History of the Roman Catholic Church

[po18guy]

Scripture, in and of itself, cannot be corrupted, what can happen is that it can be turned into a lie, ie, when Satan tempted Eve with the fruit and made her doubt the warning of God concerning the forbidden fruit. “Thou shalt not surely die, for God knows on the day that thou eats of it thou shalt be as God.”

Question: If scripture cannot be corrupted, how can it be turned into a lie? Answer: By private interpretation, which is prohibited by scripture.

I’m not sure what you are trying to prove by using these scriptures, however, If you read them again you will notice that they pertain to ACTIONS of Christ, not teaching.

So, every word that Christ ever spoke is in the four Gospels and Acts? Really? That’s amazing! No one else has ever claimed that.

Did Jesus tell his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to the and he would begin rememberance to them all the things that he had TAUGHT them? These scriptures do not support YOUR argument.

Something is missing from this sentence.

You wish to find evidence of where the Church went wrong, you but need only look at the Decalogue, especially the WHOLE of the Second Commandment. And when you read it ask yourself, if you have purified water and introduce into that water fecal matter, does the water become contaminated or does the fecal matter become pure by virtue of the water’s purification?

Probably two billion people, over 1,976 years, have done just as you said and none of them found the rampant corruption you apparently see. Please enlighten us.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Question: If scripture cannot be corrupted, how can it be turned into a lie? Answer: By private interpretation, which is prohibited by scripture.

So, every word that Christ ever spoke is in the four Gospels and Acts? Really? That’s amazing! No one else has ever claimed that.Something is missing from this sentence.Probably two billion people, over 1,976 years, have done just as you said and none of them found the rampant corruption you apparently see. Please enlighten us.

Your sacrasm and distain are noted and will be answered appropriately.

 

[jblake]

guanophore;:

Who calls it “Pauline Christianity”?

There are some major disconnects between what Paul teaches and what the Synoptic Gospels teach. There are differences between Johannine Theology, and the Synoptic Gospels.

Determined by the Church to be heretical.

Only because of which side won the battle for control of Christianity.

Ebonites didn’t have much of chance,because it demanded far too much from an individual.

Gnostic Christianity ran into a different problem. What happens when the majority of people aren’t qualified to learn the real meaning of the texts? (They also ran into the issue of how to “prove” that they weren’t plotting the overthrow of the local political rulers, without casting pearls before swine.)

Had either of those two groups, or any of the myriad other branches of early Christianity won control, what is currently claimed to be heretical, would be orthodox, and what is currently claimed to be orthodox, would be heterodox.

The interesting thing about all these branches of Christianity, is that they not only claim a direct lineage through an apostle to Jesus, but they can also support their branch of Christianity from the Pauline Epistles. The Gospels are slightly different, since they were written to be read from a specific POV.

Horse hockey. You are making this up as you go along!

You might be surprised to learn that Judaism was gaining converts in the Roman Empire, as fast as early Christianity was gaining converts. Had the Jews not had a history of rebelling, Judaism probably would have become the State Religion. But Christianity was elevated, and Constantine didn’t want Gnostic Christianity around. (it still took a couple of centuries for that branch of Christianity to lose its influence.)

Legalizing Christianity is a far cry from making it “the official religion”. Such a thing did not happen.

It took a couple of centuries, but eventually that did happen.

jonathon

 

[po18guy]

This would work if it was man alone that corrupted however, we must realize that man as an agent of corruption does not work alone. There are other forces that induce man’s corruption and these forces are subtile (sic) and often couched in what appears to be truth.

Do you believe what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18?

It is also why they were warned to be on the alert for false teachers and false prophets and why Paul instructed those whom he taught to use the scriptures to verify what others might teach them.

False prophets. Amazing you would bring this up. Actually, Paul admonished Christians to hold fast to both the (Apostolic) traditions as well as the letters (2 Thessalonians 2:15). It would seem that your faith tradition has completely disregarded the Apostolic traditions. Why?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Good!

I cannot see any other common factor amongst all of the denominations. Also, look at the timing of the creation of those denominations. The Luther-made concept was the beginning of the mega-fragmentation of Christianity. It is the rejection of Church authority and the triumph of individual opinion over objective truth.

With statements like this I wonder if you have even researched what it was that Luther was trying to do. Did you know that Luther was a staunch supporter of the Pope? Did you know that he was trying to correct a preceived wrong, that of buying one’s or another’s salvation when Christ had already paid the price? Luther did not want to start his own seperate church nor did he want to be seperated from the CC. But because of political and religious greed, combined with a sense of one’s own self-importance the Vatican persecuted him and any that supported him. I find it miraculous that Luther and those that did support him were able to stand against the power of the Roman church at that time seeing that others were being subjected to torturous inquistions and burnings.

