Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Cat_Herder]

Constantine

Ah, Emperor Constantine, the favored scapegoat of all Protestants who claim that the Christian Church apostatized and “became Catholic.” Let’s look at each of the charges:

MYTH 1. Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

FALSE. Constantine merely ended the persecution of the Church. Paganism remained the official state religion of the Empire until a lifetime after Constantine.

MYTH 2. Constantine changed the doctrine of the Church.

FALSE. Constantine called the Council of Nicaea which put to rest heresies about the identity of Jesus Christ. It was at Nicaea that the question of whether Jesus was in fact the Son of God was settled, over and against heretics such as the Arians who claimed that Jesus was not divine. The Protestants who claim that Nicaea marked the beginning of apostasy also claim that Jesus is the Son of God, meaning that they actually accept that which they condemn.

MYTH 3. Constantine introduced the veneration of saints and Mary in order to make Christianity palatable to pagans.

FALSE. Veneration of saints had been part of the true religion since before Christ. The Jews venerated, and still do venerate, saints (tzadikim) such as the biblical prophets, patriarchs, and matriarchs, among whom is Mother Rachel, who is viewed as the universal mother of the Jewish people. The Jews have always built monuments and shrines to their saints. Does this sound just a little bit Catholic or what? It is the Protestants who have some explaining to do as to why they reject such an ancient doctrine.

 

[KathleenGee]

The seed of martyrdom greatly fed the rapid conversions by pagans to Christianity its first two centuries.

In the third century, the Roman Empire began to seriously deal with Christianity and its aim to overcome all over religions by forcing Roman governors to eradicate Christianity through an edict by Septimius Severus (193-211). The treatment of Christians was very cruel. In between was a benevolent emperor Alexander, who included recognition of Christ among his many other deities.

It is said during warfare, and here in context of the ongoing and increasing attack by the barbarians on the Roman empire, its rulers became more desperate.
However, Emperor Maximin in 235 gained power with the assassination of Emperor Alexander. Christians suffered in this period. And later through Emperor Decius, persecution against Christians was to such a decree that many apostasized.

The final persecution of Christians came by the hand of Porphyry who died in 303, a member of the intelligencia followed by an attack by Diocletian, who also was under attack by the barbarian invasions, and ordered the destruction of all Christian places of worship, this destruction of the churches and sacred scriptures endured by Christians up until 312. Then another ruler, Maximinus Daia called for more blood of Christians.

A rising ruler, pagan Constantine, was calling halt to the persecution of Christians in Italy and Africa. When Constantine finally triumphed over Maxentius in Rome, he proclaimed his victory to the Christian God. Before the final battle, Constantine had a dream the night before guiding him to have the soldiers’ shields with the symbol of Christ. Later stories said that Constantine and his soldiers saw a cross in the sky.

Constantine was moved by a religious experience. And in the coming years, he favored more and more Christianity. He also was accommodating to the pagan believers. He did much good for the Church. And it was only near his death that he became a Christian.

Constantine in reaction to the destruction past Roman emperors had committed against Christianity and much loss of life and holy places, took it on himself to restore to them what was lost. His was an alliance between church and state, which had both good and negative drawbacks.

Fundamentalist Protestants need to study objective history, and not through the lens of anti-Catholic teachers.

The most violent persecutions against Christians happened

 

[Petergee]

Ah, Emperor Constantine, the favored scapegoat of all Protestants who claim that the Christian Church apostatized and “became Catholic.” Let’s look at each of the charges:

MYTH 1. Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

FALSE. Constantine merely ended the persecution of the Church.

In the Roman Empire that is. In its longstanding rival, the Persian Empire, the Church had up until then been less persecuted than in the Roman Empire. But Constantine, without consulting the Christians, wrote a hamfisted letter to the Persian Empreror saying you should cut the Christians a little slack like I’ve done, they’re not that bad really. Thenceforth Christians in the Persian Empire suffered from the false suspicion that they were agents for its hated enemy Rome, and persecutions increased greatly.

Paganism remained the official state religion of the Empire until a lifetime after Constantine.

Yes it’s and its’ funny how those who make a big bogeyman out of Christianity becomingthe State religion of the Roman Empire never mention or seem concerned about the fact that two generations earlier in 301 AD iit had became the state religion of the kingdom of Armenia (an independent state between the two great empires).

