Constantine invented Catholicism

[qui_est_ce]

Of course they did…because the west declared them so. ;.)

Which of these condemned errors do the Orthodox still espouse?

• Arianism
• Docetism
• Monophysitism
• Monothelitism
• Nestorianism

 

[De_Maria]

St Monica was wrong.

No doubt. But that was the custom they were following.

And if Constantine received His Eucharist prior to Baptism, that is an abuse.
The fact that he is recognized as a Saint in the East has no bearing on whether or not he received Communion while unBaptized, and certainly not a support.

It’s just my assumption. I said, “I assume he did.” But then again, he probably listened to his mom and she seemed like she had a great deal of influence on him.

 

[Constantin]

Folks, we can end this discussion here and now. YES, I invented Catholicism.

 

[De_Maria]

That settles it then. When are you going to have all those pesky catechisms corrected? They still have the obsolete teaching that Jesus established the Church?

 

[setarcos]

Hm? How to explain?

Apparently, you’ve never read the Scriptures. Or if you did, didn’t you notice that from the very beginning, there were some Christians who were teaching false doctrine and the Apostles were struggling to correct their errors? St. John put it like this:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number;[a] if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Well now…aren’t you a defensive, arrogant and disrespectful person. I for one am on here to learn and claim no perfect knowledge of Gods plan.
Lets see now what can I say that would be unnecessary to the conversation except to insult you? Oh I know…“Hmm…how to respond to you so you might understand?”
Apparently you have read some scripture but like to cherry pick your answers to fit your needs at the time.
Didn’t you notice that from the beginning the apostles were mistaken from time to time in understanding how Gods plan was unfolding? For instance compare your quoted verse with Luke 9:49…49 “Master, said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.” 50“Do not stop him,” Jesus replied, “for whoever is not against you is for you."
This shows that even while Christ was alive there were others the apostles didn’t know who were
separate and acting with authority in Christ’s name. So I ask again…which Catholic Church? What unifying lineage can we follow if even the apostles weren’t aware of who all was acting in Christ’s name with authority? The apostles weren’t “unified” with these others they told them to stop until Christ tells them to let them be.
But with Christ’s absence how many legitimate Christians have been and are being suppressed in there teaching as heretics without good cause? If you teach something not essential to the core requirements of salvation then this is mere opinion not heretical.

Suppress? There have always been heretical opinions expressed by even good Catholics.

I agree and have said as much. My point is that some of these so called heresies were never settled reasonably, unifying Christians in a mutual understanding of the truth. It was only after one opinionated faction gained enough secular enforcement that the other opinions were made heretical and punishable even as far as being put to death that we see a claim to some semblance of a unified “church” calling itself THE Catholic Church. This was not to last though. As soon as we see a weakening of this Church’s domination of secular enforcement we see schism all because of the insistence of belief in doctrines that were never definitively settled as true in debate which have nothing to do with our ability to be saved.

 

[qui_est_ce]

My point is that some of these so called heresies were never settled reasonably, unifying Christians in a mutual understanding of the truth.

Which of these condemned errors do the Orthodox still espouse?

Arianism
Docetism
Monophysitism
Monothelitism
Nestorianism

You still haven’t answered the question.

 

[setarcos]

Yes we are. I know few people of any denomination who know all the doctrines of their founders. Many choose their places of worship by what makes them feel good. Good music, good preaching, welcome.

That’s why we have the Catechism.

I can put everything Jesus requires of me in order to be saved on a single piece of paper. The Catechism is more a document of confusion and opinion than a source of understanding. Layer upon layer of unnecessary verbiage.

The Church clarifies errors that arise out of Satan’s lies.

Even the Pope has made formal apologies for the “errors” perpetrated by the “Church”. Perhaps its time to redefine what you think you mean when using the term Church. Is the Pope lying about the Church making errors? Satan’s lies have infiltrated the “Church” from top to bottom. Its because of the arrogant pride of the people within the Church to refuse to recognize this possibility that things like the sexual abuse scandal arises to the level it has within the Church.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes we are. I know few people of any denomination who know all the doctrines of their founders. Many choose their places of worship by what makes them feel good. Good music, good preaching, welcome.