No, but sola scriptura IS private interpretation, since those who introduced it and those who hold to it deny Church authority. There is no other way around this. I absolutely must disagree here. SS and PI are virtually inseparable. All private interpretation is not due to SS, but has similarity in the denial of Church authority. Likewise, SS had its very creation in private interpretation.

If comparing New Testament Scripture with Old Testament Scripture or the teachings fo the Church with all Scripture is private interpretation than I stand guilty as charged. As for Sola Scripture, it is the Scriptures that verify what is being taught, the Jews are evidence as to how badly TRADITION can be corrupted.

Well then, you have just launched on a lifetime quest to find the one denomination out of the thousands that has what you personally believe is correct interpretation. This requires no obedience, but only agreement. See where this leads you?

As to “Obedience” I remind you what Peter said when told by the Sanhedrin that he was to no longer preach the Gospel within the synigogues “What is better, to obey man or to obey GOD?” For me and my house, I will obey God rather than man and to do that I will aways reference the Scriptures.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Do you believe what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18?False prophets. Amazing you would bring this up. Actually, Paul admonished Christians to hold fast to both the (Apostolic) traditions as well as the letters (2 Thessalonians 2:15). It would seem that your faith tradition has completely disregarded the Apostolic traditions. Why?

Are you here to research the OP’s original question or are you here to ridicual anybody that doesn’t follow your faith? I know what Paul teaches, I read the scriptures daily and I have already stated MY views concerning the Apostalic Traditions as related to the Scriptures. If you wish to discuss evidences as to Church origins within the bounds of History and Scripture let’s do so, but attacking others faiths and believes is not germain to this thread.

 

[jblake]

Sabbath Keeper;:

With statements like this I wonder if you have even researched what it was that Luther was trying to do.

Nor have they researched where Luther’s theology came from.

Nor looked at Christianity in Europe between 900 AD and 1400 AD. (The only reason I’m starting with 900 AD, is that the history of groups that dissented with Catholic Christianity can be fairly easily found.)

jonathon

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Nor have they researched where Luther’s theology came from.

Nor looked at Christianity in Europe between 900 AD and 1400 AD. (The only reason I’m starting with 900 AD, is that the history of groups that dissented with Catholic Christianity can be fairly easily found.)

jonathon

come guys, stop beating around the bush give me names of churches and we will see if we can compare their history to the Catholic Church

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Nor have they researched where Luther’s theology came from.

Nor looked at Christianity in Europe between 900 AD and 1400 AD. (The only reason I’m starting with 900 AD, is that the history of groups that dissented with Catholic Christianity can be fairly easily found.)

jonathon

Actually you can go back further still. During the reign of Constantine, when he legalized Christianity, in a effort to lure pagans into the Church it was decided to absorb the pagan “icons” into the ceremonies of the Church. Also the pagan temples were converted into Christian worship houses. One group (name removed by moderator)articular took exception to this, it is from this group we get the word “VANDALISM”. Yes my friends, the Vandals were professed Christians and they obhoared pagan idolatry.

As to the integration of Pagan iconology into the Church we learn how God feels about such things when he told the Nation of Isreal that they were to destroy everything of a religious nature that belonged to their enemies down to the gold and silver the was used in their idols and upon their pagan alters.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

come guys, stop beating around the bush give me names of churches and we will see if we can compare their history to the Catholic Church

How about the “CHRISTIAN CHURCH” seeing that the followers of Christ were called Christians for the FIRST time in ANTIOCH and you don’t see “CATHOLIC” (Univeral) mentioned until sometime after that.

The point I’ve been trying to make is that NO church can really show through concrete evidence that they are the one and only orignially founded true church. The only thing that can be proved is that God, in all his miraculousness, has preserved some remnant in one form or another thoughout history. If you want a picture of the true church I suggest you look in the Old Testament at the nation if Isreal, both the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms, truth be told, history actually does repeat itself, and God planned it that way.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

How about the “CHRISTIAN CHURCH” seeing that the followers of Christ were called Christians for the FIRST time in ANTIOCH and you don’t see “CATHOLIC” (Univeral) mentioned until sometime after that.

