History of the Roman Catholic Church

[guanophore]

(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.

This rendition has the same problem as the calumny against the Eucharist. How do you explain away the fact that the Apostolic Church believed in the communion of saints prior to the gospel travelling to Rome (when the Church was still based in Palestine and Antioch). Also, how can you explain away the fact that the communion of saints is held and believed by all the Eastern and Oriental cultures who recieved the gospel from Palestine (before it went to Rome) and were never under the jurisdiciton of the Roman empire, beliefs and practices?

Furthermore, saints are not “in charge” of things (other than what God permits), and patronage does not make anyone a “god of a city”. Your formulation (fantastic as it is) needs to incorporate the rest of history and the Church that is non-Roman.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors.

Wrong again, scooter. This developed prior to the decrimminalization of Christianity. During that time, the bishops of Rome were being martryrd with gusto.

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.

I am sure this is why God sent Paul and Peter to Rome.

Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church.

What makes you think this? Do you actually have any historical evidence to support this, or are you just pulling such statements out of some dark place where the sun don’t shine?

In fact, Constantine did not care if the Church sided with the Arians, which he tended toward himself. He just wanted good commerce!

While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme,

I am interested in the historical evidence for this assertion as well. This tale is getting better by the minute!

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.

Wonder why that might be?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. Your assertions do not even accurately apply to the Roman Rite.

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.

Wow, scooter. Any chance you would be willing to learn what the Catholic Church really believes and teaches, and the truth about Christian history?

Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity.

This sounds like the SDA 'great apostasy" theory. What youare saying is tha tJesus is an impotent liar, and could not, or would not keep His promises to the Church.

the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire.

And what aboutthose that were not in the Empire?

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.”

A passage written by a Catholic, to Catholics. VERY applicable here.

 

[brkn1]

‘Charity’ means our love of God or Gods love of us. I don’t know, however, if you thought charity meant almsgiving or not; but just in case.

I am arguing against the validity of Tobit. Sins can not be purged with alms, or Jesus would not have needed to redeem us .

 

[Thing]

I am arguing against the validity of Tobit. Sins can not be purged with alms, or Jesus would not have needed to redeem us .

You mean the book which is found in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), and Aramaic and in Hebrew fragments of the book discovered in Cave IV at Qumran in 1952.
And which was written, possibly, 700-200 years before Christ.

Almsgiving will not save Tobias, you say. But what is the corollary of refusing to give alms, could Tobias expect to rest in Abrahams Bosom then or in Gehenna with the Rich Man, (he of the story of the rich man and Lazarus).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

So “Scripture cannot be relied on as the only word of God”, since you perceive some “seeming contradictions”?

I gave you a specific contradiction, which you commented on below. I said ‘seeming’ because, the way you protestants read them, there are some passages which seem to contradict others.

Have you considered the possibility that there were two different woman that annointed Jesus.

No. There’s nothing in either passage to suggest there was more than one woman involved. If you believe there was, it’s something you’re making up. It’s a contradiction whether you want to admit it or not.

Don’t worry, “holy” Tobit 12:8-9,17 says you can simply buy your way to heaven. Just memorize that verse and start giving out alms.

With comments like that one, you show you have nothing to say. You’re just typing to make a response. If you’re really interested in the truth and in your salvation, you’d re-read for content the messages the Catholics on this forum are sending you and ponder them instead of trying to be a wiseguy, which is something else you’re not too good at.

Right now you’re stuck on the false protestant tradition that, if the Catholic Church teaches it, it must be wrong. It’s a great obstacle to the truth.

 

[elvisman]

I know Scripture well enough to know that Simon Magus asked Peter to intercede for him, after Peter told him that his money was no good and that Simon Magus was in the gall of bitterness etc.
According to your “holy” Tobit 12:8-9,17, Peter should have told Simon Magus that “alms could deliver from death and shall purge away all sin.”

The least Peter might have done would have been to offer “confession”, but I notice that did not happen either.

Do you agree with Tobit 12:8-9,17 ?
Do you believe that alms can purge away all sin?

Weak.
Do you believe in the Old Testament Law that a lamb or bull could be offered for the remission of sins?

**Are you serious? This is the Old Testament we’re talking about here. If we adhered to the Mosaic Law to the letter - there are many things we’d be doing differently. **

Things that were true in the Old Law were fulfilled by Jesus. BUT - it doesn’t mean they were wrong in the Old Law.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Thanks for that post, the reference to BIshop Sheen (which clears it up a little for me) and for the rest of your message. Excellent!!

Glad you found it helpful!