That’s why we have the Catechism.

I can put everything Jesus requires of me in order to be saved on a single piece of paper.

How do you know this?

The Catechism is more a document of confusion and opinion than a source of understanding. Layer upon layer of unnecessary verbiage.

Not really. It clarifies the development of our understanding.

The Church clarifies errors that arise out of Satan’s lies.

Even the Pope has made formal apologies for the “errors” perpetrated by the “Church”. Perhaps its time to redefine what you think you mean when using the term Church. Is the Pope lying about the Church making errors? Satan’s lies have infiltrated the “Church” from top to bottom. Its because of the arrogant pride of the people within the Church to refuse to recognize this possibility that things like the sexual abuse scandal arises to the level it has within the Church.

You are not making a distinction between the errors of people and the Teachings of the Church, or Doctrine.

Which doctrine of faith that I listed above is wrong? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe Jesus is true God and true man? Do you believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

 

[qui_est_ce]

setarcos:

My point is that some of these so called heresies were never settled reasonably, unifying Christians in a mutual understanding of the truth.

Which of these condemned errors do the Orthodox still espouse?

Arianism
Docetism
Monophysitism
Monothelitism
Nestorianism

You still haven’t answered the question.

Waiting…

 

[setarcos]

Your not getting my point.
Which of those opinions bar one from following the requirements Christ set forth for us to follow in order to be saved? They have nothing to do with our ability to be saved nor does holding to any one of those opinions bar us from being saved concerning the requirements as Christ set forth. It is because of the absolute requirement of belief by the Catholic Church in something that isn’t understood or proven to be in error “a stumbling block” that bars many from becoming members. This may be the ultimate travesty.
Because many members of the Orthodoxy are afraid of not being allowed to be saved unless they profess belief in these things they don’t truly understand you will always have some members of the Orthodoxy professing one thing while thinking another. This is apparent from the discussions and disagreements that have always arisen from time to time between members of the same Church.

 

[billcu1]

That’s the only side I’ve heard. Now I did not realize he wasn’t baptized. If not he never started or accepted the Christian walk. I don’t think the Pope could make any exception for him. Wasn’t the church there at his deathbed? Clearly politics. Why would you put a non-Christian in charge of opening an ecumenical council?

 

[vsedriver]

And Constantine changed it further by making it a State religion and the bishops State officials

Constantine did not make Christianity a ‘state’ religion. No where in history is there evidence of that. In fact, he still employed pagans in his military and government.

 

[niceatheist]

Rome’s primacy was acknowledged, but what that precisely meant was debated. Regardless, that the understanding of the papacy developed over time doesn’t mean it wasn’t the Catholic Church in earlier periods.

That’s rather my point. I would argue that in a lot of cases in those early years, that primacy was more ceremonial than in fact, and Rome didn’t really have any meaningful power to impose its will. The situation that evolved after the collapse of the Western empire was that Rome’s de facto primacy was over the former territories of the Western empire, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, under the auspices of the Byzantine Emperors, were the head of the Eastern Church (the somewhat mislabeled theory of Caesaropapism). This was a divide that, even before the later and more radical schisms, really meant Rome had no real ecumenical or political authority over the Eastern churches. That division predates Great Schism of 1054, and those historical divisions certainly fed into the final break between the two churches.

 

[De_Maria]

Well now…aren’t you a defensive, arrogant and disrespectful person.

A wise man once said, “it takes one to know one.”

I for one am on here to learn and claim no perfect knowledge of Gods plan.

Good for you.

Lets see now what can I say that would be unnecessary to the conversation except to insult you? Oh I know…“Hmm…how to respond to you so you might understand?”
Apparently you have read some scripture but like to cherry pick your answers to fit your needs at the time.

And you have no Scriptures to cherry pick, so you just make stuff up and expect us to believe you.

Didn’t you notice that from the beginning the apostles were mistaken from time to time in understanding how Gods plan was unfolding? For instance compare your quoted verse with Luke 9:49…49 “Master, said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.” 50“Do not stop him,” Jesus replied, “for whoever is not against you is for you."

