What is the one true Church?

[Illuminator]

Jim B said:

Show me anywhere in Scripture where the term "Catholic" or the term "Pope" is mentioned.

The term "Pope" is not in the Bible, because it means "father". The Greek word for Pope is πατέρας (patéras or pappas). It means "father".
In Swahili, it's "baba"
Korean: 아버지 (ah-bo-ji) / 아빠 (abba).
In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome, where the term was used from the beginning of the Church in Rome.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.

The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” =Gk. pappas = English: pope.
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.” =Gk. pappas = English: pope.
Philemon 10 – Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus. "father = Gk. pappas
You can't find pope in the Bible???
Can't find "father" in the Bible? Unclench your fists and I'd be glad to show you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What did Christ mean by that? The wording seems clear......so does the hate your father and mother thing....or Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.....we know that these two verses cannot mean what they appear to say because it does not follow through in the storyline.

Apples and Oranges.

“Gate your father and mother” is an obvious comparison to the love we must have for God – and NOT a commandment to “hate” anybody.

“Be perfect” is an obvious admonishment to STRUVE for perfection.

“I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of Heaven” is an almost verbatim fulfillment of a similar promise made to Eliakim in Isa. 22. The promise to Peter, however is mor glorious and perfect than the one made to Eliakim.

NT fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT prefigurements. – without exception.

Peter was a favorite for Christians. And I would have no problem with him being the leader of the Apostles if that was what appeared in the scriptures. If the other Apostles recognized him as their leader or took orders from Peter.....but it did not happen. But even then the Catholic Church as an organized Church would have to prove a direct connection to him.....but then for that connection to matter they would have had to act more Christian like in history.

As it is the Catholic Church did have power and authority and they used it for evil. So was it God that had the Protestants knock them off their pedestal and defang them.

For this to be true – Jesus Christ would have to be a LIAR Because evil prevailed,

He promised His Church:
“… and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

There have been evil MEN in the Church – just as there gave been in EVERY Protestant faction.
The Church has never TAUGHT evil.

I have already said and believe Peter was special.
One of the reasons that I think Peter was popular was that people could connect to his wavering faith.

This doesn’t address the fact that Jesus singled-out Peter for prayer to bring the others back. Just more back-pedaling . . .

The Apostles did change.
I was making the point that the faith of the women was stronger and more confident than the men....
The men agreed with Him but they were not willing to stake their lives on it until they truly believed.....and that is not just Peter.

More back-pedaling.
You’re changing to argument.

You brought this simply to argue against Peter’s leadership – and now you’re moving the goalposts.

Good job . . .

 

[Illuminator]

If I am wrong, correct me.

I did, and you ignored me. Since this thread is 1,843 posts long, I'll give you the courtesy of repeating myself, but with more detail.

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable... [truncated for brevity]

“When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion.”​

Edict of Milan“, Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De Mortibus Persecutorum), ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI).
(it was a CIVIL document, not a CHURCH document)

The Anti-Catholic Myth:

The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new “Christianity” the official religion of the Roman Empire. Later, in 325 A.D., Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. As head of this new church, Constantine merged Christianity with pagan beliefs to create the Whore of Babylon as we read about in the book of Revelation.

Alternatively, some non-Catholics will assert that the Catholic Church began in 325 when Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea.

13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:

1. If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then it would, therefore, seem to follow that Constantine himself was a Catholic Christian. This was not the case. Constantine (possibly) was not be baptized into the faith until he was on his deathbed on May 22, 337 A.D. (SEE ALSO: Was Constantine Baptized an Arian).
2. For Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, would require an Edict. The Edict of Milan, which was issued by Constantine and Licinius (as noted above) only put Christians on equal footing with all the other recognized religions in the Roman Empire; granting the same religious freedom that was already being extended to the pagans and Jews. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire.
3. If by virtue of Constantine calling a general council of all the bishops of the Church to meet with him at Nicaea (a resort town in the hills of Asia Minor just south of Constantinople), a Church was created, it then, therefore, follows that:

(a) the Church that existed prior to the Council from which all the bishops were called merged themselves into the new church of Constantine;
(b) we should see no continuity between the preexisting church and the new Church;
(c) we should see no continuity between the pre-Nicaea Church and modern day Catholic Church. I’ll dismiss these non-sequitur arguments below.