The point I’ve been trying to make is that NO church can really show through concrete evidence that they are the one and only orignially founded true church. The only thing that can be proved is that God, in all his miraculousness, has preserved some remnant in one form or another thoughout history. If you want a picture of the true church I suggest you look in the Old Testament at the nation if Isreal, both the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms, truth be told, history actually does repeat itself, and God planned it that way.

the term Catholic was used in 107 AD, and the only reason people didn`t specifically call it the Catholic Church is because there was no calvinists, JW, Baptists, Methodist, Adventists around…

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

the term Catholic was used in 107 AD, and the only reason people didn`t specifically call it the Catholic Church is because there was no calvinists, JW, Baptists, Methodist, Adventists around…

I don’t know about Calvinist, but there were plenty that witnessed for God (Jehovah), every Christian was commanded to be baptised, there was a method to the worship of all christians, and they all believed in the Advents of Christ, both the first and the second. So to say that these types didn’t exist is to not have a full understanding of the Church that Christ put into place from the beginning.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

With statements like this I wonder if you have even researched what it was that Luther was trying to do.

It is irrelevant what Luther was trying to do, or what you think he was trying to do. What is relevant is the result, which is as po18guy stated: the mega-fragmentation of Christianity.

Did you know that Luther was a staunch supporter of the Pope?

No, I didn’t and it isn’t true. Have you read Luther? It’s a meaningless question, actually, since Luther contradicted himself every other day. However, his stated object was to rid himself of the Pope.

Luther did not want to start his own seperate church nor did he want to be seperated from the CC. But because of political and religious greed, combined with a sense of one’s own self-importance the Vatican persecuted him and any that supported him.

That’s just not true. Luther came under the influence and, eventually the control, of the German princes and was NEVER persecuted by the ‘Vatican.’ You need a refresher in the history of the time. While you’re at it, try reading the documents of the Council of Trent for the Catholic Church’s attitude toward the German rebels.

I find it miraculous that Luther and those that did support him were able to stand against the power of the Roman church at that time seeing that others were being subjected to torturous inquistions and burnings.

Looks like you are finally being flushed out of the bushes. That is unadorned anti-Catholic bigotry.

If comparing New Testament Scripture with Old Testament Scripture or the teachings of the Church with all Scripture is private interpretation than I stand guilty as charged. As for Sola Scripture, it is the Scriptures that verify what is being taught, the Jews are evidence as to how badly TRADITION can be corrupted.

Comparing various elements of Scripture is the study of Scripture, not private interpretation. Private interpretation, which is what you are ‘guilty’ of is coming to your own conclusions about what Scripture reveals independent of all other interpretations, including authoritative interpretations.

Scripture does NOT verify sola scriptura. Paul says Scrpture is useful for instruction, etc. Useful, not infallible and not the only venue for the teachings of God. The doctrine of sola scriptura is a protestant (read Luther) add-on with no support from Scripture whatsoever.

As to “Obedience” I remind you what Peter said when told by the Sanhedrin that he was to no longer preach the Gospel within the synigogues “What is better, to obey man or to obey GOD?” For me and my house, I will obey God rather than man and to do that I will aways reference the Scriptures.

You might consider taking that to heart. As it is, you are clearly obeying man. Or men; the men of the 16th Century rebellion whose gospel you preach.

I’ll have more for you later today.

 

[Protestant101]

Your common sense seems to be a bit lacking.

People don’t have to agree with you to have “common sense.” Your posts make me sick and I would never in a million years believe a word you said.

 

[NDfan]

Scripture does NOT verify sola scriptura. Paul says Scrpture is useful for instruction, etc. Useful, not infallible and not the only venue for the teachings of God. The doctrine of sola scriptura is a protestant (read Luther) add-on with no support from Scripture whatsoever.

Ferde sorry to interrupt here but it seems you don’t understand your own church’s view on scripture. The church councils always affirmed that scripture is infallible. If you don’t think Paul felt scripture was infallible then he would never have stated it was useful for correction.

Also consider this. Paul tells us that all scripture is breathed out by GOD. Are you telling me you don’t think Paul thought of GOD as being infallible Do you think GOD is infallible?? If so then scripture has to be infallible. Otherwise you may want to correct the RCC because they certainly think scripture is infallible. If it’s not then we’re in trouble.

PEACE

 

[Protestant101]

Looks like you are finally being flushed out of the bushes. That is unadorned anti-Catholic bigotry.

Looks like you are the one who has been “flushed out” by your support of butchery in the name of God.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde sorry to interrupt here but it seems you don’t understand your own church’s view on scripture. The church councils always affirmed that scripture is infallible.

You’re right. I got to typing and typed a little too fast. Thanks for the correction.

 

[NDfan]

You’re right. I got to typing and typed a little too fast. Thanks for the correction.

