History of the Roman Catholic Church

[Benjamin8o8]

My first thread on this particular forum was “Hisotry of Islam”, which was a challenge to all Muslims to provide historical facts that Islam existed before Muhammad. Every Muslim that posted under my forum failed to do so, therefore, I insist a challenge now to any protestant. Name your denomination, and we will see if your “church” predates the Universal Church. Now, this is what I have to offer for my denomination:

"As the apostles of Jesus Christ spread the Gospel, they provided the beginning structure for the early Christian Church. It is impossible to separate the initial stages of the Roman Catholic church from that of the early Christian church.

After Jesus died, Simon Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, became a strong leader in the Jewish Christian movement. Later James, most likely Jesus’ brethren, took over leadership. These followers of Christ viewed themselves as a reform movement within Judaism yet they continued to follow many of the Jewish laws.

At this time Saul, originally one of the strongest persecutors of the early Jewish Christians, had a blinding vision of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, and became a Christian. Adopting the name Paul, he became the greatest evangelist of the early Christian church. Paul’s ministry, also called Pauline Christianity, was directed mainly to Gentiles rather than Jews. In subtle ways, the early church was already becoming divided.

Another belief system at this time was Gnostic Christianity, which taught that Jesus was a spirit being, sent by God to impart knowledge to humans so that they could escape the miseries of life on earth.

In addition to Gnostic, Jewish, and and Pauline Christianity, there were already many other versions of Christianity being taught. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Jewish Christian movement was scattered. Pauline and Gnostic Christianity were left as the dominant groups.

The Roman Empire legally recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 AD. Later in that century, in 380 AD, Roman Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire. During the following 1000 years, Catholics were the only people recognized as Christians.

In 1054 AD, a formal split occurred between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. This division remains in effect today.

The next major division occurred in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation.

Those who remained faithful to Roman Catholicism believed that the central regulation of doctrine by church leaders was necessary to prevent confusion and division within the church and corruption of its beliefs."

source: christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/catholichistory.htm​

Okay now, it is your turn either to provide facts for your church, or disprove what I just claimed. So let us make this very simple and clear, if you fail to do anything I asked for, The Roman Catholic Church is the church Jesus Christ established.

and remember one thing:

people lie, history dosen`t:thumbsup:

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Ok to logically do this, instead of starting at the beginning let us trace back from the end.

some 164 years ago a group of Protestants from different denominations came together and were disappointed when the expected return of Christ did not occur as was expected from Biblical evaluation and prophetic interpretation based upon earlier writting by reformers of these various denominations.

Now the denominations evolved from the reformation that occurred when it was recognized by, offically Luther, that the RCC was in error on a few points of doctrine. However, histroy shows that there were many reformation efforts prior to Luthers stand. Each of these efforts brought forth a bit of truth which the RCC refused to recognize, at the time, but accepted in later years.

The major split from the Orthodox Church was not the first split to occur. As you mention before there was the Jewish Christian Church, which still held to the commandments of God and granted some did still observe some of the feastal days of Judism, however, it was recognized that Jesus had fulfilled these and Peter and Paul explained that these need not be observed, but that if one so desired to do so there should be no condemnation to that person. In any event the Jewish Christian Church did not just vanish away, rather it chose to seperate itself from Rome as it recognized what it considered to be error as it saw that the Roman Church was beginning to mingle in itself that of Pagan ritual in an effort to make itself more appelling to the pagans. Historical records show that there were no Icons in the early church, these began to appear sometime around the 4th century during the rein of Constatine (sic).

So, technically we protestants can claim that our beginnings were the same as the RCC, just that we took a different route due to HERESIES of the Roman Bishop.

I mean no disrespect, but you did ask.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Ok to logically do this, instead of starting at the beginning let us trace back from the end.

some 164 years ago a group of Protestants from different denominations came together and were disappointed when the expected return of Christ did not occur as was expected from Biblical evaluation and prophetic interpretation based upon earlier writting by reformers of these various denominations.

Now the denominations evolved from the reformation that occurred when it was recognized by, offically Luther, that the RCC was in error on a few points of doctrine. However, histroy shows that there were many reformation efforts prior to Luthers stand. Each of these efforts brought forth a bit of truth which the RCC refused to recognize, at the time, but accepted in later years…

Only because others attempted to break off the church before Luther, dose not mean that they were right to do so. If you remember what Jesus said, or if you care: He said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Now…with my history I proved that the RCC is the Church that Jesus Christ was talking about, and if you are accusing that the Church started to form wrong doctrines and began to corrupt its teaching, are you not saying the gates of hell are the cause of this, thus prevailing against it?! Whatever happened to the faith we have in the scirptures man?