4. If by virtue of Constantine issuing an edict of religious freedom for Christians and calling together the First Council of Nicaea means that he started the Catholic Church, it would, therefore, mean that anytime a Roman Emperor granted religious freedom to any religion or stepped into resolve their controversies that they had become the founder of that pagan or Jewish religion. We don’t see such a claim by Protestants about the Emperor of Rome in any other circumstance than with the Catholic Church. In addition, this assumption also fails to recognize that the Roman Emperor thought himself to be in charge of all things in his empire. Therefore, it would have been natural and welcomed for the Emperor to extend his leverage and protection to assemble together all of the Catholic bishops of the Roman Empire.

5. The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

6. That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.

7. 218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word 'Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:
“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

8. In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”​

continued...

 

[Illuminator]

continued from post #1843

9. 170 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Justin Martyr wrote in First Apology (a letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) explaining what Christians did at Mass):

“On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.​

​

“When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . . and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.​

​

“Then someone bring bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharstian) that we have been judges worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.’​

​

“When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give those present the “eucharsited” bread, wine and after and take them to those who are absent.”​

10. 136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul:

“But since it would be long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether, through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assembled other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”​

11. It is true. If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary, there is only one Church on the face of this earth that can verifiably point to the Church in Rome, established by Peter and Paul, and by continuity in leadership, doctrine, and tradition show a seamless continuity from the first century until today, and that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

12. Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D. where a canon was issued stating, “. . . heretics, who are called antichrists and adversaries of Christ, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one Baptism of the Church, so that friends may be made of adversaries, and Christians of antichrists.” Another example of the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not which to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.?

13. The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true.
Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

To the contrary, what all the canons are dealing with is membership of those who had rejected the faith during the persecution, fallen lapse, or who had been excommunicated, primacy of Churches, and the administration of the Sacraments. Altogether the canons are concerned with establishing a solidarity and uniformity of administration and liturgy in the Catholic Church. There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the Myth of Constantine Founding the Catholic Church.

Indeed, the only place we see name of Constantine mentioned in reference to the Council of Nicaea is in a post-Council Synod Letter written to the Church of Alexandria, but only in regards paying him deference and honor due to him as the Emperor of Rome who called the bishops together to resolve the Arian heresy:

“To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicaea, wish health in the Lord...​

continue reading here)

Conclusion of the Emperor Constantine Founder Myth

Those who posit that Constantine founded the Catholic Church either with the Edict of Milan or by calling together the First Council of Nicaea are unable prove their claim. There is no documentation from that time, either explicit or implicit by historian or theologian that even hints that such an event transpired or was the intention of Constantine or the bishops of the Catholic Church to transpire.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable. The myth is that because the Church of the Apostles fell in to apostasy, a remnant of the true and orthodox believers of Jesus remained hidden from and often persecuted by the Catholic Church until THEY brought the reform and true faith back. Prior the rise of Protestantism, no one ever dared to tell this lie. Only in the space of the unintelligent, uncurious, and hostile can such a myth and lie bear fruit.

Again, none of which can be proved or supported by the documented facts that the Churches we read about in the Bible started calling themselves Catholics by the early Second Century, and the unique teachings of that Church founded by the Apostles are only present in the Catholic Church today that is in union with See of Rome where the successor of Peter presides.

*Used with permission.

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network

 

[BreadOfLife]

Read your Bible! There were churches in Israel (and surrounding areas), Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Colossae, Thessalonica, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and some other places not mentioned in Scripture (for example, Egypt and Ethiopia).

Simply because the Catholic denomination claims to be the original church doesn't make it true. Take off your blinders!

Why do you call the murderous crusades and the conquering of indigenous peoples God's will? Many thousands of people have been killed under the auspices of the Catholic denomination. Do you think that is loving your neighbor? Your denomination has a history of shedding innocent blood!

Persecution by the Catholic Church of people whom God created in His image, and you persecute Christ, the creator of all.

They were ALL part of the ONE Catholic Church.

They weren't "different" Churches - just different locations.
Today, we call them Dioceses and Parishes.

Show me anywhere in Scripture where the term "Catholic" or the term "Pope" is mentioned.

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[Grailhunter]

In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome, where the term was used from the beginning of the Church in Rome.

