Scripture and Mary

[elvisman]

Welcome to the Club of Catholics fed up with Protestants who have an Anti-Catholic agenda. I thought I wasn’t the only one on this.

There is one thing for certain, I will not compromise my Catholic faith for any new doctrine founded in Protestantism. Protestantism is brand new invited by Martin Luther.

 

[Mike_Patrick]

***Hi, Mike Patrick!

No, that’s not where we meet; but then again, the meeting place is not important.

What is important to note is that the Basic Doctrine remained: One God, One Lord, One Spirit, One Baptism, One Gospel, One Body, One Christ!

I would argue that Protestants have much more in common with Catholics than many believe, but there are significant theological, doctrinal, and philosophical differences. I’m sure you’d agree.

Please understand that you are in error. Constantine, a ruler of Rome; not the Pope, not even a Bishop. He could not demand that the Church compile the Bible because that title only came to be once the compilation was made.

I did not say that Constantine demanded anything. I think history shows that he directed the Bishops to compile the books of the Bible, because there was no organization to it all.

Some people say that the Catholics wrote the New Testament because we believe in the succession of the Apostles, as we believe in our relationship with Abraham–our Father in the Faith.

If you read Biblical history, it becomes clear that the confusion comes in because the word “catholic” simply meant “universal” at the time. This is why I’m careful to note “Roman Catholic Church” or RCC when writing. At any rate, it is very clear that Jews and Hebrews penned the Bible, not Roman Catholics. However, what is most important is who the author of the Bible is, not who wrote it down.

This, of course, is also a response to the Bible only queries: Jesus did not reveal all of the Truth to the Apostles; He promised that the other Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, would come (sent by Him from the Father) and support the Church by revealing the complete Truth and by Teaching the Apostles all that Jesus left unsaid; this would include Church Doctrines as additional revelations would take place throughout Church’s history: the Apostles called that Traditions and the Catholic Church eventually termed it Sacred Traditions.

Read that scripture again. What Jesus said was that He had many more things to tell them. He did not say what those things were - as you do. You assume that because Jesus said there’s more to say, that somehow they didn’t have enough to be saved, worship, follow, and live fully as Christians. It wasn’t that Jesus didn’t “finish the job.” Why would Jesus, over the three years of His official ministry, teach the minute details to the Apostles on how to pray, but not mention that Mary was so very important - even a co-redemptrix? Why is it that Jesus would scold his followers for their lack of understanding and faith if He knew that He hadn’t given them enough information, or that He was “holding back” important truths? And why, if Jesus thought it important that the Apostles succeed Him, did He not tell them that they should do that? Why was His message simply - go out and tell everyone about Him. If He was to establish a church that would require specific actions, rituals, and sacraments that were going to be required for salvation, did he not say what they were?

…the problem you have is interpretation–you are not Catholic, how then are you determining for us what the Catholic Faith is.

I determine nothing. I gleen it from your own organization, who, over the centuries, has been very vocal and revealing. If it has not been so, then your Church has failed it’s mission. I’m worried for the Catholic Church, because if the requirement is to become a Catholic before I can understand it’s tenets, then it is of no use to God. The Church is to attract followers, not require they understand before they give their hearts to Jesus Christ. Full understanding will come later.

You recognize the Catholics are not God–which is an excellent thing. But you dispense God’s Salvation according to your denomination.

I despense nothing other than the Word of God. All I ask is that you read the Bible, not the RCC Catechism.

Christ said that only those who abide in Him and Him and them would be allow to stay on the vine. Paul says that there is One God, Lord, Spirit, Baptism, Gospel, Body–which is exactly what the Catholic Church Believes.

The Catholic Church does indeed state what you say, but it goes further to say that it holds the “fullness of the faith”, which is not true. The Bible holds the “fullness of the faith.” The Catholic Church denies this, claiming that one cannot know God fully without the Catholic Church.

Only non-Catholics claim to have a direct relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit that compels them to have over 30, 000 different denominational doctrines–some that are completely set against other non-Catholic denominational groups.