No problem Ferde

Blessings to you

 

[twb1621]

For those who condemn Catholicism promoting ignorance through ignorance.
Catholic Church is the Church Founded by Christ through the Apostles and Historically proven as such.
The Church Fathers.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.”
Martyrdom of Polycarp,16:2(A.D. 155),in ANF,I:42

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,1:10,3(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:331-332

“For the blessed apostle Paul himself,following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous,called also Valentinus,or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.”
The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177),in NE,124

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?’…Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those menlived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus,until on account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.”
Tertullian,On the Prescription Against Heretics,22,30(A.D.200),in ANF,III:253,257
continued at cin.org/users/jgallegos/catholic.htm

I. SAINT PETER: First Vicar of Christ, Timeline
II. SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR: Preeminent Apologist, Timeline
III. SAINT ANTHONY: Founder of Monasticism, Timeline
IV. SAINT JEROME: God�s Battler, Timeline
V. SAINT PATRICK: Light of the North, Timeline
VI. SAINT BENEDICT: The Ideal Monk, Timeline
VII. SAINT COLUMBAN: Vagrant of Heaven, Timeline
VIII. SAINT BONIFACE: Tamer of Tribes, Timeline
IX. SAINT ANSGAR: Apostle of the Vikings, Timeline
X. SAINT BERNARD OF MENTHON: Apostle of the Alps, Timeline
XI. SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR: Sans Peur et Sans Reproche, Timeline
XII. SAINT BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX: Father of Western Mysticism, Timeline
XIII. SAINT THOMAS OF AQUINO: Europe�s Greatest Thinker, Timeline
XIV. SAINT CATHERINE OF SIENA: The Seraph-Hearted, Timeline

Continued at
cin.org/books/dunney0.html

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

…if there are contraditions in Scripture and the Apostles wrote part of that Scripture and there is contradition in Scripture than obviously the Aposltes would have contradicted themselves. Sorry but this doesn’t work. Either they did or they didn’t contradict themselves. You can’t have it both ways.

I don’t mean to have it both ways. I don’t say Paul, or any Apostle, contradicts himself. And I don’t say the contradictions in Scripture are the fault of the writers or God, The Writer. They are more likely the fault of the translators or, as is usual, the interpreters. Continued below.

There is no contradition between Paul and James. Paul says that Works Without Faith are empty, James says Faith without Works is dead. Neither contradict the other for both are true, you cannot have one with out the other. Our works are an out pouring of our Faith and or Faith is magnified by our works.

I agree with your conclusion, but that’s not what the text says. In the text the words contradict each other, unless.

Unless we understand Paul was talking about works of the Hebrew law, not the same works James means, which Paul frequently mentions as necessary. The ‘faith alone’ argument is the product of Luther and is held literally by millions of protestants, who use it to deny the teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject.

Shall we look at the whole of the undertaking and get the entire picture before deciding what this is?

Matt. 16:13-17 "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples (Notice who is with him please)saying “Whime do men say that I the Son of Man am?” And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist: soem, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?” And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

Who wouldn’t have been blessed to have such a revelation revealed to him. All of us who have accepted the truth concerning Christ and made this same confession are blessed. It isn’t exclusive to Peter alone, nor was it entended to be.

You have taken the quotes entirely out of context and you have misused ‘blessed’ in a way different from what Jesus meant.

Yes, our faith is a gift from God and we are blessed to have accepted it. However, we are the products of a Christian culture. Billions of people before us have believed Jesus is the Son of the living God. NO ONE believed in in Jesus’ time. Peter was the first to utter it and he got it from the mouth of God. He was blessed thereby in a way none of us are blessed.

In the 21st Century, it’s not a revolutionary idea to believe Jesus is the Son of the living God. In Jesus’ time it was a radical heresy to make that confession and it was at the time of the revelation, indeed, exclusive to Peter alone as intended by God. It got the Apostles persecuted in Jerusalem, it got Steven stoned to death and it got the Lord crucified.

Your conclusions are not instructive. They are merely intended to oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Matt. 13:18 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.

So let’s apply some common sense to this.

“As you have said I am the Christ, so you are Peter and upon the statement you have made all men shall be saved and my Church shall be established and death shall not outlast it.”

That’s not common sense, it’s protestant revisonism. Common sense is to read the words for what they say.

The quotation is from Matthew, which was written originally in Aramaic. In John we find, “You are Simon, son of Jonas. You shall be Cephas (which is rendered, Peter).” Jn. 1:42.

What Jesus says, in Matthew’s Aramaic is, ‘You are Caphas and upon this Cephas I will build my Church…’

The correct interpretation of that passage is the Catholic interpretaton, which is the one believed by the early Church Fathers and believed by all Christians until the 16th Century. You,of course, are free to believe what you wish.

(And, yes, the Orthodox believed it, too. They didn’t accept the primacy of the Pope after the 11th Century, which is not the same thing.)