History of the Roman Catholic Church

[bobregan]

AMEN BROTHER…AMEN!

This is the HISTORY of the Catholic Church.

God Bless us all.

Other Catholic “Traditions”:

The Trinity…nowhere found in the Bible. If you believe in the Trinity then you believe in a Catholic Tradition.

 

[Hyacinth_II]

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.

Hello all…

What is a Church? Body of believers of God.
What is the Christ’s Church? All believers in Christ. (Every sect likes to think it is only them.)

“people who are corrupt” as you put it…are sinners
“doctrine” is what a sect says is true Example: Roman Catholic doctrine VS. Lutheran doctrine.

So, those who think that the “chuch is corrupt” …well, no, there are sinners in the church, and maybe they are leading others astray…with the devil’s help.

Those who hold true to Chirst, His teaching, are the power of Christ’s church…and have the power of God on their side…so that Hell cannot prevail against them.

Those corrupt individuals, who have in reality strayed from the Church, but still say they are part of the Church…don’t have the power of God to save them from Hell. They must repent of their ways and Christ will forgive them…then they will be back in the Church.

Thats how it works.

The ORIGINAL Protestents were the Lutherans who followed Martin Luther. He believed that God was the leader of the Church…not the Pope. That was his major contention.

Sects broke off after that…mostly because they believed if Martin Luther could do it, then they could too…and they could break off for reasons they thought were valid. Of course, only God’s will is valid. Perhaps there was a Pope that was corrupt…ah yes, some think not…but who knows? Only God knows. Maybe that is why Martin Luther broke off.

Now…one needs to study the word of God and pray…then decide what God calls him/her to.do.

Those who do this are members of Christ’s Church by His definition.

 

[Protestant101]

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:

Well; you need to give people more credit than this. People don’t “lie,” just because they disagree.

You actually raise some good questions here re Church history, and “the first church.” It’s too bad so many have gotten off the original topic here - why in no time the 1000 post limit will be reached, and yet another good question closed.

The earliest Christians (in New Testament times) were Jews; (not Catholics) and in their new faith, they found a solid continuity with the old. They remembered how that our Lord said He had come to fulfil, not to abolish the law and the prophets. It is totally useless for people to deny this.

The Jewish roots of Christianity is undeniable in history; something that Catholics can never steal away or obscure. (and yes, I know what the Catechism says re Jews)

But then; we haven’t even begun to discuss the OLD Testament “first Christians…” Ahhhh…these are subjects that are patently rejected by Catholic apologists.

Can anyone tell us when the Roman Catholic Church was officially born? What year was that? And how would you prove it?

 

[brkn1]

Neither of those citations from the Bible support your contention that Jesus condemned Tradition. In Mt. 15:6 He is means the negation of the commandments by the false traditions of the Pharisees. False traditions abound in the history of Christianity, most notable the traditions of protestantism, which are just about all false.

I suppose you are correct that I could not disprove what you define as “Tradition”, since the RCC Tradition did not exist during the time of Christ.

There is something about oral tradition that makes it less reliable than Scripture. Man’s oral transmission tends towards error, as you point out about false traditions.

Paul speaks about how the Holy Scriptures are able to “make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”
Paul next explains: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect (complete), throughly furnished unto all good works.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Paul is very clear about the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures in the above verses, which could not include any RCC scriptures, since none existed then.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

People don’t “lie,” just because they disagree.

A fair point!

The Jewish roots of Christianity is undeniable in history…

As are the Jewish roots of the Reformation!

The following is from Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, (Louis Israel Newman, Columbia University Press,1925).

From pp. 392 -393 (numbers refer to footnotes).

The presence of Marranos, namely secret or Crypto-Jews, in the Christian community and their activity as teachers and leaders, changed from within the form and outlook of the Christian system in many respects. Intermarriage with neophytes in some countries, Spain and Italy for example, has been so frequent that Jewish blood runs in the veins of a large portion or the existing populations of Europe. Many of the Inquisitors themselves were descended from Jews. 357

Protestantism made its greatest stand where the Marrano Jews were active, and Jewish apostates were a source of stimulus in all the Reformation movements on the European Continent and in England. 358

The steady losses to the Christian faith which the desertion of Christianized Jews represented proved a constant annoyance to the Church … the Church affirmed that these Marranos infected the native-born Christians and influenced them to accept Judaism. 359

Finally, the backsliding and Marranos silently “judaized” the doctrines of the Church from within. Apostate Jews became the teacher of Hebrew to the Christian clergy and laity; they helped to further interest in the original text of the Bible; they helped to popularize the commentaries of the Rabbis, prominent among them Kimchi and Rashi; they taught Christians the simple Jewish interpretations of Christological and so-called Messianic portions of the Old Testament; they helped break down the authority of the Vulgate, and thereby prepared Europe for the Reformation.