The Roman Catholic Church loves to make this claim, all the while ignoring it’s own fractional structure. It’s well known that if you don’t get the answer you want from one priest, find another. I had this experience myself when getting married. I was not Catholic, my wife was. One Catholic Church would not marry us, another one did. I would venture to say that that kind of difference would produce well over 30,000 different churches. The Roman Catholic Church is anything but unified.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Mannyfit75]

I did not say that Constantine demanded anything. I think history shows that he directed the Bishops to compile the books of the Bible, because there was no organization to it all.

He didn’t want a disunited Christian Church. Arianism was becoming problematic for the Church. The Catholic Church was already in existence by the time he came into power.

If you read Biblical history, it becomes clear that the confusion comes in because the word “catholic” simply meant “universal” at the time. This is why I’m careful to note “Roman Catholic Church” or RCC when writing. At any rate, it is very clear that Jews and Hebrews penned the Bible, not Roman Catholics. However, what is most important is who the author of the Bible is, not who wrote it down.

I have read Christian history and the how the Bible came into being. It was the Jews who composed the Hebrew Scripture. It was the Evangelists Mark, Luke, Matthew and John who wrote the Gospels, Paul wrote his Epistles, Peter wrote his, as well as James, and John. These text were compiled by the Church 20-30 yrs after the Ascension of Our Lord.

At the time there were other Gospels like Gospel of Thomas. Around the 300, the African Synod like Hippo and Carthage made a list of Canon of Scripture. This included the 46 OT to include the Deutrocanonical Text and 27 NT. Earlier list of Canons excluded the Book of Revelation and other Epistles. It was not until a complete list was compiled in Hippo 392 AD and Carthage 396 AD. Of the 50 plus other Gospels only four Gospels were canonized as part of the Christian canon.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Read that scripture again. What Jesus said was that He had many more things to tell them. He did not say what those things were - as you do. You assume that because Jesus said there’s more to say, that somehow they didn’t have enough to be saved, worship, follow, and live fully as Christians. It wasn’t that Jesus didn’t “finish the job.” Why would Jesus, over the three years of His official ministry, teach the minute details to the Apostles on how to pray, but not mention that Mary was so very important - even a co-redemptrix? Why is it that Jesus would scold his followers for their lack of understanding and faith if He knew that He hadn’t given them enough information, or that He was “holding back” important truths? And why, if Jesus thought it important that the Apostles succeed Him, did He not tell them that they should do that? Why was His message simply - go out and tell everyone about Him. If He was to establish a church that would require specific actions, rituals, and sacraments that were going to be required for salvation, did he not say what they were?

Co-redemptrix is not official defined by the Catholic Church as dogmatic statement. Jesus established One Church and its Catholic.

I would like add that the best description of the Catholic Church is not Roman Catholic Church. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To just say it is Roman Catholic Church negates the 22 Eastern Rite Catholic Churches which are not Roman or Latin.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I determine nothing. I gleen it from your own organization, who, over the centuries, has been very vocal and revealing. If it has not been so, then your Church has failed it’s mission. I’m worried for the Catholic Church, because if the requirement is to become a Catholic before I can understand it’s tenets, then it is of no use to God. The Church is to attract followers, not require they understand before they give their hearts to Jesus Christ. Full understanding will come later.

The Catholic Church has not failed. Rather, I believe Protestantism have failed. In Protestantism itself found the KKK and believe that slavery is justified based on the doctrines of Sola Scriptura.

I despense nothing other than the Word of God. All I ask is that you read the Bible, not the RCC Catechism.

I have the Catholic Catechism. It’s title official reads as “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” It doesn’t say Roman Catholic Church.

The Catechism also have citations from the Scripture. The Catechism is a summary of the faith. Catechism are not limited to Catholics. There are others from Protestant circles. Go look up catechism and you’ll find Protestants have a summary of their belief in catechical form.

The Catholic Church does indeed state what you say, but it goes further to say that it holds the “fullness of the faith”, which is not true. The Bible holds the “fullness of the faith.” The Catholic Church denies this, claiming that one cannot know God fully without the Catholic Church.