But if you really want to delve into the subject of the Mystical Body of Christ, I would highly recommend your reading The Whole Christ, by Emile Mersch, S. J. This work is a great source of historical information about the Mystical Body, and has scores of wonderful quotes from both the Latin and Greek Fathers.

scribd.com/doc/2965722/The-Whole-Christ-by-Emile-Mersch-S-J
books.google.com/books?id=CIosAAAAIAAJ&q=whole+christ&dq=whole+christ&ei=nUrKSd7qHKKuzASMq7yqAg&pgis=1
ISBN-10: 0234770511
ISBN-13: 978-0234770511

---

Calvin exultingly records the terror with which the wretched victim heard his terrible doom:

“Let not the vile heretics boast of the obstinacy of their hero Servetus]as of the constancy of a martyr . It was the stupidity of a brute beast [beluina stupiditas] that he displayed when he heard his sentence. As soon as it was announced, his eyes became like those of an idiot, then he heaved profound sighs and roared like a madman. He ceased not to shout, in the Spanish fashion, ‘Mercy! mercy!’ [Misericordia! Misericordia!]”

John Calvin, A Defense of the Orthodox Faith Against the Errors of Michael Servetus (Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei…), 1554.

Quoted in, Romantic biography of the age of Elizabeth; or, Sketches of life from the bye-ways of history. 1842, W. C. Taylor, London, R. Bentley, p. 43.
books.google.com/books?id=PUm1ggkMlewC&pg=PA43&dq=%22Let+not+the+vile+heretics+boast+of+the+obstinacy+of+their+hero+%22&lr=#PPA43,M1

In Latin:

Ceterum ne male feriati nebulones vecordi hominis pervicacia quasi martyrio glorientur: in ejus morte apparuit belluina stupiditas, unde judicium facere liceret, nihil unquam serio in religione ipsum egisse. Ex quo mors ei denunciata est, nunc attonito similis haerere, nunc alta suspiria edere, nunc instar lymphatici ejulare. Quod postremum tandem sic invaluit ut tantum Hispanico more reboaret, Misericordia! Misericordia!

• Calvini Opusc. Ed. Genev. 1667 Allwoerden, note. p 118.

Quoted in, The life of Michael Servetus, 1848, William Hamilton Drummond, London, p. 144.
books.google.com/books?id=2MoOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA144&dq=%22ut+tantum+hispanico+more+reboaret++Misericordia,+Misericordia%22&lr=#PPA144,M1

“ut tantum hispanico more reboaret Misericordia, Misericordia”
books.google.com/books?id=qSYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA4-PA498&dq=%22tantum+hispanico%22&lr=&ei=uR3GSYiPLpjSzATF_ZjaDQ#PRA4-PA498,M1

Vol. 8 of Calvin’s Opera = vol, 36 of the Corpus Reformatorum, 1870, G. Baum, Ed Cunitz, Eduard Reuss, eds., p. 498. (originally pub. by Oliva Roberti Stephani, 1554).
books.google.com/books?id=qSYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA4-PA498&dq=%22tantum+hispanico%22&lr=&ei=uR3GSYiPLpjSzATF_ZjaDQ#PRA2-PA748,M1

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I know Scripture well enough to know that Simon Magus asked Peter to intercede for him, after Peter told him that his money was no good and that Simon Magus was in the gall of bitterness etc.
According to your “holy” Tobit 12:8-9,17, Peter should have told Simon Magus that “alms could deliver from death and shall purge away all sin.”

The least Peter might have done would have been to offer “confession”, but I notice that did not happen either.

Do you agree with Tobit 12:8-9,17 ?
Do you believe that alms can purge away all sin?

I doubt you’ll even agree with what I’m saying since you don’t adhere to salvation as a process of growing in spiritual maturity, but I’ll give it a shot…

You are completely twisting the meaning of these scriptures. You are confusing the giving of alms-such as the poor woman in the Temple mentioned in the synoptics(Mark 12;42-44; Luke 21:1-4)- to Simon trying to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter in Acts? This is absurd.

Your biggest mistake is that you assume that both Tobit, the poor widow, and Simon Magus all have the same intent; that of giving money to God in order to “get” something in return.

While Simon’s intent was such he received condemnation from Peter.

In the case of Tobit, as well as the poor widow, is that their intent comes not from looking to get something back from what they gave, but their ability to give expecting nothing in return, i.e.** sacrifice**.