 

[JustaServant]

Constantine

I add my voice for you to provide proof of this. I scoured history for years to find it as a fundamentalist, and never did.

 

[Radical]

I would hope this might help.

In what may be a grouping of Petrine material (Matthew 16:18, 19)—the confession, naming, and receiving of authority—Jesus gave to Simon the title of Cephas, or Peter (Rock). Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter. In John the title was granted at what may have been their first meeting (1:42). Thus when the name was given is open to question, but that the name was given by Jesus to Peter seems fairly certain. Matthew continues that upon this rock—that is, upon Peter—the church will be built.

There seems to be a disagreement with the “consensus” of scholar’s. How odd.

what disagreement…there is a consensus that, when Christ used “rock”, he was referring to Peter. There is a consensus that Peter didn’t preside as a bishop at Rome. I don’t see a conflict…did you actually think that referring to Peter as “rock” in Palestine somehow made Peter the bishop of Rome decades later? How odd

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The seed of martyrdom greatly fed the rapid conversions by pagans to Christianity its first two centuries.

In the third century, the Roman Empire began to seriously deal with Christianity and its aim to overcome all over religions by forcing Roman governors to eradicate Christianity through an edict by Septimius Severus (193-211). The treatment of Christians was very cruel. In between was a benevolent emperor Alexander, who included recognition of Christ among his many other deities.

It is said during warfare, and here in context of the ongoing and increasing attack by the barbarians on the Roman empire, its rulers became more desperate.
However, Emperor Maximin in 235 gained power with the assassination of Emperor Alexander. Christians suffered in this period. And later through Emperor Decius, persecution against Christians was to such a decree that many apostasized.

The final persecution of Christians came by the hand of Porphyry who died in 303, a member of the intelligencia followed by an attack by Diocletian, who also was under attack by the barbarian invasions, and ordered the destruction of all Christian places of worship, this destruction of the churches and sacred scriptures endured by Christians up until 312. Then another ruler, Maximinus Daia called for more blood of Christians.

A rising ruler, pagan Constantine, was calling halt to the persecution of Christians in Italy and Africa. When Constantine finally triumphed over Maxentius in Rome, he proclaimed his victory to the Christian God. Before the final battle, Constantine had a dream the night before guiding him to have the soldiers’ shields with the symbol of Christ. Later stories said that Constantine and his soldiers saw a cross in the sky.

Constantine was moved by a religious experience. And in the coming years, he favored more and more Christianity. He also was accommodating to the pagan believers. He did much good for the Church. And it was only near his death that he became a Christian.

Constantine in reaction to the destruction past Roman emperors had committed against Christianity and much loss of life and holy places, took it on himself to restore to them what was lost. His was an alliance between church and state, which had both good and negative drawbacks.

Fundamentalist Protestants need to study objective history, and not through the lens of anti-Catholic teachers.

The most violent persecutions against Christians happened

That was a nice synopsis; I am glad you posted it. That last sentence, however, applies to Catholics as well.

I disagree with the idea that Constantine had a “religious experience” prior to his battle against Maxentius. In my opinion he made up the story to motivate his superstitious soldiers. Licinius also employed a similar strategy when he met Maximinus in battle. He claimed that an angel came to him in a dream and gave him a prayer to recite with his men just before charging into battle. It was to be read three times and in sight of the enemy. The armies in both cases were badly outnumbered, and in both cases they were victorious. But neither the prayer of Licinius nor the vision of Constantine seems to be cohesive with Christian doctrine.

Constantine was raised during a time of piece and liberty for Christians, and I never see this talked about in these discussions. In the late third century, just prior to the Great Persecution, the church was rapidly growing. Property was purchased and churches erected. Christians were holding high offices in the Roman government; some were even governors of provinces. Theologically speaking, however, the church was in turmoil.

By the time the persecution had ended, and Constantine secured unilateral power in the empire, he saw himself as being responsible to God for the Christian church. And it wasn’t just that he saw himself in that role, Christian leaders saw him in that role too. It was to Constantine that they complained about the divisions in the church, and Constantine felt responsible to God for fixing it. He called a council of all bishops to be held in his palace in Nicea. I don’t think he cared who was right or wrong among the bishops; all he wanted was unity in the church. And when it was all said and done, Christians, including bishops, looked to Constantine as their leader.