…Marranos in Holland from their headquarters in Antwerp disseminated the Anti-Papist writings of Luther in Spain…

The fourth major problem with which the inquisition was compelled to deal during the Middle Ages was the prevention of Jewish proselytism … This proselytism had its background in the missionary activities of the Jews during the period prior to the rise of Christianity, and during the early centuries of the new religion’s career.

During every age of Christian history, Christian proselytes for one reason or another embraced Judaism and threw in their lot with the Jewish people. P. 394.

Notes to pp. 392-393.

1. REJ, xxxvii, 268; see also the Semi-Gotha, an anti-Semitic Almanac of nobility printed in Germany.
2. Pool, David de Sola, “The Influence of Some Apostates on the Protestant Reformation,” in the Jewish Review, London, 1911, ii, 327 f.
3. REJ, iii, 20, xxii, 106; see the Bulls of Nicholas IV, Sixtus IV, and other documents referred to above.

The Papist enemies of Luther lost no opportunity to brand him as a “Jew” and a “Jewish-patron.” His doctrines, especially with reference to his polemics against idolatrous images and the worship of relics, won for him the title of “Semi-Judaeus” of “Half-Jew.”

… In a sense, Luther’s attitude, at least in the early years of his pro-Jewish views, gave justification to these charges. We find him on him one instance saying of the Jews:

*“They are blood-relations of our Lord; therefore, if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong to Christ more than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papists, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew." * (9).

• P. 618.

1. Dr. Martin Luther’s sämmtliche Werke] Polemische Deutsche Schriften, [Dr. Martin Luther’s Collected Works, Polemical German Writings], Erlangen, 1841, iii, 46.

Luther borrowed much from the Rabbis for which he was unwilling to give them credit; yet it must be borne in mind that, he, like Calvin, was an eclectic, choosing only those interpretations, especially of Messianic passages, which he believed substantiated his own views. Hence he accused the Jewish critics of his Bible translation of being under the spell of Rabbinic rationalism and literalism, and of desiring for a second time to obscure the text. p. 625.

….It was thus a Jewish issue which helped ignite the fires of the Reformation; a conflict over a Jewish question created the milieu in which Luther’s movement emerged and developed, just as the Judaizing heresies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were in part stimulated by the debate over the Talmud. p. 626

…Victor von Carben, Emmanuel Tremellius [and] … Jochanan Isaac… were a few of the pseudo-Jews who helped direct the current of religious thought towards Jewish and Lutheran reform. These men who had been trained to recognize not the Vulgate, but the Hebrew text as authoritative, were helpful in breaking the domination of the Latin version of Jerome; the foundations were laid for Luther’s labors, and for the triumph later of an even more correct version than Luther’s Bible, until in modern times the supreme authority of the Hebrew text itself has been vindicated. P. 626.

See also quotes by W. T. Walsh here (halfway down).

Can anyone tell us when the Roman Catholic Church was officially born? What year was that?

Long before any Protestant church! LOL.

But to be a bit more precise, about 33 A. D.! “Thou art Peter and upon this rock…”

And how would you prove it?

Well, to begin with, perhaps by reading what I posted here.

 

[lettertotim]

I’m sure Christ wanted His “One True Church” to specifically be called “Roman Catholic”

 

[Stephen_C]

Actually it is the Catholic Church – Latin rite. There are (I think) 22 different rites. Most of these other rites are Eastern. “Roman” was added by the “Reformers” (first protestants) as derogatory. But it kinda stuck

God Bless!

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well; you need to give people more credit than this. People don’t “lie,” just because they disagree.

Technically that’s true, but, speaking generally as you are, many disagree knowing their disagreement is contrary to Scripture. Those people lie.

The earliest Christians (in New Testament times) were Jews; (not Catholics) and in their new faith, they found a solid continuity with the old. They remembered how that our Lord said He had come to fulfil, not to abolish the law and the prophets. It is totally useless for people to deny this.

The Jewish roots of Christianity is undeniable in history; something that Catholics can never steal away or obscure.