Heb 13:[16] Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, **for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. **

1 Peter 4:[8] Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, **since love covers a multitude of sins. **

Giving alms, especially when we don’t feel like it, is one of many ways for us to"take up our crosses **daily"**and follow Jesus(Luke 9:23). His sacrifice makes our little sacrifices not only acceptable but pleasing to God and even meritous. These little sacrifices are how we as the Father’s children, and Jesus brothers/sisters, lay up “treasure in heaven”(Matt 6:20-21; Luke 12:33-34 ).

Mark 10:[21] And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go,** sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven**; and come, follow me.”(cf Luke 18:22).

Giving alms, like all the other virtues, are forms of love. They are our guides to forming in us good habits and removing bad habits that we have. God loves us just theway we are, but He loves us too much to let us remain this way. His grace allows our fallen humanity to adopt virtues so as to conform to His divine will. So, yes, in that sense almgiving saves us because it is an act of love to our neighbors for His sake and in His name.

And love, like St. Peter says, “covers a multitude of sins.”

 

[Protestant101]

Do you actually have any historical evidence to support this, or are you just pulling such statements out of some dark place where the sun don’t shine?

Nice “theology.” Thanks for the lesson in Catholic Church History

Wonder why that might be?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. Your assertions do not even accurately apply to the Roman Rite.

Catholics call them “Rites” Protestants call them “denominations.”

Wow, scooter. Any chance you would be willing to learn what the Catholic Church really believes and teaches, and the truth about Christian history?

This sounds like the SDA 'great apostasy" theory. What youare saying is tha tJesus is an impotent liar, and could not, or would not keep His promises to the Church.

Catholic History; I find, seems to support what the Bible says about apostasy and heresy. This would not mean that all catholics are not Christian; or that Jesus is a liar, but it is not well demonstrated in this thread that the Catholic Church is indeed this “Church” that Jesus “instituted.”

At any rate; there is a great lack of scholarly evidence in this thread to show official Catholic teachings on her origins, and history thereof. The Catholic Church is more “Roman” than any other Church on Earth.

Jesus always keeps His promises; to use this as an apologetic whipping post is falsehood. Jesus has always kept/keeps His promise to The Remnant of Bible prophecy. You just need to prove that this is what the Catholic Church is…But, like most of the other Catholics here; you likely cannot/will not even be able to give us a firm date for when your denomination started. You will have a tough time to prove anything here about your Church, from history, without this date. If all you can do is to snivel about how I “have already been told,” then you leave us with unmistakeable evidence of the nature of your ostentatious claims about your Church, irrespective of the audacious exclusion of all others who do not bow down to your Pope.

 

[brkn1]

I doubt you’ll even agree with what I’m saying since you don’t adhere to salvation as a process of growing in spiritual maturity, but I’ll give it a shot…

You are completely twisting the meaning of these scriptures. You are confusing the giving of alms-such as the poor woman in the Temple mentioned in the synoptics(Mark 12;42-44; Luke 21:1-4)- to Simon trying to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter in Acts? This is absurd.

Your biggest mistake is that you assume that both Tobit, the poor widow, and Simon Magus all have the same intent; that of giving money to God in order to “get” something in return.

While Simon’s intent was such he received condemnation from Peter.

In the case of Tobit, as well as the poor widow, is that their intent comes not from looking to get something back from what they gave, but their ability to give expecting nothing in return, i.e.** sacrifice**.

Heb 13:[16] Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, **for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. **

1 Peter 4:[8] Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, **since love covers a multitude of sins. **

Giving alms, especially when we don’t feel like it, is one of many ways for us to"take up our crosses **daily"**and follow Jesus(Luke 9:23). His sacrifice makes our little sacrifices not only acceptable but pleasing to God and even meritous. These little sacrifices are how we as the Father’s children, and Jesus brothers/sisters, lay up “treasure in heaven”(Matt 6:20-21; Luke 12:33-34 ).

Mark 10:[21] And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go,** sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven**; and come, follow me.”(cf Luke 18:22).

Giving alms, like all the other virtues, are forms of love. They are our guides to forming in us good habits and removing bad habits that we have. God loves us just theway we are, but He loves us too much to let us remain this way. His grace allows our fallen humanity to adopt virtues so as to conform to His divine will. So, yes, in that sense almgiving saves us because it is an act of love to our neighbors for His sake and in His name.

And love, like St. Peter says, “covers a multitude of sins.”

Thanks for explaining how you think I have twisted the meaning of the scripture.
I agree with you that giving alms in the proper spirit of charity is a good thing and I do not speak against doing so, as some suggest.