It wasn’t so much Constantine that changed the church; it was what he accomplished through the bishops at Nicea that changed the church. Nicea established universal canon law and laid the precedence for how issues would be resolved in the future. Once the precedence was established it grew and grew and became more and more restrictive. Before long, Christians would not be allowed to observe Sabbath, Jews would be forbidden to appear in public on Sundays, Christian would be made to believe they committed a grave sin against God if they failed to observe Sunday according to newly established canon laws. As theological debate ensued, the church would continue to build upon the foundation laid at Nicea. The more this happened the more liberty was surrendered to the usurpers of Christ’s church.

 

[Radical]

**Actually - *your ***church is only traceable to the 15th or 16th century - as are ALL Protestant denominations.nope, we’ve got the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we can trace our roots to Christ’s earthly ministry…fortunately God isn’t restricted by Catholic prejudices.

The writings of the Fathers claim that he WAS

 

[Radical]

So your answer to the OP, is you don’t know. Do you even have a Tidwell/Camp moment to to place the founding of the Catholic Church in time?

Rather, my answer is that the question in the OP is not framed well at all…again here is what I said. Read it again, and it should be clear why (IMHO) the question isn’t well conceived (b/c of how the CC has evolved into what it currently is):

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. (here we need to check history) In contrast, again from my POV, the modern CC believes A-J, doesn’t believe K-M and now also believes N-Z. (here we need to check with Catholic theologians) K-M weren’t lost in one moment, nor were N-Z added in a single moment. The change is significant enough that it isn’t appropriate to call the two (the 1st century church and the modern CC) the same church…no more appropriate than claiming that the game played in the 1890’s is the same game we now know as American Football. So perhaps the answer is these three guys: Mr. Innovation, Ms. Development and Father Time.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

nope, we’ve got the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we can trace our roots to Christ’s earthly ministry…fortunately God isn’t restricted by Catholic prejudices.

Those roots run through the Catholic Church and it’s persavation of the faith and scriptures.

obviously you need to read more…may I suggest university level history books (I know that they have fewer pictures, but you’ll learn a lot more).
yes Elvis, I have seen the lists and the pitiful copy and paste presentations that can be made…as I said, you need to read more…actual books that contain an analysis of what the ECFs wrote and not just a bunch of statements taken out of context

The above paragraph is as condescending as much as it lacks charitability.

 

[Irish_Polock]

what disagreement…there is a consensus that, when Christ used “rock”, he was referring to Peter. There is a consensus that Peter didn’t preside as a bishop at Rome. I don’t see a conflict…did you actually think that referring to Peter as “rock” in Palestine somehow made Peter the bishop of Rome decades later? How odd

You are right, Peter being the Rock that Jesus built his church on has relatively no relevance.

Regardless, I have yet to see these “historical documents” that you say validate your opinion that Peter was not the first Bishop in Rome, or your other assertion of Peters office not having primacy amongst the apostles.

The historical documents are there for any one to see

Could you address your presumption with evidence that you say you have and that “anyone can see”.

 

[elvisman]

nope, we’ve got the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we can trace our roots to Christ’s earthly ministry…fortunately God isn’t restricted by Catholic prejudices.

ANYBODY Can claim that their church goes all the way back to Christ – but unless you can prove it – like the Catholic Church – it’s all hot wind and nunsubstatiated hearsay.

---

Your ecclesial community was founded by a flawed, sinful human being. The Catholic church was founded by the 2nd Person in the Trinity – Jesus Christ. May I ask what your church affiliation is?

---

You are right about one thing - God isn’t restricted by anybody’s prejudices - Caholic or otherwise. But - the Catholic Church is the one that Jesus identified his very self with in Acts 9:4-5 and the one Paul calls the FULLNESS of Christ in Eph. 1:22-23 and the pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Tim. 3:15.
Yours isn’t . . .

obviously you need to read more…may I suggest university level history books (I know that they have fewer pictures, but you’ll learn a lot more).

**First of all – can it with your condescending tone. If you ****can’t **have a civil conversation without becoming angry and having childish tantrums – maybe this isn’t the place for you.

