is this true?

[CentralFLJames]

see this timeline

http://i34.tinypic.com/9tpmrc.jpg

You have got to be kidding us right?
No one with a shred of historical knowledge could believe what you are showing here. And using the graphic of heresy in the form of a tree with many branches (as if in communion) is absolutely perverse.

“Thou are Peter and upon this rock I build My Church”
“Those that reject you reject Me and He who sent Me”.

Take away the branch mislabeled “Roman Catholic Church” and what you have is more accurately seen as dead tumbleweed fit to be burned as heretical. The term “Roman Catholic” is a phantasm, invented by the enemies of The Catholic Church. So, irrespective of what you want to believe or call us we are simply “Catholic” and have been so for 2000 years.

Careful who you attach new labels to or you open the door to somone calling you you German-Lutheran-Protestant… or simply anti-Catholic. Now that is a branch that has existed from the beginning of time. Are you identifying with that root?

James

 

[Tomster]

angelic.org/originalsite/whydenominationsexist.html

The First Century Church was walking in a tremendous dimension of God’s truth and power. However, this was lost to us, almost completely, by the time the Dark Ages were upon us. Thus, in Acts 3:20-21 we see that it is God’s heart to restore it all to His Church. Thus, over the last several centuries, God had begun a restoration of revelation of His Truth. What we know today, and our intimate relationship with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and how we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us born-again believers are things that the prophets of old had so longed for. We are very privileged!

Understand that restoration often takes place across a long period of time. How much God can restore and reveal to us depends on the degree of our receptivity.

The character of heresy has always been observed by Catholics, and two holy writers of the 8th century have written “that heresy, however old, is always in itself a novelty; but that, the better to retain the title of new, it innovates daily, and daily changes it doctrine.”

But while heresies, always varying, agree not with themselves, and are continually introducing new rules, that is to say, new symbols, Tertullian says, “That in the Church the rule of faith is unalterable, and never to be reformed.” It is so, because the Church which professes to speak, and teach nothing but which she has received, does not vary; on the contrary, heresy which began by innovating, daily innovates, and changes not its nature,

Catholics have steady and solid principles which they undertake to demonstrate to Protestants the falsehood of their doctrine, from their continual variations, and the unstable manner in which they have explained their dogmas. I speak of the unsteadiness of the varying bodies within Protestantism, in the books in which they call symbolical; namely those that have been made to express the consent of the churches (plural); in a word, from their own confessions of faith, decreed, signed, and published: the doctrine of which has been given out as the doctrine containing nothing but the pure word of God, and which, notwithstanding, has been changed in so many different ways in its chief articles.

 

[Gamera]

…Take away the branch mislabeled “Roman Catholic Church” and what you have is more accurately seen as dead tumbleweed fit to be burned as heretical…

Ix-nay on the urning-bay.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Who is the author to say that the basis of thinking is “absolutely wrong headed”? I’d say this author is heavily biased by a Roman Catholic perspective. Who is the author to say that it is an illusion?

What kind of person comes to a Catholic forum and asks a Catholic what he thinks about the anti-thesis of what he believes to be true then calls him biased for being Catholic?

Honestly, were you hoping to find a Catholic here who would find any merit to a secular teaching that says: “Hey, can’t we all just hold hands around the campfire of heresy, each wearing our own denominational t-shirts while we sing Kumbaya and toast and commune with each other’s marshmallows”?

By the way it should be axiomatic to most Christians that there is only One Body of Christ therefor, there is no such thing as valid religious pluralism. If not Catholicism which of the 32,000 or so Protestant sects do you think is the one that has it right? Do you think Jesus wanted salvation to be a lotto game - pick your favorite preacher and denomination and hope your number comes up even and not odd?

Unbiblical? This author does not seem to be acquainted with history, much less Jewish history… Such is the “Christ centric Word of God” for the Roman Catholics.

I don’t have a clue how you get to such a wild speculation on what I know or don’t know about history from the few words I mentioned here. But let me ask you, are you admitting that you subscribe to the Jewish view that Christ was an evil impostor and should have been turned over for crucifixation? Or are you agreeing with the prophesy of the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas when he said: "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. (John 11:49-50)”

Do you know a different Jewish history than the rest of us? And finally do you think that the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD was a divine sign that the Jews still were in a custodial role of God’s word?

Neither did the word “Trinity” exist in the original manuscripts, so what is the author implying?

