I responded directly to your comment. And, no, they didn’t change the Church. They contributed to advancing Christ’s agenda. Nor is there any truth to the idea that you first proposed and are now trying to avoid talking about. The idea that Constantine had any hand in “inventing” the Church.Why address me, nothing here relevent to my observations.
Yes there is some truth in saying others had a significant contribution in changing Christianity into a significantly different beast from what Jesus founded.
it suggests English Anti-Catholicism, because that is the root of the term. The English still considered themselves Catholics even after the break from Rome. They had to make a distinction between themselves and the ‘other’ Catholics, hence they termed them Roman Catholics because of their allegiance to the Pope in Rome.What does the title “Roman Catholicism” suggest to you?
Why isnt it Greek or Jewish Catholicism.
I wouldnt call it different directions, but certainly distinct ones
One would think a self-proclaimed Dominican would know all this.it suggests English Anti-Catholicism, because that is the root of the term. The English still considered themselves Catholics even after the break from Rome. They had to make a distinction between themselves and the ‘other’ Catholics, hence they termed them Roman Catholics because of their allegiance to the Pope in Rome.
The Catholic Church has never called itself anything but The Catholic Church.
What do you mean they were enforced with worldly power and not agreed upon? The Council of Nicea was no different than the Council of Jerusalem. Nicea was not exactly the first council either.The doctrines that were decided upon were enforced with worldly power not agreed upon in the spirit of holy unanimity
And there are still Jewish Catholics. Baptism is just a Jewish mikveh for the remission of sins, that is what Jews believe about baptism.Infants are baptised as Jews and is the actual point of conversion in Judaism.For something so plain where is it?
The very early Church was largely trying to bring followers of Christ into Judaism and the Synagogues, an internal group like the Pharisees or Sadducees, identified by circumcision and baptism.
That was clearly his plan in his lifetime.
Right he left the decisions to be made by His ChurchWhat the resurrected Jesus wanted is ambiguous.
His Church took on an identity of its own as it reached out to the gentilesEventually his followers broke away from Judaism and formed an independent community.
CorrectBaptism was maintained though Gentiles were no longer required to become Jews to belong.
Christians had their own synagogues. Remember to READ ACTS 1 and 2 as a Jews and you will notice the Christ has replaced the complete SanhedrinIt is likely Jewish members remained practising Jews as well until the Jewish leaders banned Christians from the Synagogues.
This is incorrect. Christ took Judaism where it was meant to go and point the way to.So yes Jesus started a Christian school within Judaism.
The first catholic Church was founded in accordance to Jewish Law and was a legal entity however unlike a regular synagogue it was a TEMPLE itself. READ ACTS 1 and 2 as a Jew, Christ has created a the Great Sanhedrin in the first church. And restored the Nasi to the beit din bringing the great controversy (heresy) in Judaism to its end, reconciling and showing confidence in His nasi. The Nasi was removed from the beit din with a no confidence vote due to heresy, Christ restores the Nasi back to his own beit din.The apostles changed it significantly by eventually breaking away from Judaism.
Cow pucky. He was on the loosing side at the council and even threatened the bishops with death. The bishop stood up to Constantine and refused to admit the heretics. Christanity did not become the state religion because the Cult of the Emperor was still strong among the patricians.And Constantine changed it further by making it a State religion and the bishops State officials.