It is the fullness of Truth because the Holy Spirit is its sole. The head of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. The Church is also the Bride of Christ. You cannot separate the Church and Jesus Christ. Don’t deceive us by separating the Church and Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church loves to make this claim, all the while ignoring it’s own fractional structure. It’s well known that if you don’t get the answer you want from one priest, find another. I had this experience myself when getting married. I was not Catholic, my wife was. One Catholic Church would not marry us, another one did. I would venture to say that that kind of difference would produce well over 30,000 different churches. The Roman Catholic Church is anything but unified.

The Catholic Church would probably not marry you for valid reasons. Compared to Protestantism. The Catholic Church is united in faith and doctrine. It teaches no different doctrines. Anyone else who claim to be Catholic and does not adhere to the Magisterium are either heretics, schmatics, and are disobedient Catholics.

Those who departed from the Catholic Church or Catholics who teaches something contrary to the Magisterium are execommunicated. There is no fracturing of the Catholic Church.

There are fractures in Protestantism because Protestantism is man-made.

 

[Mike_Patrick]

Wrong. You won’t dialogue with me anymore because you cannot intelligently answer my retorts to your venemous attacks and outright lies about the Catholic Church. At least - at the very least, I have not lied to make my points as you have.
If my replies appear vitriolic, it’s because I grow weary of the ever-increasing, antagonistic and uncharitable assaults against my faith by half-witted anti-Catholics.
I am one Catholic who will not stand for that sort of thing.
Again, I pray that you will see the light of the Fullness of Truth.

---

Fine - your hatred continues. I for one am not interested in what you will “not stand for” - Explain your hate and anger to Jesus when the time comes.

 

[Mike_Patrick]

The Catholic Church would probably not marry you for valid reasons. Compared to Protestantism. The Catholic Church is united in faith and doctrine. It teaches no different doctrines. Anyone else who claim to be Catholic and does not adhere to the Magisterium are either heretics, schmatics, and are disobedient Catholics.

Those who departed from the Catholic Church or Catholics who teaches something contrary to the Magisterium are execommunicated. There is no fracturing of the Catholic Church.

There are fractures in Protestantism because Protestantism is man-made.

Here’s what I’m talking about. You are so interested in defending your church, that you didn’t hear a word I said. Christ found the same type of thing when trying to convince the Jews they were wrong - they just wouldn’t listen. Instead, they convinced themselves that they were being “faithful” and doing the right thing, as He tried to explain to them that they were to turn to the scriptures for truth.

I said that the Catholic Church DID marry us. All we had to do was find the right church, by trying one and then the other until we found one that did it. This is an example of a fractured Church. If you’ve been a Catholic for any length of time, you’ll admit that one church will do the Mass one way, and another - another way. One will administer the Sacraments in this fashion, and another chuch will do it another way. This is the same thing that is brought up against the Protestant churches - no difference. There is not the “unity” you speak of in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Mike_Patrick]

Co-redemptrix is not official defined by the Catholic Church as dogmatic statement. Jesus established One Church and its Catholic.

I would like add that the best description of the Catholic Church is not Roman Catholic Church. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To just say it is Roman Catholic Church negates the 22 Eastern Rite Catholic Churches which are not Roman or Latin.

That doesn’t make sense. I realize that the Church doesn’t call itself the Roman Catholic Church, but it’s called that by the rest of the world because we can all see that it is Rome that rules over the structure. We see that some of the Rites I mentioned still have friction with the RCC precisely because they feel the Holy See gave in way to much to Rome during it’s formation under Constantine - and they can see the difference. We also must see that in order to “pick out” which flavor we’re talking about, it’s proper to refer to the Holy See as Roman Catholic, especially when referring to those traits that are commone to the RCC. All of this is another example of a fractured church. You can’t very well claim “unity”, and then state that you will be excluding all of the “different” Catholic Churches by saying just Roman Catholic - do you see the problem?

