The Invention of Catholicism?

[Seeking12]

lol! do you select to see what you want to see?did you not read my reply to you?or do you find it dificult to believe that catholics are saved?we are washed and covered with the blood of Christ!
maybe i should enlighten you…i have an uncle he is a catholic priest.he has the gift of healing.he does not pray to any1 but Jesus infact it is Jesus working through him.When ever he prays for some1 to be healed he invokes the name of Jesus!!and lo and behold the the person is healed.and he has medical backing for some of his healings stating that the persons having some illness or sickness was cured without the use of medical technology what so ever.

**Then he should be in every hospital around and be praying all the time, then you will know if it is from God or not. Ask him if he has or is doing that and if not ask why. Why waste such a great gift?

The person is saved on an individual basis, not based on their religious affiliation, so to say that all Catholics are washed in the blood of Christ, would be a fallacy; just as it would be to say all Protestants are.**

 

[ron77nyc]

JL: Your trying the old bait a switch again, You were wrong

Well back to the Invention of Catholicism. The guy who started the thread defined it as questioning the invention (the beginning) of Catholicism. I defined it as something that was invented by Catholicism. The temporal (earthly, worldly) powers of the pope fall into that category whether you call him the emperor or the pope. The pope controlled the emperor and the emperor made deals with the pope so that makes the pope co-emperor. What’s the difference. The pope called the shots.

 

[Seeking12]

Seeking12;4915764:

JL: A statement without evidence, is evidence the statement is false.

reformation.org/pope-constantine.html

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

jlhargus;4915796:

reformation.org/pope-constantine.html

This has got to be one of the most inflammitory bits of revisionist history that I’ve ever seen. It borders in comparison to claiming that slavery really didn’t happen in the U.S.

It lacks any sources and relies completely on conjecture coupled with wildly loose interpretation of the Bible. It lacks any semblance of context or truth for that matter.

I would also say that it speaks volumes of the one who posted it.

Just because you want to believe to be true that which is not doesn’t make it true.

And Helen was a Christian long before her son saw the symbol in the sky at Saxa Rubra.

http://www.kenrickparish.com/michaelwitt/earlych/ech21-30/ech30.html

 

[SteveGC]

** It is interesting on how you speak of how accessible the Lord is, and He is and was when He was on earth. One of the signs of a false teacher is their inaccessibility and expected reverence for that person. They usually surround themselves with whom they chose and are not accessible to the “common” folks; except on rare occasions when it is for their benefit. The Lord and the Apostles were never like that and from that perspective anyone that claims to be a religious leader and expects a degree of reverence and keeps themselves from the “common” folks, then it should be a red flag to anyone who may follow such a leader. Mohammad was a perfect example of this. **

So please explain to us how precisely the Catholic Church is inaccessible. Name one instance in Her history where she has closed her doors to anyone seeking the Truth.

And how does The Church “expect” reverence? Careful here. She does, indeed, deserve our reverence, because, AND ONLY BECAUSE, The Church and CHRIST are ONE. By revering The Church, we are revering Christ. So…again, how does The Church “expect” this? The Church’s proclamation to the world that She is Christ’s true church, endowed with the protection of the Holy Spirit to teach all Truth, and therefore is the earthly source of salvation through Christ…is this the “expectation” you refer to? I can accept that…after all, if I knew I had the source of all Truth for the faithful, I would certainly let it be known who I am, and that all should come to me for learning. This is far from “demanding” that others revere me. Your bigotry precedes you, Seeking. You are transparent.

** I can’t answer that question for you, but certainly on the issue of abortion you can go to the word of God. If you are seeking the truth, you better be looking in the Bible and not to a “church”. there are more false Christians than there are true Christians, so unless you are sure about a specific person and their relationship with God and how they handle the Scripture, then i would stick to the Bible and or outside help that you know are trustworthy. **

You are making our point for us, thank you. Even you realize that the Bible alone can’t provide you your answers to questions on faith and morals. Even you make accomodation for “outside help”. Congratulations, you’ve just defeated Sola Scriptura for yourself. And it’s high time everyone did the same. We, in fact, DO need outside help…and you’re right, we have to know who of the many that would teach us are fully trustworthy. The only way to know for sure is to first recognize that that outside source still exists today, has for all time, and will until the end of the age. Secondly, to find out who it is, we have to trace it back to the apostles, wind the clock forward and figure out where the appropriate, authentic line of succession is. That’s THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW WHO ON EARTH WE’RE SUPPOSED TO TRUST. Because the Bible alone WILL NOT CUT IT.