Excuse me, but can you tell me how Catholics ‘steal away’ and/or ‘obscure’ that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism? The Lord said, “Salvation is from the Jews.” Why would we want to obscure anything the Lord said?

You have misused the words of the Lord regarding the fulfillment of the law to imply more than the Lord intended. He said the greatest commandment is "‘You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it. ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments THE WHOLE LAW IS BASED. And the prophets as well." Mt. 22:37-40 (emphasis added.) So when you say “our Lord said He had come to fulfil, not to abolish the law and the prophets.” as you quote it, you’re implying the entire Mosaic law is still in place and Christians are subject to it. You couldn’t be more wrong.

But then; we haven’t even begun to discuss the OLD Testament “first Christians…” Ahhhh…these are subjects that are patently rejected by Catholic apologists.

There are no OLD Testament ‘first Christians.’ The first Christians were converted Jews. Converted from Judaism to Christianity. As you know, Paul rejected the OT laws of the temple and said works under the old law are worthless.

Can anyone tell us when the Roman Catholic Church was officially born? What year was that? And how would you prove it?

The Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church was born in 33AD at Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles as promised by the Lord. The proot is in the Acts of the Apostles and in Sacred Tradition. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’m sure Christ wanted His “One True Church” to specifically be called “Roman Catholic”

Acts 23:[11] The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.”

If Rome wasn’t in God’s plan why does He specifically tell Paul that he must bear witness to Him there?

 

[scooter469]

What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.

 

[scooter469]

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

 

[GKC]

Have you considered giving credit for that C&P? It’s only polite.

GKC

 

[Snerticus]

I’m sure Christ wanted His “One True Church” to specifically be called “Roman Catholic”

It probably wouldn’t have been called Roman Catholic if splits did not force the Christian church to start differentiating itself from the newly established “other churches”.

It probably would still have been called “the Way” as it had been when the Church was still just a Jewish sect. Well, this second thought is just a guess. But I would be happy if it had been called “The Way” all down through history.

The Church I belong to refers to itself as “The Church”.

 

[Snerticus]

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Written in a truly “Jack Chickesque” way. I applaude your loyalty to him, but I’m afraid most Protestants (that I know anyway) don’t subscribe to his train of thought. Thank the Lord!!!

 

[GKC]

Written in a truly “Jack Chickesque” way. I applaude your loyalty to him, but I’m afraid most Protestants (that I know anyway) don’t subscribe to his train of thought. Thank the Lord!!!

It’s not from Jack Chick.

GKC

 

[Snerticus]

It’s not from Jack Chick.

GKC

LOL, I didn’t think it was, because the poster sounds more educated, but it was in the same frame of thought as some of Chick’s tracts I have unfortunately read.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

LOL, I didn’t think it was, because the poster sounds more educated, but it was in the same frame of thought as some of Chick’s tracts I have unfortunately read.

Whatever else it is, it’s garbage from front to back and entirely fictitious. Typical anti-Catholic bigotry. I won’t even waste my time responding to that kind of junk.

 

[GKC]

Whatever else it is, it’s garbage from front to back and entirely fictitious. Typical anti-Catholic bigotry. I won’t even waste my time responding to that kind of junk.

It’s not entirely fictitious, but it’s incomplete, and it’s not my era. Hence I don’t bother with it.

GKC

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I suppose you are correct that I could not disprove what you define as “Tradition”, since the RCC Tradition did not exist during the time of Christ.

I think you’re confused. The Catholic Church didn’t exist at the time of Christ. The Lord was in the process of teaching His Apostles the precepts which would become the foundation of what would become the Catholic Church.

There is something about oral tradition that makes it less reliable than Scripture. Man’s oral transmission tends towards error, as you point out about false traditions.

That’s a very broad, imprecise statement. Sacred Tradition is inspired by God. The words ‘oral tradition’ could include the story that your great-grandfather invented the cough drop. That would certainly be less reliable than both Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Paul speaks about how the Holy Scriptures are able to “make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”
Paul next explains: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect (complete), throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Paul says Scripture is, in your translation, profitable, and in mine, useful. In neither case does he say Scripture is indispensable or is it the only means by which we hear God’s word.

The sufficiency to prepare men for good works, not to teach them all there is to learn about the faith, which is the common misperception. That is what is clear.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Actually it is the Catholic Church – Latin rite. There are (I think) 22 different rites. Most of these other rites are Eastern. “Roman” was added by the “Reformers” (first protestants) as derogatory. But it kinda stuck

God Bless!

Then why is it called the Catholic and apostolic Roman Church?