Pope John Paul II said on 31 Jan 1985 in Guayaquil, Ecuador: “As she was in a special way close to the cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as **Co-Redemptrix **did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”

Granted - it’s not official, but it will be. My challege to you is that when it does occur, you turn from the Church and recognize it as blasphemy. Only Christ is qualified to be your Redeemer.

 

[jcrichton]

jcrichton;3236348:

Quote:
…so you are telling us that your group meets in a Jewish synagogue?

***Hi, Mike Patrick!

…so you agree that the Church changed even from her very infancy!

I would argue that Protestants have much more in common with Catholics than many believe, but there are significant theological, doctrinal, and philosophical differences. I’m sure you’d agree.

---

I concur on both counts.

…history shows that he directed the Bishops to compile the books of the Bible…

Truly, I am not a learned person… but, are you sure of your facts… a Roman Emperor desiring to help a religious faction to better guide its members and to enhanse its authority?

If you read Biblical history… what is most important is who the author of the Bible is, not who wrote it down.

…you missed the point: succession of Apostles!

… What Jesus said was that He had many more things to tell them… if Jesus thought it important that the Apostles succeed Him, did He not tell them that they should do that? Why was His message simply - go out and tell everyone about Him. If He was to establish a church that would require specific actions, rituals, and sacraments that were going to be required for salvation, did he not say what they were?

…you must mean, “read the Scriptures through my interpretation,” correct?

Where in the Gospels: a) are the Apostles called Christians, b) does Jesus refer to the Apostles as prophets, teachers, apostles, bishops, presbyters, decons, c) does Jesus command the Apostles to gather together in communes and share material wealth or make collections or create ministries to serve the Church, d) does Jesus tell the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will come upon them and stay for just a little while, e) does Jesus give the Apostles responses for the heresies that would follow?..

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, grows both in revelation and in function.

I determine nothing. I gleen it from your own organization, who, over the centuries, has been very vocal and revealing. If it has not been so, then your Church has failed it’s mission. I’m worried for the Catholic Church, because if the requirement is to become a Catholic before I can understand it’s tenets, then it is of no use to God. The Church is to attract followers, not require they understand before they give their hearts to Jesus Christ. Full understanding will come later.

…you err again. When I was Baptized I was merely a few days old–I was a member of the Body of Christ though I lacked all knowledge. Giving your heart to Christ can be done anywhere; as far as being faithful to God there are myriads of doctrines, each purporting to be the truth… so the Church requires that those who wish to join the Body of Christ be instructed in the Doctrine passed down from the Apostles, how does that hinder your development as a Christian?

I despense nothing other than the Word of God. All I ask is that you read the Bible, not the RCC Catechism.

…you err again… I am aware that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is on-line (Vatican, EWTN) and I even have a paperback copy of it… but I’ve only used it as reference a very few times in my life.

When I read the Holy Scriptures they bring me to Christ: to His Body: the Chruch!

If I were to divorce myself from the Doctrine of the Catholic Church I would probably be doing as many: create my own “church” based on my own understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

The Catholic Church does indeed state what you say, but it goes further to say that it holds the “fullness of the faith”, which is not true. The Bible holds the “fullness of the faith.” The Catholic Church denies this, claiming that one cannot know God fully without the Catholic Church.

Which one of the Apostles said that the Bible was the fullness of faith?

To which Biblical verse did Jesus referred His disciples if a matter of doctrine arose?

Which prophet did the Holy Spirit inspire to write, “…look for the fountain of the faith in the compilation of the Sacred Writings?”

Conversely, Jesus told His disciples that if direct intervention was fruitless that they should bring the matter to the Church. And the Apostles declared that the Holy Spirit did not give personal revelations in matters of the Faith (my usage) and the Apostles themselves did not search the Holy Scriptures when clarifying doctrinal issues but the took those issues to the Church. Finally, the Apostles did not believe that the Holy Scriptures were the deposit of the truth, they believed that it was the Church!