I thought I conveyed it plain enough. What black and white labels men arbitrarily put on ages are irrelevant. What is relevant is that progressively more people were being converted to Christianity during the so called “dark ages” and in comparison to the few numbers of Christians at the time of the resurrection its laughable to call the period “dark” when in fact the light of Christianity was still expanding. I suppose you see things in a different sort of light than Catholics do? No?

Romanticize? Notice that is was the Roman Empire that first persecuted Christians, up until some guy by the name of Constantine decided he could exploit Christians in his usurping the Roman throne. Did Christ ask anybody to put together an orthodox religion? I believe not. As I recall, he merely asked people to believe and that’s it, no elaborate traditions, no strict church rules, no Pope. Ironically, we see instead that throughout the centuries the church has been corrupted into a Roman Catholic church that is almost nowhere Biblical.

Let’s turn it around shall we? Did God invite Luther and the reformers to attempt to overthrow the church that was founded on Peter through Christ? I believe not. Nor did God tell anyone to write the Bible - The Catholic Church did so to attempt to reign in the heresies coming out of the many spurious writings that were being floated about. No where in the bible does it say “have no pope”, nor does it say “have no traditions”, nor does it say “just believe”. Contrary the bible, which in fact comes to us from Tradition tells us in no uncertain ways that we MUST not only believe but must SERVE (God and man through charity and love) and cooperate with grace. It also tells us that we MUST follow the traditions handed down to us from the apostles and that The Church has the authority to loose and bind - which is also giving the authority to establish ecclesial rules that relate to being part of the Body of Christ. Do you imagine that God would give the authority to forgive sine or loose sins but not also let them decide what criteria they had for forgivness and judging sincerity?

What we have over the centuries are a progression of heresies where very secular men corrupt in their own vices thought to usurp the apostolic authority. But by their fruits they shall be known - and that is why we know Protestantism is wrong since they keep fragmenting in endless sectarian divisions.

So amidst all this nonsense the author does not believe it possible for true revelation and enlightenment to happen…

You are wrong. I believe it happens through Christ Church - The Catholic Church. You just don’t like the Catholic Church.

Ironically, we claim that God has permitted heresies to corrupt the church so that the Protestant Church can define through the shadows of their errors what Christianity is not.

Huh? Heresies gave rise to corrective teaching by the Catholic Church. So God purified His Church my segregating those who would not accept correction. If you are as up on history as you make out to believe show us where God pulled out of Israel a new Protestant Israel to replace the corrupt Israel before the time of Christ? It didn’t happen that way. Heretics and non-conformists were chased out of camp or stoned to death. The Catholic church has done the same - it has excommunicated heretics and pushed them “out of camp”. Are you now trying to claim while being banished outside The Church that you are a “true Catholic” and it is the Catholic Church that is heretical?

James

 

[AAC08]

Here’s your problem. This is utter fiction. Constantine did nothing but legalize Christianity.

Sure, and that’s enough to garner the support of Christians in helping him usurp the throne. Did I say that Constantine did anything else? No. What about my other points? You take it as though Constantine was blamed for all the things I’ve mentioned.

 

[AAC08]

You opened a thread asking for out (name removed by moderator)ut (“Is this true?”). So it’s natural that people would answer your question. Now when a response is posted, you ask “Who is the author to say that?” Well, you asked us.

You voice many historically incorrect ideas, not the least of which is your notion that Jesus didn’t institute a church with a pope. More confusingly, your own posts are inconsistent – you seem to claim in one that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine (!) and in another that the Catholic Church was founded in 1559 (!!). Perhaps you should tell us what you believe, rather than telling us why you dislike what we believe.

Historically incorrect? Only if you can show me a non-Catholic document proving your claim. Tell me, when did Christ even mention the word “Pope”? When did Christ make Peter a leader among his apostles? Even Paul at one point criticized Peter himself, does this not show that Peter has no more authority over Paul? In case you did not read my words properly, I have never credited Constantine with the founding of the Catholic church. Do you realize what you are accusing me of? Can you show me where (Edited) I say that Constantine founded the Catholic church? (Edited)

As for what I believe, it would have been the opposite of what I dislike about the Roman Catholic beliefs, of course.

 

[AAC08]

Seriously. You seriously contend that the Lutheran Church is older than the Catholic Church. And whom was Martin Luther separating from?

Hm…it seems to me you don’t quite understand how to read the timeline. The church which you call the “Roman Catholic church” was not called the Roman Catholic church until that period of time. Unless you can provide a better timeline?