The major split from the Orthodox Church was not the first split to occur. As you mention before there was the Jewish Christian Church, which still held to the commandments of God and granted some did still observe some of the feastal days of Judism, however, it was recognized that Jesus had fulfilled these and Peter and Paul explained that these need not be observed, but that if one so desired to do so there should be no condemnation to that person. In any event the Jewish Christian Church did not just vanish away, rather it chose to seperate itself from Rome as it recognized what it considered to be error as it saw that the Roman Church was beginning to mingle in itself that of Pagan ritual in an effort to make itself more appelling to the pagans. Historical records show that there were no Icons in the early church, these began to appear sometime around the 4th century during the rein of Constatine (sic)…

First off all, some Jewsish sects were never part of the Roman Catholic Church. They were not even the first Christians, some didn`t even believe in Jesus as divine, yet they did emerge in the picture in the same century the Church of Jersuasalem did. If other sects seperated from the Catholic Church, how is this proving the RCC is not the first early church? You are just claiming the RCC was prevailed by the gates off hell regardless of what scripture is talking about. As far as icons are mentioned…so what? It took time to develop the Church. After all, the Jews did not always have synagogues, it took TIME to establish one over a period of years. Only because the Roman Catholic Church was attempting to make Herself more appealing to the pagans, does not prove anything. Basically they just wanted to attract the pagans to CONVERT to Christinanity. Lets get real, the RCC in no shape or form follow any grave sin from paganism. If you claim this, open a new thread and I am sure your accusations will be refuted.

So, technically we protestants can claim that our beginnings were the same as the RCC, just that we took a different route due to HERESIES of the Roman Bishop…

Whatever happened to faith in Jesus words. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

You yourself just said the RCC is the same Church that Jesus established, yet it corrupted itself. However, Jesus makes it loud and clear, that no matter what evil member is in the Church, it will never fail against the gates of hell. We need to stop being rebels, and unite ourselves to the Catholic Body of Jesus Christ.

I mean no disrespect, but you did ask.

I am happy you answered.

God Bless.

 

[roselking]

A good way to see if we are in line with early Christians is to look at their beliefs. Early Christians believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, and Protestants do not. Therefore, Protestants are not in union with the church Christ started, but the Catholic Church is.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

A good way to see if we are in line with early Christians is to look at their beliefs.

Exactly right, so can you answer the question that so many in here have either refused to answer or been afraid to answer…“Would the Apostles have taught anything verbally, through Tradition, that was contradictory to what they taught in their epistles?”

Early Christians believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, and Protestants do not.

This is either an assumption on your part or a regurgitation of something you’ve been told, however, not all Protestants believe as you have presented. A little research on your part would enlighten you to this fact.

Therefore, Protestants are not in union with the church Christ started, but the Catholic Church is.

Assuming of course that the issue of the Eucharist is the only issue that counts. I don’t believe it is.

 

[po18guy]

Jesus founded His Church upon Apostles. He charged them and sent them forth. They made successors, as documented in Acts, so the Church would continue when they died. Any Church claiming to be original must have hands-on ordinations from the Twelve, in an unbroken line, to today - again from Acts. This reduces the argument to two existing Churches. Christ named Peter as the (human) foundation of the Church. Thus, the original Church must have a successor to Peter, holding Peter’s office and with all of his authority.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Exactly right, so can you answer the question that so many in here have either refused to answer or been afraid to answer…“Would the Apostles have taught anything verbally, through Tradition, that was contradictory to what they taught in their epistles?” .

No, and we dont neither, if we do however, then the gates of hell prevailed against us, and I dont think that would happen anytime soon.

This is either an assumption on your part or a regurgitation of something you’ve been told, however, not all Protestants believe as you have presented. A little research on your part would enlighten you to this fact…

Protestants pick and choose what they want to adopt from the RCC. Hence how we always track back to RCC and not any other denomination. Is it because just maybe, and I mean just maybe the Catholic Church is the only church that traces back to Jesus?Ask yourself that.

Assuming of course that the issue of the Eucharist is the only issue that counts. I don’t believe it is.