The Roman Catholic Church loves to make this claim, all the while ignoring it’s own fractional structure. …One Catholic Church would not marry us, another one did. I would venture to say that that kind of difference would produce well over 30,000 different churches. The Roman Catholic Church is anything but unified.

I am ignorant of your choice of venue and the reasons why two representatives of Christ offered you two distinct teachings so I will refrain from speaking on it.

I find it sad that some Priest behave as if they are rogue agents, perhaps too much of 7th heaven types, circumventing the Doctrine of the Church demonstrate that they are not truly Catholics–which makes them poor Christians.

…as for the schism of the Church, human error does not equate to dissolution of Christ’s Church.

 

[anamchara]

I said that the Catholic Church DID marry us. All we had to do was find the right church, by trying one and then the other until we found one that did it. This is an example of a fractured Church. If you’ve been a Catholic for any length of time, you’ll admit that one church will do the Mass one way, and another - another way. One will administer the Sacraments in this fashion, and another chuch will do it another way. This is the same thing that is brought up against the Protestant churches - no difference. There is not the “unity” you speak of in the Roman Catholic Church.

Mike, sorry you are being hit by Catholics who think there’s an anti-Catholic around every corner

To give you some support here. You are right. One of the things that drove me crazy as a possible convert is these Catholics that kept screaming they had unity and Protestants don’t. I can tell you the Catholic Church is suffering with divisions and anyone who thinks it’s not needs climb out of that cave and go spend some time in the liturgy area of CAF.

It seems this thread went off track.

In fact, Mary’s role as **Co-Redemptrix **did not cease with the glorification of her Son."

I don’t think Mary is ever going to be considered Co-Redemptrix although in some cultures you would think she is. I know some Catholics are concerned this could happen and I hope it doesn’t.

 

[anamchara]

The Catholic Church has not failed. Rather, I believe Protestantism have failed. In Protestantism itself found the KKK and believe that slavery is justified based on the doctrines of Sola Scriptura.

You have got to be kidding me? Would you like to start a thread on what the Catholic Church has done in the past? Are we so arrogant and perfect mannyfit? Keep in mind what the catechism says how we are to treat our separate brethren.

It is indeed sad when people striving to be good Catholics are yet so weak or insecure in their faith that they feel they must incessantly support “their team” no matter what. We must pray for such people to grow and mature in their faith so that they can confront and accept the historical truth of the Church and become an honest Catholic, not a self-delusional one.

 

[jcrichton]

Mike, sorry you are being hit by Catholics who think there’s an anti-Catholic around every corner

***Hi, anamchara!

…how does the saying goes… if is quacks…

I’ve visited several non-Catholic Bible sites… not once have I questioned their doctrines nor insinuated mine.

I have discussed the various topics using only Scriptures without diving into denominational issues… why can’t that work on this site too?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Mannyfit75]

That doesn’t make sense. I realize that the Church doesn’t call itself the Roman Catholic Church, but it’s called that by the rest of the world because we can all see that it is Rome that rules over the structure. We see that some of the Rites I mentioned still have friction with the RCC precisely because they feel the Holy See gave in way to much to Rome during it’s formation under Constantine.

Hogwash! The Holy See was never under the formation of Constantine. He was the emperor of Rome. The head of the Church at the time was the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ.

The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. The Rite which makes up the majority of Catholics is the Latin Rite or Roman Rite. There are 22 Eastern Rite Catholics, to include the Ruthenian Catholic Church, Byzantine Rite Catholic Church, Meronite Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Caldeanean Catholic Church.

Here is a complete list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

If you ever use and call us Just Roman Catholic Church, you would bring great insult to the Eastern Rite Catholics because they take offense when they are called Roman when they are NOT!

Get your ridicules facts straight.

• and they can see the difference. We also must see that in order to “pick out” which flavor we’re talking about, it’s proper to refer to the Holy See as Roman Catholic, especially when referring to those traits that are commone to the RCC. All of this is another example of a fractured church. You can’t very well claim “unity”, and then state that you will be excluding all of the “different” Catholic Churches by saying just Roman Catholic - do you see the problem?