 

[foundthelight]

Hm…it seems to me you don’t quite understand how to read the timeline. The church which you call the “Roman Catholic church” was not called the Roman Catholic church until that period of time. Unless you can provide a better timeline?

We have. You just choose to ignore it.

 

[foundthelight]

Historically incorrect? Only if you can show me a non-Catholic document proving your claim.

Can you show us any historical documents from the period prior to the Reformation that support your claim?

We can show a multitude of historical documents which you do not want to accept. Where are yours? I bet you can’t find even one.

 

[Gamera]

Historically incorrect? Only if you can show me a non-Catholic document proving your claim. Tell me, when did Christ even mention the word “Pope”? When did Christ make Peter a leader among his apostles? Even Paul at one point criticized Peter himself, does this not show that Peter has no more authority over Paul? In case you did not read my words properly, I have never credited Constantine with the founding of the Catholic church. Do you realize what you are accusing me of? Can you show me where the Hell did I say that Constantine founded the Catholic church? You deceitful hypocrite, stop making up stories and putting words into my mouth.

As for what I believe, it would have been the opposite of what I dislike about the Roman Catholic beliefs, of course.

Alrightee then. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Have a nice day.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The church which you call the “Roman Catholic church” was not called the Roman Catholic church until that period of time.

So the timeline believes the Catholic Church DID exist long before 1559, but just had a name change in 1559. Maybe the timeline author should put a little footnote in there denoting that.

 

[wisdomseeker]

angelic.org/originalsite/whydenominationsexist.html

The First Century Church was walking in a tremendous dimension of God’s truth and power. However, this was lost to us, almost completely, by the time the Dark Ages were upon us. Thus, in Acts 3:20-21 we see that it is God’s heart to restore it all to His Church. Thus, over the last several centuries, God had begun a restoration of revelation of His Truth. What we know today, and our intimate relationship with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and how we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us born-again believers are things that the prophets of old had so longed for. We are very privileged!

Understand that restoration often takes place across a long period of time. How much God can restore and reveal to us depends on the degree of our receptivity.

are you truly here to find out the Truth or you are here just to tell us how christian you are and Catholics are not?

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

 

[cthulhubryan]

angelic.org/originalsite/whydenominationsexist.html

The First Century Church was walking in a tremendous dimension of God’s truth and power. However, this was lost to us, almost completely, by the time the Dark Ages were upon us. Thus, in Acts 3:20-21 we see that it is God’s heart to restore it all to His Church. Thus, over the last several centuries, God had begun a restoration of revelation of His Truth. What we know today, and our intimate relationship with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and how we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us born-again believers are things that the prophets of old had so longed for. We are very privileged!

Understand that restoration often takes place across a long period of time. How much God can restore and reveal to us depends on the degree of our receptivity.

This smacks of the Mormon “Great Apostacy” theory.

The biggest problem with it is a few words that Jesus said “You are Peter. You are the Rock on which I shall build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” It may just be me, but that doesn’t sound like “You’ll be great and then you will forget” or even “Mace Windu is the greatest Jedi of all time, but no one will have heard of him in 20 years”

 

[Soutane]

Originally Posted by AAC08
"Historically incorrect? Only if you can show me a non-Catholic document proving your claim. Tell me, when did Christ even mention the word “Pope”? When did Christ make Peter a leader among his apostles? Even Paul at one point criticized Peter himself, does this not show that Peter has no more authority over Paul? In case you did not read my words properly, I have never credited Constantine with the founding of the Catholic church. Do you realize what you are accusing me of? Can you show me where (Edited) I say that Constantine founded the Catholic church? (Edited)

As for what I believe, it would have been the opposite of what I dislike about the Roman Catholic beliefs, of course."

Watch your mouth pal-you are a guest here.I suggest you review the rules of conduct on this website or you could find yourself turfed.Or is that what you’re looking for-go out in a blaze of glory and be able to convince yourself that those nasty Catholics can’t handle the "truth’?Be civil or be gone.

 

[CentralFLJames]

see this timeline

I wanted to make a further comment on the graphic that AAC08 provided. I found a reference to the original graphic and followed some discussions on it.