---

Secondly – as an apologist for my parish - I have the complete works of the Church Fathers at my disposal. No book Ive ever read on the subject – university level or otherwise - speaks louder than the Fathers on these matters.

---

**Secondly – Peter **WAS the first Bishop of Rome and it is testified to by the ECFs - whether you choose to close your eyes and plug your ears . . .

yes Elvis, I have seen the lists and the pitiful copy and paste presentations that can be made…as I said, you need to read more…actual books that contain an analysis of what the ECFs wrote and not just a bunch of statements taken out of context

**Oh – so now ****Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Cyprian aren’t early enough for you? You remind me of the obstinate child who simply, by closing his eyes and plugging his ears, can make reality disappear. History can’t – and you certainly can’t. **
Nothing taken out of context here, my angry friend . . .

 

[elvisman]

Here’s some books to read WRT my claim regarding Augustine not believing in a Real Somatic Presence:
Kilmartin…The Eucharist in the West
Wills and Van der Meer …their biographies on Augustine

Yes - sources with your Protestant bent and 20th century understanding of such a complex mind and remarkable Catholic faith as that of Augustine. Talk about bias . . .

I have the collective works of Augustine at my disposal – in his own words. Despite the some pretty weak and pathetic Protestant attempts to prove he rejected the Real Presence – his own writings tell the exact opposite.

here is my partial list of fellows (from the 1st two centuries) who don’t mention anything about “The Marian Doctrines (her Assumption, Immaculate conception, Perpetual virginity, et al)”:

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Martyr, Tertullian,–to name a few.

Notice how my list names fellows who are a cut above those named in your list and notice how my fellows predate yours…yours are from a time that allows the Marian Doctrines to have been manufactured…which, of course, is what happened.

…and it is those type of changes that make the question in the OP difficult to answer

WRONG.
**Not only does Jesus himself refer to Mary as the Woman in Gen. 3:15 – John also does in Rev. 12:1. **Oh – and the Revelation passage – go back and read about how the Bible was written. It didn’t have all of these neat chapters and verses. That was done by the Catholic Church to make it easier to read and reference.

Rev. 11 ends with the Ark of the covenant (NEW Covenant) in heaven and Rev. 12 begins with Mary. In the original text, this was not separated by chapter:
(11:19) Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. (12:1) A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

**It is a silly - and quite frankly ignorant charge that doctrines didn’t develope over time. The Holy Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, ALL developed over time. Some took months after the Resurrections of Christ and others took years. **

**The Bible doesn’t explicity teach the doctrines of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union as they were declared MUCH later. However, that doesn’****t make them any less true - unless you have your eyes closed and ears plugged . . .

 

[Cat_Herder]

Here’s some books to read WRT my claim regarding Augustine not believing in a Real Somatic Presence:

Kilmartin…The Eucharist in the West

Kilmartin, p. 26
Augustine agrees in all respects neither with the Greek Fathers nor with the later doctrinal position of the West.

So if you are citing Augustine’s Neoplatonism as being the “true” belief you have to explain why Augustine’s Neoplatonic Eucharistic theology is the original. But Kilmartin admits that the earlier Greek tradition was in fact the biblical tradition of the corporeal Real Presence (p. 83-84):

And on p. 83:
The theological meaning of the anamnesis, as it was explained by the Greek Fathers (and which was, in fact, more in line with biblical thinking), is not understood by these Western theologians [such as Augustine]. This accounts in part for the tendency, in the effort to fill the void, to reduce the notion of anamnesis to allegory [as Augustine arguably did]. … in the Greek perspective, [the Eucharist] was grounded on the real participation of the eucharistic elements in the reality of the crucified and risen Lord who has his natural mode of existence at the right hand of the Father…"

Whether on CAF or in college or even grade school, you will learn very quickly that in the age of Google, you do not win an argument by just citing some book. Your audience can instantly access the book, see what the author actually said, and determine readily that you have misrepresented what was actually said.

Now for Mary.

here is my partial list of fellows (from the 1st two centuries) who don’t mention anything about “The Marian Doctrines (her Assumption, Immaculate conception, Perpetual virginity, et al)”:

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James,

Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and these biblical authors are not going to disagree with one another, so let’s look at the Bible:

Immaculate Conception:
[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
Remember that whether you translate that as “He shall crush” or “she shall crush [through Him]” is a red herring. What matters is the promise of equal enmity being placed between Jesus and satan as well as the Woman and satan. Sin is cooperation with satan; enmity is the opposite of cooperation; thus, enmity with satan means freedom from sin.