What I have been unsuccessfully trying to point out is what Raphael says in one of the scriptures you accept as truth.
Raphael says that “alms delivereth from death, and the same (alms) is that which purgeth from sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”
Since Raphael described himself as being one of the seven angels who stand before the Lord, there might be many who accept what Raphael says in that verse as being truth.
That verse is saying that giving alms can purge sins.
I consider that as heretical error and against what Jesus did for us.
You and others here might disagree, but I say this error proves that the book of Tobias can not possibly be included in God’s Word as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

I am arguing against the validity of Tobit. Sins can not be purged with alms, or Jesus would not have needed to redeem us .

It is not our place to “argue against” those things that have been revealed by God. The same Church that composed and “validated” the NT did so with Tobit, and all the other Deuterocanonicals.

You make good though, brkn. Sins have always an only been purged by grace, through faith. In the OT, one of the evidences of living by grace, through faith, was the giving of alms. It is an external sign of an internal state.

Love covers a multitude of sins.

 

[guanophore]

Nice “theology.” Thanks for the lesson in Catholic Church History

Let’s be honest with one another… you are not here to learn Catholic History!

Catholics call them “Rites” Protestants call them “denominations.”

No. All the Rites share the same theology and doctrine. The differences are linguistic and cultural only.

“Denomination” means to separarate and divide from. Catholic Rites do not do this.

Catholic History; I find, seems to support what the Bible says about apostasy and heresy.

Of course! This is what researchers call “bias”. It means that most people, even scientists, find what they expect because they are looking for it.

This would not mean that all catholics are not Christian; or that Jesus is a liar, but it is not well demonstrated in this thread that the Catholic Church is indeed this “Church” that Jesus “instituted.”

I doubt that any demonstration on this thread would be pursuasive to you.

At any rate; there is a great lack of scholarly evidence in this thread to show official Catholic teachings on her origins, and history thereof.

I am certain this is true in your experience.

For myself, I must confess that I spent 3 years in an Evangelical Seminary. There I took a course in Historical Theology, where I began for the first time to read the early Church Fathers. I realized that they were all Catholic, and that the NT Church was Catholic. I am still amazed that it was Protestant scholarly evidence that led me to this discovery.

The Catholic Church is more “Roman” than any other Church on Earth.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since your experience is so limited. Most Europeans and Americans have had no exposure to the other 22 Rites in the Catholic Church, and even most Catholics don’t know they exist. You can easily see in your NT that the disciples began to be called “Christians” in Antioch. From there, the Church continued to spread North, East, and South. Though the gospel eventually made it’s way to Rome, the 22 “Eastern” Rites (non-Roman) share the same doctrine. If you wish to discredit Catholicism, you will have to find a way to dispatch all these other Catholic Rites that are non-Roman.

Jesus always keeps His promises; to use this as an apologetic whipping post is falsehood. Jesus has always kept/keeps His promise to The Remnant of Bible prophecy. You just need to prove that this is what the Catholic Church is…

I am glad we are in agreement that Jesus always keeps His promises. However, it lies upon you to “prove” the the Chuch of the NT is not Catholic. All of history demonstrates that it is.

But, like most of the other Catholics here; you likely cannot/will not even be able to give us a firm date for when your denomination started.

Of course not! A “denomination” is something that has been separated and divided from something else. Since the Catholic faith was, and is, whole and entire since the crucifixion, the only "denominations’ are those who have departed from it in varying degrees.

You will have a tough time to prove anything here about your Church, from history, without this date.

I should think so!

If all you can do is to snivel about how I “have already been told,” then you leave us with unmistakeable evidence of the nature of your ostentatious claims about your Church, irrespective of the audacious exclusion of all others who do not bow down to your Pope.

The Pope does not need or desire any “bowing down”. However, by making such a comment, you clarify that it is rebellion and disobedience that drives your dissention.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

You and others here might disagree, but I say this error proves that the book of Tobias can not possibly be included in God’s Word as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Well, I’m afraid you are very much at odds with history, then!

But don’t you see, it’s not even up to you to decide which books are, or are not, inspired? That determination belongs exclusively and solely to the Church. And the Church has decided that question - centuries ago!.

Let’s go back a millennium before the reformers and just hear what Augustine has to say about the canon in his day:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles [Rome, for example].

Augustine continues:

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:

Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings;

Next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles…Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra…

Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.

For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, *since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. *

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:— Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.

That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:

Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul— one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.

*On Christian Doctrine *(Book II), section 8.
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

Did you notice also that Augustine, unlike the so-called reformers, never even once demands anyone to “bow down” to his private determination of the cannon?