God Bless

 

[Seeking12]

Seeking12;4915903:

This has got to be one of the most inflammitory bits of revisionist history that I’ve ever seen. It borders in comparison to claiming that slavery really didn’t happen in the U.S.

It lacks any sources and relies completely on conjecture coupled with wildly loose interpretation of the Bible. It lacks any semblance of context or truth for that matter.

I would also say that it speaks volumes of the one who posted it.

Just because you want to believe to be true that which is not doesn’t make it true.

And Helen was a Christian long before her son saw the symbol in the sky at Saxa Rubra.

http://www.kenrickparish.com/michaelwitt/earlych/ech21-30/ech30.html

Sources were and are listed at the bottom and you must not have read it. We know Constantine worship the pagan sun God and the dream He had and subsequent change is interesting and fits with history. Maybe the revisionist history comes from within your own; it is possible isn’t it?
**
Not only that, but I was asked for a source and I gave one. Of course as a Catholic you are going to reject it, but you can find secular sources to verify and even within your own history you can read between the lines and connect the dots. But not if you are stubborn on your own bias.**

 

[cazayoux]

I can’t answer that question for you, but certainly on the issue of abortion you can go to the word of God.

There are people that go to scripture and teach different things.
There are non-Catholic Christians that go to the bible to say abortion is wrong.
There are other ‘Bible Only’ Christians that go to the bible and say abortion is okay.
If I’m looking for the TRUTH, how do I know which church actually has it, since they disagree so widely on what the scriptures teach?

If you are seeking the truth, you better be looking in the Bible and not to a “church”.

The bible is the inerrant word of God, we agree.
You seem to have a disdain for ‘church’, when that is exactly what Jesus founded.
What came first, the bible or the church?

there are more false Christians than there are true Christians,

So HOW do I find the ‘true’ Christians?
Which Christians have the TRUTH?
HOW do I know they have the truth?

so unless you are sure about a specific person and their relationship with God and how they handle the Scripture, then i would stick to the Bible and or outside help that you know are trustworthy.

Where is THAT in the bible?
The bible tells me that it’s the CHURCH that is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Jesus said he founded a church and that it would never fail.
Jesus said he would be with it always, until the end of the age.
Where did Christians go to find the truth before there was a bible?
They ‘took it to the church’.

HOW do I find THAT church?

michel

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

**Then he should be in every hospital around and be praying all the time, then you will know if it is from God or not. Ask him if he has or is doing that and if not ask why. Why waste such a great gift?

The person is saved on an individual basis, not based on their religious affiliation, so to say that all Catholics are washed in the blood of Christ, would be a fallacy; just as it would be to say all Protestants are.**

do not critisize people because you are jealous do you work without ceasing for God?My uncle the priest is over 70years old he has out lived his doctor by 5 years who told him and his family(us) that he has only a few months to live!!!
His gift of healing is not the only thing he does.that is physical healing.there is a greater healing that of the spirit which he as a priest like every priest is primarily asked to do.and it is not for you to decide who is saved or not.but as a Christian you should hope with love that all Christians infact mankind are saved.
im very disapointed by people who like you who claim to be Christian but lack love.and youb should know that if you lack love then you lack everything!

and my uncle prays as much as a cat sleeps!!!

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

it is amusing to see just how many non catholics end up contradicting themselves!and it is impractical to think tthat its the bible only.how can God communicate His love through pages in a book(no disrespect to the bible)when jesus was here he told us thet His spirit will teach us the Truth.even in the bible there is evidence when peter was to go to a gentiles house(i think)he had a dream and in his dream God told him that he can eat anythingdid peter read his jewish scrolls?.now the bible is the Word of God.and it is filled with the truth!but if we are to believe in what jesus told us then we too have His word His truth in us.and if His word is in us then so too must His spirit be in us.unless ofcause you believe that jesus did not send His spirit into us.and if His spirit is in us then we have His authoriy to speak on matters of faith.even morality,etc.

why do we have teachers at schools?lets just leave the books with the kids im sure they will figure it out.

 

[Halo4]

Re: The Invention of Catholicism?

Yes - Jesus & The 12 Dudes -

Forward all Questions to the Current “Bishop of Rome”

 

[Rainman2]

jlhargus;4915796:

reformation.org/pope-constantine.html

Obviously your research is strictly one sided. You only look for what fits your mistaken beliefs. You should try comparing both sides, it could be enlightening.

 

[cazayoux]

why do we have teachers at schools?lets just leave the books with the kids im sure they will figure it out.