Perpetual Virginity:
[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44:2[/BIBLEDRB]
There is no gate anywhere in Jerusalem that only Jesus passed through. Discarding the prophecies is not an option as that would mean that Jesus is not the Messiah. Thus, the only “gate” can be Mary’s womb.

Twisting the word “until” as found in other verses into an argument that Mary had children after Jesus is unavailing because the word “until” does not imply a later change in state.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:25[/BIBLEDRB]
Jesus will not cease to be Lord once His enemies are subjugated; nor will Mary cease to be a virgin.

The so-called “brothers” of the Lord referred to in Mt 13:55 are not blood brothers of the Lord. The Semitic use of the word “brother” indicates any kinsman. For example, Genesis 14:14 calls Lot the “brother” of Abraham when Lot is really Abraham’s nephew.

The term “firstborn” is a legal term; it does not imply that the parents had other children. Psalm 89:27 calls David “firstborn” even though he was Jesse’s 8th son.

Assumption: Revelation 12 clearly depicts it albeit in symbolic imagery, but all prophets used symbolic imagery.

Now we look at the ECFs:

Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Martyr, Tertullian,–to name a few.

Here are Justin Martyr and Tertullian saying the exact opposite of what you claim.

 

[elvisman]

Kilmartin, p. 26
Augustine agrees in all respects neither with the Greek Fathers nor with the later doctrinal position of the West.
So if you are citing Augustine’s Neoplatonism as being the “true” belief you have to explain why Augustine’s Neoplatonic Eucharistic theology is the original. But Kilmartin admits that the earlier Greek tradition was in fact the biblical tradition of the corporeal Real Presence (p. 83-84):

And on p. 83:
The theological meaning of the anamnesis, as it was explained by the Greek Fathers (and which was, in fact, more in line with biblical thinking), is not understood by these Western theologians [such as Augustine]. This accounts in part for the tendency, in the effort to fill the void, to reduce the notion of anamnesis to allegory [as Augustine arguably did]. … in the Greek perspective, [the Eucharist] was grounded on the real participation of the eucharistic elements in the reality of the crucified and risen Lord who has his natural mode of existence at the right hand of the Father…"
Whether on CAF or in college or even grade school, you will learn very quickly that in the age of Google, you do not win an argument by just citing some book. Your audience can instantly access the book, see what the author actually said, and determine readily that you have misrepresented what was actually said.

Now for Mary.

Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and these biblical authors are not going to disagree with one another, so let’s look at the Bible:

Immaculate Conception:
[bibledrb]Genesis 3:15[/bibledrb]
Remember that whether you translate that as “He shall crush” or “she shall crush [through Him]” is a red herring. What matters is the promise of equal enmity being placed between Jesus and satan as well as the Woman and satan. Sin is cooperation with satan; enmity is the opposite of cooperation; thus, enmity with satan means freedom from sin.

Perpetual Virginity:
[bibledrb]Ezekiel 44:2[/bibledrb]
There is no gate anywhere in Jerusalem that only Jesus passed through. Discarding the prophecies is not an option as that would mean that Jesus is not the Messiah. Thus, the only “gate” can be Mary’s womb.

Twisting the word “until” as found in other verses into an argument that Mary had children after Jesus is unavailing because the word “until” does not imply a later change in state.
[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 15:25[/bibledrb]
Jesus will not cease to be Lord once His enemies are subjugated; nor will Mary cease to be a virgin.

The so-called “brothers” of the Lord referred to in Mt 13:55 are not blood brothers of the Lord. The Semitic use of the word “brother” indicates any kinsman. For example, Genesis 14:14 calls Lot the “brother” of Abraham when Lot is really Abraham’s nephew.

The term “firstborn” is a legal term; it does not imply that the parents had other children. Psalm 89:27 calls David “firstborn” even though he was Jesse’s 8th son.

Assumption: Revelation 12 clearly depicts it albeit in symbolic imagery, but all prophets used symbolic imagery.

Now we look at the ECFs:
Here are Justin Martyr and Tertullian saying the exact opposite of what you claim.