We believe in Eucharist, a lot of protestants dont. We believe in Porgitury, most protestants dont. We behold our heavenly Mother, most protestants dont. We have vaild Holy Orders, most protestants dont. We also compiled the books in the Bible, no protestant ever did that. Well, we do have Martin Luther who reduced the bible on his own authority, and even dared to ADD a writting of his OWN to it, but then changed his mind a year or two later. So…it is pretty simple guys, the RCC is the Church found by Christ. If anybody has any other denomination that would like to compare, PLEASE feel free to do so.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

No, and we dont neither, if we do however, then the gates of hell prevailed against us, and I dont think that would happen anytime soon.

Ok, Ben

To answer your question as to “which” church is the church that Christ originally set up is going to be a long process due to the fact that a lengthly evaluation MUST be made to determine the facts. This is not to say that the RCC is not that church, but neither is it to say that it is, but only that evaluation MUST be made to make that determination. So to start I would like you to tell me what the following verse means to you.

2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ok, Ben

To answer your question as to “which” church is the church that Christ originally set up is going to be a long process due to the fact that a lengthly evaluation MUST be made to determine the facts. This is not to say that the RCC is not that church, but neither is it to say that it is, but only that evaluation MUST be made to make that determination. So to start I would like you to tell me what the following verse means to you.

2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

yes. it is what it says. now we dont know exactly what you trying to prove here with this verse.

does this say that each person must be his own authority?
does this say that the Church is not the One built by Christ?
does this say that everyone understand what it is written?
does this say that we should not obey the Church?
show where it says anyone holding the Bible is to claim authority to teach.

now i ask you show me that the letters of ST Paul and other Apostles were written to each individual or were they written to the Church, so they could be used to teach the people?

**
Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” **

 

[Snerticus]

2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

I don’t know about Ben, but to me it means the Bible is a teaching tool of the faith.

Now, can you tell me what this next quote in bold means to you?

1 Tim 3:15 Those of them who carry out their duties well as deacons will earn a high standing for themselves and an authoritative voice in matters concerning faith in Christ Jesus. I write this to you in the hope that I may be able to come to you soon; but in case I should be delayed, I want you to know how people ought to behave in God’s household – that is, in the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth. Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed: He was made visible in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

Then the question after this for me would be - if the Church is the pillar and support of the truth; which church is he talking about?

If Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail regarding His Church, then logically it would follow that the Catholic Church, of which many broke away from, could never become corrupt, thought Satan would try his best to corrupt it.

It seems to me he succeeded in corrupting the people of the Church, but not the Church itself, as she has never taught errant doctrine. I see many corrupt people in the church, present and past, who lived contrary to doctrine, but the official teachings of the church have never been errant. Only the personal opinions of the corrupt in the Church have been errant. And yes, Popes of the past included.

I can understand how one would see it another way, given they think that Catholic doctrine is errant, though. But I don’t understand why they would think that the Body of Christ that Jesus established and exists both in heaven and on earth, could become corrupt. He promised it wouldn’t, yet people to this day believe that it was. THAT, I don’t understand.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

yes. it is what it says. now we dont know exactly what you trying to prove here with this verse.

does this say that each person must be his own authority?
does this say that the Church is not the One built by Christ?
does this say that everyone understand what it is written?
does this say that we should not obey the Church?
show where it says anyone holding the Bible is to claim authority to teach.

now i ask you show me that the letters of ST Paul and other Apostles were written to each individual or were they written to the Church, so they could be used to teach the people?

**
Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” **

1. The question was directed at the OP who asked the question.
2. If you’re intent is to intemidate me and keep me from communicating with the OP in a CIVIL dialogue you’ve failed.
3. I have no intention of refusing TRUTH, however it is my intent to dig out the truth. Admittedly I don’t entirelly accept the RCC’s claim to ultimate authority over that truth, thus the reason for this dialogue.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

I don’t know about Ben, but to me it means the Bible is a teaching tool of the faith.

Now, can you tell me what this next quote in bold means to you?

Then the question after this for me would be - if the Church is the pillar and support of the truth; which church is he talking about?

If Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail regarding His Church, then logically it would follow that the Catholic Church, of which many broke away from, could never become corrupt, thought Satan would try his best to corrupt it.

It seems to me he succeeded in corrupting the people of the Church, but not the Church itself, as she has never taught errant doctrine. I see many corrupt people in the church, present and past, who lived contrary to doctrine, but the official teachings of the church have never been errant. Only the personal opinions of the corrupt in the Church have been errant. And yes, Popes of the past included.

I can understand how one would see it another way, given they think that Catholic doctrine is errant, though. But I don’t understand why they would think that the Body of Christ that Jesus established and exists both in heaven and on earth, could become corrupt. He promised it wouldn’t, yet people to this day believe that it was. THAT, I don’t understand.