We are united. Protestants are not. Our Doctrines and Belief are same and more importantly, we are in full communion with the Pope in Rome.

Pope John Paul II said on 31 Jan 1985 in Guayaquil, Ecuador: “As she was in a special way close to the cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as **Co-Redemptrix **did not cease with the glorification of her Son.”

Granted - it’s not official, but it will be. My challege to you is that when it does occur, you turn from the Church and recognize it as blasphemy. Only Christ is qualified to be your Redeemer.

We are all co-redeemers in Christ. How many times have you ask someone to pray for you when you are sick? What Pope John Paul II is not a dogmatic statement. I don’t the Pope will declare this to be so even though some Catholics believe in it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

 

[Old_Scholar]

Hogwash! The Holy See was never under the formation of Constantine. He was the emperor of Rome. The head of the Church at the time was the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ.

The Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. The Rite which makes up the majority of Catholics is the Latin Rite or Roman Rite. There are 22 Eastern Rite Catholics, to include the Ruthenian Catholic Church, Byzantine Rite Catholic Church, Meronite Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Caldeanean Catholic Church.

Here is a complete list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

If you ever use and call us Just Roman Catholic Church, you would bring great insult to the Eastern Rite Catholics because they take offense when they are called Roman when they are NOT!

Get your ridicules facts straight.

We are united. Protestants are not. Our Doctrines and Belief are same and more importantly, we are in full communion with the Pope in Rome.

We are all co-redeemers in Christ. How many times have you ask someone to pray for you when you are sick? What Pope John Paul II is not a dogmatic statement. I don’t the Pope will declare this to be so even though some Catholics believe in it.

Sorry but at the time of Constantine, there was no pope!

 

[pete_29]

Sorry but at the time of Constantine, there was no pope!

Constantine: Roman emperor 306-337

Pope Marcellus I 307-309
Pope Eusebius 310
Pope Miltiades 311-314
Pope Sylvester I 314- 335
Pope Mark 336
Pope Julius I 337-352
Get your facts straight.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry but at the time of Constantine, there was no pope!

You got to be kidding, Old Scholar.

Look at the list above you. Constantine was born in the year 272 and died in 337 AD. In addition, I added a few more Popes base on the Papal List I got.

Let around his time, the Pope who reign were as follows:

Pope Felix I 269-274
Pope Eutychian 275-285
Pope Caius 285-296
Pope Saint Marcellinus 296-304
Pope Marcellus I 307-309
Pope Eusebius 310
Pope Miltiades 311-314
Pope Sylvester I 314- 335
Pope Mark 336
Pope Julius I 337-352

Old Scholar, you are losing much credibility by making false statements.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I** am not making false statements. It is you who have not studied your church history well enough but have accepted what you have been told, even though your own history and tradition will tell you different if you will only look.

This is a fallacy** of the Roman Catholic Church. There was no pope with authority over all the churches in those times. That false belief came long after Constantine.

Although Marcellus is called a pope now, actually he was only a presbyter, not a bishop. He was given the ecclesiastical administration duties during the latter part of a period of vacancy of the bishop’s chair.

Marcellus was required by Maxentius, who was furious at Marcellus reorganizing the Church, to lay aside his espicopal dignity and make an offering to the gods. Marcellus refused and he was condemned to work as a slave on the public highway. He was finally set free by the clergy but than again condemned to the work of attending to the horses brought into the highway station and he died there doing menial work.
This was one of your popes.

The bishop of Rome had no authority over any other churches at that time and today the Roman Church wants to believe that the bishop of Rome was pope with papal authority. That is simply not true.

I know Roman Catholics have bought the false pope bit but if you would simply study your own history, you would see it is just a fallacy brought on by those who wanted to establish a pope.