The graphic that AAC0* presented depicting a branching tree of Christianity (and colored and shaded to give an illusion of a burning bush of God) but with no central main trunk represents a a gnostic’s view of an invisible Church and has no basis in historical fact and tries to reinvent history. As everyone knows gnosticism, the “doctrine of salvation by knowledge” was rejected as a heresy by the Catholic Church centuries ago. The first anti-Gnostic writer was St. Justin Martyr in 165 AD and even St. Paul originally warned about them (Titus 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 4:1-3). Gnosticism is ancient and has always tried to parasitically attach itself to the emergent social systems and philosophies of societies and nations. So we see its fingerprint here again in this graphic as that very same old ancient parasitic gnostic worm that is once again trying to squirm itself back into mainstram society by attempting to parasitically attaching itself to Christianity through the error of Protestantism.

In addition to the false depiction that it shows Christianity in a state of flowering unity (with the protestants branches of course closest to the top and growing straight up toward the light - yawn) there are two other huge things wrong with this tree of Christianity graphic.

From the this site’s analysis ( Principium Unitatis) I want to reference some of their insights:
Principium Unitatis:

1. First, notice that the ‘trunk’ of this ‘tree’ takes a strange bend to the right, in the lower-middle of the diagram. The person who made the diagram determined that there must be no ‘branch’ that is the continuation of the * [ed] ambiguously unlabeled ‘trunk’ (which of course is The Catholic Church and always has been)*. He or she thus assumed that the Church has no principium unitatis (i.e. principle of unity) such that the Church necessarily retains her unity through every possible schism. The assumption that the Church has no principium unitatis is itself based on a deeper assumption, namely, that the Church per se is invisible/spiritual, and therefore that her essential unity is at an invisible/spiritual level. Her visible unity is not essential to her being. That idea is quite similar to claiming that the integrity of a living body is not essential to its being, as though a living body’s being blown into thousands of pieces by a powerful bomb does not detract from the existence of that body. Only if the Church is itself invisible (i.e. spiritual, immaterial) would the Church continue to exist after the disintegration of her visible unity. Hence the diagram above presumes that the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church itself, is invisible/immaterial, and in that way the diagram is in conflict with the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. [ed HERESY]
2. The second thing to notice is that it shows there to be a single ‘trunk’ at least up to 1054 (I say “at least” because it is drawn such that the ‘trunk’ appears to continue into the 16th century). But Diagram 1 does not show what the ‘tree’ looks like through the first millennium. And that hides the challenge to the gnostic assumption that went into the making of Diagram 1.

[ed - the correct way to depict the graphic is a single main trunk labeled “Catholic Church” with a large number of heretical break away sects - mostly Protestant]

So - the graphic is bogus. There is no such church as "Roman Catholic - there has always been just a “Catholic” church. Protestants invented the term "Roman Catholic but there is no such branch of The Catholic Church except in the polemic minds adn vocabularies of Protestants. All there is is a central trunk called “Catholic” and from it are fallen away branches some of which are valid apostolic succession churches we hope to re-graft back in (e.g. Orthodoxy).

James

 

[AAC08]

By …pick your favorite preacher and denomination and hope your number comes up even and not odd?

Once again, there are no “32,000 or so Protestant sects”. Furthermore, all Protestant denominations are right.

let me ask you, are you admitting that you subscribe to the Jewish view that Christ was an evil impostor and should have been turned over for crucifixation? … and that the whole nation not perish. (John 11:49-50)”

Shouldn’t it be obvious to you by now that I am of the Christian faith? Jewish history and Jewish thought are two different things.

Do you know a different Jewish history than the rest of us? And finally do you think that the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD was a divine sign that the Jews still were in a custodial role of God’s word?

The house of God in Jerusalem was once destroyed before Joshua and Zerubbabel set to work to rebuild it; was that a divine sign that the Jews were no longer in a custodial role of God’s word? Obvious answer: NO.

I…relevant is that progressively more people were being converted to Christianity during the so called “dark ages” and in comparison to the few numbers of Christians at the time of the resurrection its laughable to call the period “dark” when in fact the light of Christianity was still expanding. I suppose you see things in a different sort of light than Catholics do? No?

Few numbers of Christians? The “Dark Ages” is so called solely due to the paucity of artistic and cultural output, not in relation to Christianity. Furthermore, this has no relation to the earlier message.

…No where in the bible does it say “have no pope”, nor does it say “have no traditions”, nor does it say “just believe”. Contrary the bible, which in fact comes to us from Tradition tells us in no uncertain ways that we MUST not only believe but must SERVE …the authority to establish ecclesial rules that relate to being part of the Body of Christ. Do you imagine that God would give the authority to forgive sine or loose sins but not also let them decide what criteria they had for forgivness and judging sincerity?