Your arguements and statement have been rehashed over and over again. Try something new. If you allow the dialogue to continue between the OP and myself to continue instead of jumping in with assumptions perhaps you might learn something. What we are trying to determine is what constitutes the TRUE church without jumping to conclusions right off the bat.

 

[Snerticus]

Your arguements and statement have been rehashed over and over again. Try something new. If you allow the dialogue to continue between the OP and myself to continue instead of jumping in with assumptions perhaps you might learn something. What we are trying to determine is what constitutes the TRUE church without jumping to conclusions right off the bat.

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that these issues had been rehashed over and over again.

You are such a charitable person in that response, I can clearly see that you are a member of the True Church!

 

[wisdomseeker]

1. The question was directed at the OP who asked the question.
2. If you’re intent is to intemidate me and keep me from communicating with the OP in a CIVIL dialogue you’ve failed.
3. I have no intention of refusing TRUTH, however it is my intent to dig out the truth. Admittedly I don’t entirelly accept the RCC’s claim to ultimate authority over that truth, thus the reason for this dialogue.

what is the problem? are you afraid to answer these question? why is it intimidation? these are simple question.

all the question is related to your post. is it ok for you to ask question but not to answer them?

**
Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” **

 

[po18guy]

If the bible is “self-interpreting”, why do over 30,000 denominations exist? Since we know them by their fruits, the doctrine of sola scriptura condemns itself. Thus, the original Church must have more than an easily misinterpreted bible as its base. It must have the continuation of Apostolic authority.

 

[NDfan]

If the bible is “self-interpreting”, why do over 30,000 denominations exist? Since we know them by their fruits, the doctrine of sola scriptura condemns itself. Thus, the original Church must have more than an easily misinterpreted bible as its base. It must have the continuation of Apostolic authority.

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with private interpretation. Private interpretation is why we have so many denominations. People will not submit to the authority of what the correct interpretation is. This again has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, it is a gross abuse of Sola Scriptura. How many times do we hear someone say that’s your interpretation? They’re not referring to SS they are doing private interpretation.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with private interpretation. Private interpretation is why we have so many denominations. People will not submit to the authority of what the correct interpretation is. This again has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, it is a gross abuse of Sola Scriptura. How many times do we hear someone say that’s your interpretation? They’re not referring to SS they are doing private interpretation.

who is doing private enterpretation and who is not? do you know?

**
Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” **

 

[Snerticus]

If the bible is “self-interpreting”, why do over 30,000 denominations exist? Since we know them by their fruits, the doctrine of sola scriptura condemns itself. Thus, the original Church must have more than an easily misinterpreted bible as its base. It must have the continuation of Apostolic authority.

Correct. The bible cannot be self interpreting, else why the need for the Holy Spirit? And since Christ promised the Holy Spirit to his apostles at the last supper (John 14:15), he promised it to his Church.

Anything outside the church may or may not have the Holy Spirit, depending on God’s Grace; which is why we see myriads of interpretations in tens of thousands of denominations. Since He did not reveal it to a large crowd of disciples, only the 12 apostles, we know He only meant to reveal the Spirit’s coming to the Church itself. Therefore the need for apostolic continuation (succession), authority, and Tradition (spoken word) to interpret Scripture correctly is evident.

And here I can say with relative certainty that the Bible was compiled by Catholics for Catholics. Any interpretation outside the Catholic Church will contain error.

Obviously everyone doesn’t have to agree with me, but I would like non-Catholics to understand the Catholic position.

 

[po18guy]

So to start I would like you to tell me what the following verse means to you.

2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Note that this says all Scripture, and does not say Scripture is all. BIG difference. Catholics believe 2 Timothy 3:16 as Saint Paul wrote it - not as it was later twisted by those who claim it somehow proves “sola scriptura”.

First, it was written by Paul, who advised the early Church to retain both the epistles as well as the Apostolic Tradition that he and the Apostles handed on. Sola scriptura spits in Saint Paul’s face in this regard.

Tell me what this means:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (King James Version) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Christ established His Church not on “sola scriptura”, but on Apostles who were lead by the Holy Spirit.

 

[po18guy]

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with private interpretation. Private interpretation is why we have so many denominations. People will not submit to the authority of what the correct interpretation is. This again has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, it is a gross abuse of Sola Scriptura. How many times do we hear someone say that’s your interpretation? They’re not referring to SS they are doing private interpretation.

Therefore, you seem to claim that at least 29,999 of the divisions are wrong, while your favorite denomination is correct. Where is the authority for your denomination to make such a claim? And, who gave that authority, and how?