For example, Gregory I (the Great) was Bishop of Rome 590 – 604** and gives us clear proof that there was nothing like a papacy in his day or previous to it.** When John Bishop of Constantinople attempted to assert for himself the title of “universal bishop”, Gregory, in several letters to John as well as to others, pleads against the arrogance. He claims that such a title had been offered to the bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon, and by others afterwards, but that none of his forebears had ever consented to so profane a title even when they offered it. And he refused to allow others to call him by such a title. He called such a title, “blasphemy”, and any who would accept it “the precursor of AntiChrist”. His words were:

***For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.

And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title … .***Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria

Gregory argues that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there is none besides—neither apostles nor any other. Even while he claimed to be a successor of Peter and exerted authority as such within his jurisdiction at Rome, where Peter ended his life, Gregory also acknowledged that the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria were equally the Sees of Peter and their bishops equally his successors. Peter had founded the church at Antioch where he spent seven years, and he had sent his disciple Mark to found the church at Alexandria.

It was in the eighth century that a document appeared, purported to be a legal title granted by the emperor Constantine, in the fourth century, to Sylvester bishop of Rome. It granted to him Supremacy over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the whole world.

This appeared to give a legal claim to a papacy for the bishop of Rome with authority over all which he had no right previously as well as over the Papal States. **This document was proven to be a forgery however, by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 in his Declamatio. ** Unfortunately by that time, the papacy was set in place and its adherents were well under its control and unwilling to expose it as a false papacy.

That’s how the papacy got started. It is a false papacy with no real authority except what is given it by the Roman Catholics.

It may make Roman Catholics feel better about the pope and they are probably teaching their children of the headship of the ‘pope’ over God’s Church, and of his apostolic succession from Peter, but it is all fiction.

How much greater the blessing it is to know and understand the truth: that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and the true and only Source of its unity; and the Holy Spirit is His Vicar on the Earth!

Study your Church’s real history and enlighten yourself.

 

[elvisman]

Fine - your hatred continues. I for one am not interested in what you will “not stand for” - Explain your hate and anger to Jesus when the time comes.

Mike Patrick - **
If you call my praying for you “hatred”, then you have a lot to learn about charity.
You didn’t come here in charity – you came here to ****assault ****and make ****false **accusations.
Here are some of your venomous charges:

**

Second - the Roman Catholic Church (I assume this is the group you’re referring to) didn’t exist until some 180 years after the death of Christ.

**
**The Catholic Church was born on ****Pentecost **– AND as I pointed out to you from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, it was already being called the “Catholic Church” before the end of the 1st Century.

**

Do you believe that all Catholics are going to heaven, or just those that really have a personal relationship with Christ? If you answer all Catholics, then you must include the likes of Hitler, because he was a declared Catholic in good standing up until his death.

**
This is COMPLETE hogwash, but again, you proved that you’re more interested in perpetuating myths than the truth. I asked you to show me the proof that Hitler was in good standing with the Church, yet all you could do was to spew more garbage.

**

While Constintine charged the Roman Church to collect and compile the books of the Bible, those books were already recorded in manuscripts that were written long before, and in the case of some of the books of the NT, written starting some 30 years after the death of Christ - long before the Roman Catholic Church was ever conceived.

**
First of all, it wasn’t Constantine who compiled the Bible – it was the Catholic Church.
**Secondly, it’s called the ****“Catholic Church” ****– NOT the “Roman Church”. You already know this but you couldn’t **resist the opportunity to make yet another anti-Catholic slur. And you expect Catholic to just sit there and let these idiotic attacks to flourish? I think NOT.
I have pointed out to you that you are an anti-Catholic. I know this by your words. As our Lord stated CLEARLY in Matt. 7:16:

***“By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? ***
***Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. ***
***A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. ***
***Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. ***
So by their fruits you will know them.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

I** am not making false statements. It is you who have not studied your church history well enough but have accepted what you have been told, even though your own history and tradition will tell you different if you will only look.

This is a fallacy** of the Roman Catholic Church. There was no pope with authority over all the churches in those times. That false belief came long after Constantine.

I have studied my faith long enough, you just deny the fact that there was Papal Authority. There always have been. You are making a false statement. You deciever no better than the Evil One, who was a liar and a murderer from the very beginning.

Preach lies all you want but what you claim is false.