Was Luther trying to overthrow the church? No. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic church is HARDLY the Church that was founded on Peter through Christ. Nowhere in the Bible do you even see the mention of a Pope or anyone bearing that title or such a position either.

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"

**Matthew 15:1-9

3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8” ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’" **

Doesn’t this strike you as similar to how you Roman Catholics nullify the Second Commandment for the sake of your “tradition” of bowing to statues?
**
Colossians 2:8
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.**

Right on.

**Acts 16:30-31
30He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”**

Can you give any Scriptural reference for any of your claims?

…But by their fruits they shall be known - and that is why we know Protestantism is wrong since they keep fragmenting in endless sectarian divisions.

“Apostolic authority”, yeah, right. Tell that to the head of God’s Church, that is Christ.

You are wrong. I believe it happens through Christ Church - The Catholic Church. You just don’t like the Catholic Church.

True revelation and enlightenment happened when Christ came; the Roman Catholic church has no revelation or enlightenment.

…The Catholic church has done the same - it has excommunicated heretics and pushed them “out of camp”. Are you now trying to claim while being banished outside The Church that you are a “true Catholic” and it is the Catholic Church that is heretical?

The Roman Catholic church does not have any “corrective teaching”. Did God purify the Roman Catholic church through two Vatican councils? Those who would not accept correction remained as Roman Catholics.
It can be said that Jesus was the Martin Luther of his time, reminding the Jews of the essential meaning of Judaism while firmly rejecting the traditions of the elders which were used to nullify the Word of God. Were the Pharisees and teachers of the law chased out of camp or stoned to death? No. This is why to this day Judaism remains. I am claiming that while being banished outside of the Roman Catholic church I am a true Christian and it is the Roman Catholic church that is heretical.

 

[AAC08]

Here is a list of popes

Saint Peter the 1st pope in 33 a.d. to Benedict XVI our 266th. pope
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

What a long list of Popes and antipopes. Too bad this list is incomplete.

The title of Pope was from the early third century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West. In the East it was used only for the Bishop of Alexandria. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved it for the Bishop of Rome. From the early sixth century it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the eleventh century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

I found this link about the pope.

Here are the writings of the Early Church Fathers
newadvent.org/fathers/

with Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s writings about the Catholic Church in the year 110 a.d.

Chapter 8.
Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution 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; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Which part of this actually proves any part of your claim?

Constantine I (27 February ca. 272 – 22 May 337) the Catholic Church was on its 26th pope when Consatntine was born.

That can’t be possible; there weren’t so few bishops in the West up until the time of Constantine.

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

No, our religion is founded by Christ, free from the corruption and heresies of the Roman Catholic church.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII **a Catholic **in the year **1534 **because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

They are also known as Anglicans, and are separate from Protestants.

John Calvin was Catholic too!

He was, and good thing for him, he later became Protestant.

Before there were Protestant Denominations their was the Catholic Church.

Before there was the Roman Catholic church there was the Church of the living God.

 

[AAC08]

Pay attention to the dates! The Protestant Reformation did not happen until
1517 a.d.! over 1000 years after these were written!

Sure, like how the Messiah did not arrive until at least more than 400 years after the last book of the Old Testament was written.

“[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).

“…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).

“[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).

100

“For it is evident that those men lived 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 **

200

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.”
Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

300

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen.” Apostles Creed (A.D. 360).

400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500----->the Protestant Reformation
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000-----> you are here

Do the dates looked like they matter? What? You’re telling me that the Catholic church actually shares the same “traditions” and heresies of the Roman Catholic church? You must be joking, and it is a bad joke.

 

[AAC08]

Can you show us any historical documents from the period prior to the Reformation that support your claim?

Don’t avoid the question. You are the one accusing me of being historically incorrect, you prove your claim against me.

We can show a multitude of historical documents which you do not want to accept. Where are yours? I bet you can’t find even one.

If you claim that you can show a multitude of historical documents, where is even one of them? Mine are as good as yours, since yours are historical documents, and historical documents support my claims.

 

[foundthelight]

Don’t avoid the question. You are the one accusing me of being historically incorrect, you prove your claim against me.

If you claim that you can show a multitude of historical documents, where is even one of them? Mine are as good as yours, since yours are historical documents, and historical documents support my claims.

Sorry AAC08, but your answer doesn’t work. You accused our history of being false through your statements. You need to defend yourself. Until you prove otherwise with historical documentation from the period prior to the Reformation, I will take your refusal as an admission of inability. An inability which proves you wrong.