday school and consider institutions “unscriptural”.
  7. The “one cupper”, “churches of Christ” whiich pass a chalice back and forth in the "observation of their Lord’s Supper.
Ironic that all these diffferent “churches of Christ” deny fellowship and the very name “Christian” to all the others. This in a denomination that was founded to “restore” unity to Christianity.
 
boppysbud said:
“It traces its origins to Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott in the nineteenth century here in America.”

Actually Stone and the Campbells founded the Christian Church (disciples of Christ), they are a main-stream Protestant denomination and openly affirm this.

The so-called “churches of Christ” were founded in the year 1906, by schismatic members of the Christian Church, who left over mainly two issues:
  1. The use of organs to accompany singing (“cofC” sings strictly acappela only.
    and
  2. The cooperative funding of mission work (“cofC” funds each missionary congregation by congregation).
I was raised “church of Christ” and I consider them to be semi-cultic, They control the behavior of members by the use of shunning, and consider themselves to be the one-and-only Church Christ has. All others are non-Christian.

When I left “Christ and his only Church” shortly after HS graduation I was disowned by my parents, told I was longer a Christian and going to hell.

They splinter at the drop of a hat over such earth shaking issues as whether or not to have a kitchen and dining room (parish hall) on church property.

In fact there are at least seven different sects all claiming the name church of Christ.
  1. The Boston/International “Churches of Christ”, which are a full-fledged cult.
  2. The “grace based” , “c’sofC” which frequently do have instrumental music in their churches.
  3. The main stream “csofC” which do not use musical instruments, but do have Sunday School classes.
  4. The anti “cs of Christ” which consider sunday school classes “unscriptural”.
  5. The anti “churches of Christ” whic have sunday school but consider church support of “institutions” (like orphanges, and Universities) “unscriptural”.
  6. The anti “churches of Christ” who do not have sunday school and consider institutions “unscriptural”.
  7. The “one cupper”, “churches of Christ” whiich pass a chalice back and forth in the "observation of their Lord’s Supper.
Ironic that all these diffferent “churches of Christ” deny fellowship and the very name “Christian” to all the others. This in a denomination that was founded to “restore” unity to Christianity.
Click to expand...

Oh well thank you, well you know from where i’m from, I never Had a problem with the Church Of Christ. It seems to me that they keep to themselves. I had a friend that went to that c of c church by the post office, by the bank of america, Bobbysbud, which of the above is tha one?
 
Roman, it makes a lot of sense that campellites (cofC members) stick to themselves since the consider themselves to be the onlly Christians, and think that everyone one else is going to hell.

Your friend belongs to the Sixth and Jackson “church of Christ”, named I guess for Saints Jackson, and Sixth lol.

It is the largest “church of Christ” congregation in town and the “First church of Christ” for Odessa.

They would fit into denomination three.
  1. The main stream “csofC” which do not use musical instruments, but do have Sunday School classes.
I think you missed my point, the “cofC” does not consider itself a denomination at all, just the one and only Church that Christ has, containing the world’s only Christians, ironic them that they have divided into seven denominations themself… Yes your friend if he is up on “ofC” doctrine does not consider you to be a Christian at all.

They absolutely hate Catholics. For a good look at “church of Christ” doctrine in re: Catholics look at the web site.

bible.ca
 
40.png
boppysbud:
campellites
Click to expand...
“Campellites” is not a good choice of a generic term to be applied to this group, as it was historically applied to the mainstream Christian Church and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), neither of which espouses any hatred toward Catholics or much else in the way of anything that would be considered bizarre.

Many years,

Neil
 
“Campellites” is not a good choice of a generic term to be applied to this group, "

I agree, but I am at a quandry at what to call them.

I refuse to call them “The church of Christ” because they are not. The Catholic Church is The church of Christ.

I also refuse to call them “Christians” their prefered name for themselves because the consider themselves to be the only Christians in existence, and they are not.

Any ideas on what to call this denomination and it’s members, that does not admit to their prejudice about being the ONLY Church with the ONLY Christians?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top