Yes, I did. But it has nothing to do with the fact that there were some Christians who were disobeying Church authority from the very beginning.

This shows that even while Christ was alive there were others the apostles didn’t know who were
separate and acting with authority in Christ’s name. So I ask again…which Catholic Church?

It shows that others whom the Apostles had not met were coming to faith in Christ. There’s nothing there to suggest that they were starting a separate Church. There is only one Catholic Church.

Matthew 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

What unifying lineage can we follow if even the apostles weren’t aware of who all was acting in Christ’s name with authority? The apostles weren’t “unified” with these others they told them to stop until Christ tells them to let them be.

1. You’re assuming that the young man did not join the Apostles. He probably did.
2. You’re also assuming the young man taught different doctrines than those the Apostles passed down. There’s no evidence of that.
3. You’re also assuming that the young man formed some sort of hierarchy somewhere. But there’s no record of it, either.

But with Christ’s absence how many legitimate Christians have been and are being suppressed in there teaching as heretics without good cause?

You seem to be accusing the Catholic Church of attacking legitimate Christians. But it is the Catholic Church which forms legitimate Christians.

If you teach something not essential to the core requirements of salvation then this is mere opinion not heretical.

Again, it is the Catholic Church which Jesus Christ established and endowed with the authority to determine who is heretical and who isn’t.

I agree and have said as much. My point is that some of these so called heresies were never settled reasonably, unifying Christians in a mutual understanding of the truth.

That’s not the Church’s fault. People have free will. The Church tries to Teach them. If they don’t follow and obey, it is their fault.

It was only after one opinionated faction gained enough secular enforcement that the other opinions were made heretical and punishable even as far as being put to death that we see a claim to some semblance of a unified “church” calling itself THE Catholic Church.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church was unified and organized by Jesus Christ. And acted that way from Apostolic times. See Acts 15.

This was not to last though. As soon as we see a weakening of this Church’s domination of secular enforcement we see schism all because of the insistence of belief in doctrines that were never definitively settled as true in debate which have nothing to do with our ability to be saved.

The Catholic Church remains unified to this day. That’s over 2000 years of organization. No other organization compares in longevity. The closest is the US and that’s only been 300 years.

 

[BlackFriar]

Asked of vsedriver not yourself.
Othetwise see #94

 

[De_Maria]

That’s the only side I’ve heard. Now I did not realize he wasn’t baptized. If not he never started or accepted the Christian walk.

There’s an old saying, you need to walk in another man’s moccasins before you can judge him.

Let’s say that you’re king of this vast nation. Your mom is a Christian, but the most powerful people and officers in your army are definitely not. In fact, their accustomed to suppressing Christianity. You need them in order to keep your mom safe. And you don’t want them to rebel and kick you off the throne.

Why then, would you make a public proclamation of faith to a religion that they see as weak and illogical?

I don’t think the Pope could make any exception for him.

I don’t think the Pope had any choice.

Wasn’t the church there at his deathbed?

Yes.

Clearly politics. Why would you put a non-Christian in charge of opening an ecumenical council?

The Church was small. Constantine was the Caesar of the greatest military power on earth. I don’t think the Church had much choice. The good thing is that he had the Church’s welfare in mind.

 

[jas84173]

Dan Brown’s " The Davinci Code" I think was the most recent FICTION novel to use it.
I’ve read all of the Robert Langdon books. They are good reads but I never really liked that the author plays mind games in the beginning. He claims it is based on fact , but the reality is the groups and people he names are real, but that’s about it. His use of them besides name is complete fiction.
Angels and Demons was another one. The Illuminati were not around until the mid 18th century. Galileo was not in the Illuminati.

 

[BlackFriar]

Already been discussed.
Making bishops state officials doesnt mean Rome stopped doing same with pagans.

 

[twf]

I largely agree with much of what you write there, though I would argue that Rome did exercise doctrinal influence - St Leo’s role at Chalcedon comes to mind.
Regardless, my point is that Rome’s evolving role doesn’t necessarily define whether the Catholic Church existed in these earlier centuries. There was still a community that called itself the Catholic Church from which the modern organization directly evolved.