Great post.

**Radical obviously has an axe to grind with the Church and, as such, is willing to make any number of preposterous accusations against her. **
The same old, tired anti-Catholic rants . . .

 

[Stephen168]

Rather, my answer is that the question in the OP is not framed well at all…again here is what I said. Read it again, and it should be clear why (IMHO) the question isn’t well conceived (b/c of how the CC has evolved into what it currently is):

Well from my point of view, the church of the first century believed A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M. (here we need to check history) In contrast, again from my POV, the modern CC believes A-J, doesn’t believe K-M and now also believes N-Z. (here we need to check with Catholic theologians) K-M weren’t lost in one moment, nor were N-Z added in a single moment. The change is significant enough that it isn’t appropriate to call the two (the 1st century church and the modern CC) the same church…no more appropriate than claiming that the game played in the 1890’s is the same game we now know as American Football. So perhaps the answer is these three guys: Mr. Innovation, Ms. Development and Father Time.

So on the OP’s question of when? You don’t know.

The answer is well conceived. There are two main Protestant groups on this issue. The first accepts the fact the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and then says, “so what.” They continue with various reasons why it doesn’t matter. After all, many were Catholics when they started their new variety of Christianity. The second group rejects the fact the Catholic Church was started by Christ but has nothing to offer in return; like an anti-catholic tantrum. The OP’s questions puts the spotlight on the ‘tantrum Protestants.’

Because you can’t answer either question, it seems your American Football analogy isn’t very good. We knew when and who. When did you come human? When you were two cells in your mother’s womb, 19 years after that, or sometime in between? If we saw you now, you would look much different than when you were two cells, or one, or five, or 19. Would they be pictures of you or some other non-human that is not you…yet?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Peter WAS the first Bishop of Rome and it is testified to by the ECFs

Where did Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr testify that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Since you have their works at your disposal.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

here is my partial list of fellows (from the 1st two centuries) who don’t mention anything about “The Marian Doctrines (her Assumption, Immaculate conception, Perpetual virginity, et al)”:

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Martyr, Tertullian,–to name a few.

How are you so sure that Jesus and His Apostles did not teach those things? John is very clear that not everything Jesus did is written in his Gospel. Teaching His Apostles would fall into the category of “things Jesus did”.

Sola Scriptura advocates CANNOT claim that Jesus and His Apostles did not teach something with absolute certitude. The Church can. SS people cannot.

Anyway, you cannot make that claim either because John said he did not write everything down.

And about the Fathers… They were all Catholic. Ignatius is the one who called the Church Catholic. “Wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.” Just trust Catholics on what Catholics say about Catholic people who spoke Catholic doctrine.

Notice how my list names fellows who are a cut above those named in your list and notice how my fellows predate yours…yours are from a time that allows the Marian Doctrines to have been manufactured…which, of course, is what happened.

This claim is unjustified, unjustifiable and false. Clarity… It is a wonderful thing. I know it is impossible, but you should at least provide proof of why Marian doctrines “have been manufactured.” If you want to make immature statements, I will return the favor just so you can see how absurd it makes you look. And me also.

Notice how that list names fellows whom we actually recognize in the Church. When was the last time you paid any attention to them outside of “Paul says this in Romans”? When Paul clearly states in Romans to give “honor to whom honor is due.” When was the last time your paid any attention to the early martyrs? Without the blood of the martyrs, the Church would not have survived (this is speculation, but with good reason). It is a miracle it made it past the first 400 years! When was the last time you paid any attention to the Mary and the angels outside of Christmas? Revelations speaks of angels in every single chapter, not to mention many other books at least mention them. Christ even speaks of guardian angels! Honor is due all of those. Yet, you give them none. And actually refuse to give them honor.

You speak of those people yet you do not even know them.

 

[Dokimas]

Do you believe the early Church fathers, prior to Constantine, were the same as Constantine, since their writings are very Catholic in nature?

I do not understand ‘same as Constantine’.

All true teachings are Biblical in nature, thus Christian (NOT just catholic).

 

[Dokimas]

Where did Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr testify that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Since you have their works at your disposal.

fair question

 

[Dokimas]

PROVE it.

**That is a laughable **charge that even most Protestant theologians don’t adhere to.

I’m glad to be able to help you ease up a bit and laugh.