Why, he wouldn’t have dreamed such arrogance! On the contrary, he, being the holy and humble bishop that he was (and not some frightful Calvinistic dictator), saw it as his duty to humbly submit to the authority of the "greater number of Catholic churches" in such matters as these.

But, just for the sake of argument, let’s say the Church did get the canon wrong, who then is there to correct it? Who now in the 21st century has the authority to say one book is inspired and another isn’t??

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Why, he wouldn’t have dreamed such arrogance! On the contrary, he, being the holy and humble bishop that he was (and not some frightful Calvinistic dictator), saw it as his duty to humbly submit to the authority of the “greater number of Catholic churches” in such matters as these.

I like that “holy and humble bishop and not some frightful Calvinist dictator”. Especially after his prolific use of the Stasi against the Donatists.

Also your use of the term Catholic Churches

 

[bobregan]

The Old Testament part of Holy Scripture was written at the time Jesus quoted it, although your tradition seems to imply that it was only “Jewish oral Tradition”.

Jesus also read Scripture according to the NT.

I’m saying that Jewish Tradition was oral…THEN it was written down…

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I like that “holy and humble bishop and not some frightful Calvinist dictator”. Especially after his prolific use of the Stasi against the Donatists.

“Prolific use of the Stasi against the Donatists???”

Wow! That’s quite an accusation!

Can you please explain what you mean by it?

And surely you don’t disagree that the Church has every right to defend herself against unjust and savage aggressors, whether they be Donatists, Calvinists, Lutherans, or whatever?

Also your use of the term Catholic Churches

Again, I don’t follow. Please elaborate.

 

[Protestant101]

No. All the Rites share the same theology and doctrine. The differences are linguistic and cultural only.

“Denomination” means to separarate and divide from. Catholic Rites do not do this.

No. That’s not true. Thats not what denomination means. Denomination is simply a designation, as in a title or, in your case, a “rite.”

Denomination
Denomination Denom`ina"tion, n. [L. denominatio metonymy:
cf. F. d['e]nomination a naming.]

1. The act of naming or designating.
   [1913 Webster]

1. That by which anything is denominated or styled; an
   epithet; a name, designation, or title; especially, a
   general name indicating a class of like individuals; a
   category; as, the denomination of units, or of thousands,
   or of fourths, or of shillings, or of tons.
   [1913 Webster]

Those [qualities] which are classed under the
denomination of sublime. --Burke.
[1913 Webster]

1. A class, or society of individuals, called by the same
   name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians.

Syn: Name; appellation; title. See Name.
[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

The Catholic Church has always been a denomination; just like any other Church.

But regardless of what you want to quivel about semantically on that point; to use it as an excuse to not give a date for when the Catholic Church was born is evasive, and that tells me you are scared to give an answer.

 

[guanophore]

No.  That's not true.  Thats not what denomination means. Denomination is simply a designation, as in a title or, in your case, a "rite."

The Catholic Church has always been a denomination; just like any other Church.

But regardless of what you want to quivel about semantically on that point;

I will concede the point. What I was trying to point out is that all other Churches define themselves in distinction from the Catholic Church.

to use it as an excuse to not give a date for when the Catholic Church was born is evasive, and that tells me you are scared to give an answer.

Well, I gave my answer above. The Catholic Church believes that she was born out of the side of Christ when blood and water flowed from His side on the cross. She was ensouled by the HS on Pentecost. These events were recorded in the NT by the first Catholics.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

Protestant101: To give you a very direct answer, the Catholic Church began in the spring of c. 33 A.D., on the day of Pentecost.

I hope that this is a clear enough (and not too cowardly) response to your question.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Protestant101]

I will concede the point. What I was trying to point out is that all other Churches define themselves in distinction from the Catholic Church.

Well, I gave my answer above. The Catholic Church believes that she was born out of the side of Christ when blood and water flowed from His side on the cross. She was ensouled by the HS on Pentecost. These events were recorded in the NT by the first Catholics.

OK; now we are getting somewhere. I don’t think anyone has ever told me that, despite the assertive whinings from some about how I have been told “many times.” I actually do not recall hearing anyone tell me this before.

Because this topic is concerning history of the Catholic Church; I would be interested in hearing more about this point that you mention. Can you tell me where, in official Catholic writing, I can find this?

 

[Lloyd_Lowell]

ok; now we are getting somewhere. I don’t think anyone has ever told me that, despite the assertive whinings from some about how i have been told “many times.” i actually do not recall hearing anyone tell me this before.

Because this topic is concerning history of the catholic church; i would be interested in hearing more about this point that you mention. Can you tell me where, in official catholic writing, i can find this?

please clarify…