Most of Catholic customs are still very Jewish. The Jews and Catholic do pray the liturgy of the hours (you should know this right Mr. OP poser) praying the same prayers at the same times. Jews have saints (tzaddikim) and do the EXACT same thing as Catholic saints, Jews pray to saints, Jews keep relics of their saints and still trade in their relics, Jews make pilgrimages to the graves of their saints to ask for intercession (orthodox mostly - check out the Tzaddik tours in Jerusalem and in Europe). Jews believe in purgatory and use the same verses as catholics to make their case, the give arms and pray for those in purgatory and even have indulgences to go with it - they still trade in these. We read the old testament in the same manner and come to the same conclusions (for a large part - Christ is who they deny). Our use of vigil lamps when the Eucharist is in the tabernacle is a Jewish practice. Jews sit on the same three legged stool as Catholicism (Torah Shebapeh/oral tradition, teaching chair/Chair of Moses, and Torah/the written Law in that order). Only 10% of the students studying to become rabbis study Torah most study the Traditions as this is what explains what is in the Torah, because when there seems to be a conflict it is always the Torah Shebapeh which is followed not the Torah.So yes Jesus started a sect that eventually became catholic in the sense of the word we use today. It started out with its headquarters in Palestine which eventually changed to Rome. In the 2nd Millenium Protestants invented the appellation Roman Catholicism.
So there is some truth in saying others had a significant contribution in changing Christianity into a significantly different beast from what Jesus founded.
If you believe that the OP literally means “invent” as in from nothing that would be silly.Nor is there any truth to the idea that you first proposed and are now trying to avoid talking about. The idea that Constantine had any hand in “inventing” the Church.
No Jesus fulfilled the old covenant and gave us a new covenant. This wasn’t a ‘renewal’. Nor did he explicitly confine the new covenant to the children of Israel. He came to us through the Jews because of the old covenant.Yes Jesus started a renewal movement he explicitly confined to the children of Israel
As I’ve stated…Constantine called for the first council, not any member of the so called leadership of the Church, though I’m sure Catholics would argue that Pope St. Sylvester I had some say in the matter but that is to be expected. Of course it would be argued that the bishops had the last say and this, at least explicitly can be argued. At the time Constantine called for the council he was merely a Catechumen and you are correct, he was no theological heavy weight consequently deferring most of the argumentation over to the bishops as far as the theology goes, he did however participate, argue and ultimately insist on some points. You misunderstand what I meant though. Constantine didn’t call the council together because he was so concerned with getting the theology correct he called it for the sake of keeping piece within his empire. There were very real concerns he was dealing with concerning keeping the empire together and bickering Christians wouldn’t have helped matters at all. It would have been implicitly understood that matters were to be settled at the council or Constantine would have taken steps to ensure the unity of the empire. His final say was “get this figured out or I will do it for you”. What he made legal he could make illegal again.Constantine did not have the ultimate say in deciding the final decisions of the council. The bishops did. Again, Constantine was no theological heavyweight. He deferred to the decisions of the bishops.
You misunderstand the meaning of this vote. The vote of which you speak was confined to Arius’s views and whether or not Arius would be allowed to continue in his position. They was no definitive rebuttal of Arius’s views, some of the bishops apparently even plugging their ears because they did not want to hear his views. There was no spirit of holiness here, merely a demonstration of political affiliation. Even today Arianism in some form or other still crops up with no definitive rebuttal other than it was declared a heresy. In other words the bishops didn’t argue for the truth they merely declared what that truth would henceforth be.The final vote was 316 - 2. Technically this is not unanimous. But it is pretty darn close. Further, it is a pretty strong indication that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Council.
The confusing doctrines of the Catholic Church of which I speak follow along the same lines and are an unnecessary source of much of her troubles concerning having to defending and explain them of which their belief in and understanding of would otherwise be unnecessary to the salvation of a person. A few are the insistence on defining the ineffable nature and constituency of the trinity, the adoration of the virgin Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and purgatory and indulgences. None of which are revelations from Christ or his apostles. I am aware of the various arguments for each however it is not the arguments for it is the unnecessary confusions each has caused as unnecessary stumbling blocks for those who would otherwise have come to Jesus that I am against. I believe that by making them necessary to belief before one can enter the Church the Church is making a grievous mistake as belief in none of these is inherently necessary to salvation according to scripture.Could you please specify what confusing doctrines?
The Church councils were called to address false teachings, Arianism is just one of them.Are we to reduce the answer to merely stating that in hind sight the Catholic Church is the one that was able to suppress all other disparate opinion on Christian doctrine?