Great analogy!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Yes - Jesus & The 12 Dudes

I always chuckle when I hear them referred to as “JC and the crew”.
heh heh heh

michel

 

[jmcrae]

catholiclvr;4914018:

The first Pope was Constantine; then after that they eventually went and filled in the blanks to have a so-called succession. At some point in time there was no Pope and at one or two times there was more than one Pope. What do the Pope and Mohammad have in common?

Constantine was never Pope. He was not even baptized as a Christian until just before he died. He was a Catechumen, at best.

 

[cazayoux]

catholiclvr;4914018:

The first Pope was Constantine; then after that they eventually went and filled in the blanks to have a so-called succession. At some point in time there was no Pope and at one or two times there was more than one Pope. What do the Pope and Mohammad have in common?

Heh heh … if you REALLY believe this, I have a book for you to read.
“Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid.

I dare you to read it.
You’ll find that you can make proper decisions when not given your opinions by others with prejudice and ignorance.

TRUTH is your goal.
To seek truth IS to seek Jesus (He is the way, the truth, and the life).

Read the book and make your own decisions.

michel

 

[Contarini]

The GreyPilgrim;4916041:

Sources were and are listed at the bottom and you must not have read it. We know Constantine worship the pagan sun God and the dream He had and subsequent change is interesting and fits with history. Maybe the revisionist history comes from within your own; it is possible isn’t it?
**
Not only that, but I was asked for a source and I gave one. Of course as a Catholic you are going to reject it, but you can find secular sources to verify and even within your own history you can read between the lines and connect the dots. But not if you are stubborn on your own bias.**

The term “Pope” generally refers to the bishop of Rome. Obviously if you define “Pope” to be “anyone holding the title Pontifex Maximus” then you can say Constantine was a “Pope.” But that is just a definition you concoct to suit your ideology. It’s not the normal meaning of the word.

Edwin

 

[Seeking12]

Seeking12;4917295:

The term “Pope” generally refers to the bishop of Rome. Obviously if you define “Pope” to be “anyone holding the title Pontifex Maximus” then you can say Constantine was a “Pope.” But that is just a definition you concoct to suit your ideology. It’s not the normal meaning of the word.

Edwin

**So based on that reasoning alone we both then agree that to insert pope in any fashion upon Scripture must be error…right? If not, then why?

By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.

Thought I would trow this in here because it is the Catholic defense of Peter being the “foundation”, which a simple word search on “foundation” can only point to Christ.**

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;4918645:

So based on that reasoning alone we both then agree that to insert pope in any fashion upon Scripture must be error…right?

“Pope” is an honorific term. Actually I was speaking too loosely when I said it meant the bishop of Rome. It’s also been used for the bishop of Alexandria and in the Eastern Church is used broadly for any priest. But it always is an affectionate term for a pastor who functions as a spiritual father. It’s not “pontifex maximus,” and it doesn’t apply to Constantine or any emperor.

Is the origin of the concept of the papacy (as RCs define it) to be found in Scripture? Yes, I think it is. Peter is clearly given some kind of authority within the fellowship of apostles, and this authority seems to have been implemented historically in the office of bishop of Rome, both because the location of the bishops of Rome allowed them to function effectively in this way and (more importantly for the early Church, I’d argue) because both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.

Thought I would trow this in here because it is the Catholic defense of Peter being the “foundation”, which a simple word search on “foundation” can only point to Christ.

The word “foundation” doesn’t occur in the New Testament, which was written in Greek. Which Greek word are you talking about?

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

The GreyPilgrim;4916041:

Sources were and are listed at the bottom and you must not have read it. We know Constantine worship the pagan sun God and the dream He had and subsequent change is interesting and fits with history. Maybe the revisionist history comes from within your own; it is possible isn’t it?
**
Not only that, but I was asked for a source and I gave one. Of course as a Catholic you are going to reject it, but you can find secular sources to verify and even within your own history you can read between the lines and connect the dots. But not if you are stubborn on your own bias.**

All of the secular sources I know list Jesus as the founder of Christianity, and Peter as the first Pope, with the list of the succession of the Popes. In a tiny footnote, they notice that there are some new branches of Christianity since the Enlightenment period that don’t acknowledge the authority of the Pope.

 

[Seeking12]

Seeking12;4917295:

All of the secular sources I know list Jesus as the founder of Christianity, and Peter as the first Pope, with the list of the succession of the Popes. In a tiny footnote, they notice that there are some new branches of Christianity since the Enlightenment period that don’t acknowledge the authority of the Pope.

**
I agree that when a secular historian would be asked what does the Catholic Church teach as who was the first Pope, the answer will always be Peter. That is different than looking at the history of the church Jesus is the foundation of. **