You might think I would not like it if you found some one calling themselves father in their writings in the first three centuries.....but I would be delighted.

I did, and you ignored me. Since this thread is 1,843 posts long, I'll give you the courtesy of repeating myself, but with more detail.

I said I knew of them....nothing about agreeing with them.

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable... [truncated for brevity]

The problem with this is that for people that know the truth, they see your denial as endorsing what the Church did. Torturing and murdering men, women, and children. The inquisition squads are historical and the torture manual produced by the Church....the Malleus Maleficarum is still in print.....want one?

If Constantine started the Catholic Church, then it would, therefore, seem to follow that Constantine himself was a Catholic Christian. This was not the case. Constantine (possibly) was not be baptized into the faith until he was on his deathbed on May 22, 337 A.D. (SEE ALSO: Was Constantine Baptized an Arian).

Emperor Constantine did not start the Catholic Church, he enabled it. He provided the power and protection to allow it to exist. And it was he that enforced their rulings. Tradition has it that Emperor Constantine was Baptized on his deathbed....not surprising because at that time it was thought to be a way to face Judgment Day sinless.

For Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire, would require an Edict. The Edict of Milan, which was issued by Constantine and Licinius (as noted above) only put Christians on equal footing with all the other recognized religions in the Roman Empire; granting the same religious freedom that was already being extended to the pagans and Jews. It would not be until 392 A.D. when Emperor Theodosius removed government support from the old Roman pagan religions and established the Christian Faith (Catholicism) as the sole religion of the empire.

The Edict of Milan did not officially make Christianity the state religion that happened later. To be precise...The Edict of Thessalonica (also known as Cunctos populos), was issued on February 27th 380 AD.

That Constantine assembled together all of the bishops of the Roman Empire proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior the First Council of Nicaea who were in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church.

They were in fact not in agreement with each other ergo the need for the series of ecumenical councils and they were not organized. They had no church buildings and were renegade congregations....and the docket for the Council of Nicaea had more than the Arian issue at hand.

218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word 'Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ:
“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Boy Peter must of survived the cross and was really really old to personally appoint Ignatius Bishop of Antioch.
Actually Ignatius 108-140....218 years? Did he write the letter before he was born.
Yes the word Catholic was tossed around but none of the attendees at the council of Nicaea called themselves Catholics. Not the council of Catholics. It is a matter of semantics because Christianity was considered universal. The Edict of Milan was about Christians not the Catholic Church.

In that same letter Saint Ignatius gave a teaching about the Holy Eucharist that continues to be taught only by the Catholic Church today:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from the public offices; because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ; which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness, raised again from the dead. And for this cause contradicting the gift of God, they die in their disputes: but much better would it be for them to receive it, that they might one day rise through it.”continued...

Do you think that the Eucharist at that time was a manufactured Host?

And I must commend the those discussing this that they have refrained from name calling.

 

[Grailhunter]

continued from post #1843

9. 170 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Justin Martyr wrote in First Apology (a letter to pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) explaining what Christians did at Mass):

“On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.​

​

“When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . . and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.​

​

“Then someone bring bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharstian) that we have been judges worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.’​

​

“When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give those present the “eucharsited” bread, wine and after and take them to those who are absent.”​

10. 136 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and a disciple of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, proclaimed that all churches must be in unity with the Church of Rome, which was established by Peter and Paul:

“But since it would be long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether, through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assembled other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”​

11. It is true. If Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church, then there should be no way to trace the continuity of every Bishop of Rome, from Peter to Francis today. To the contrary, there is only one Church on the face of this earth that can verifiably point to the Church in Rome, established by Peter and Paul, and by continuity in leadership, doctrine, and tradition show a seamless continuity from the first century until today, and that Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

12. Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D. where a canon was issued stating, “. . . heretics, who are called antichrists and adversaries of Christ, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one Baptism of the Church, so that friends may be made of adversaries, and Christians of antichrists.” Another example of the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not which to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.?

13. The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true.
Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

To the contrary, what all the canons are dealing with is membership of those who had rejected the faith during the persecution, fallen lapse, or who had been excommunicated, primacy of Churches, and the administration of the Sacraments. Altogether the canons are concerned with establishing a solidarity and uniformity of administration and liturgy in the Catholic Church. There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the Myth of Constantine Founding the Catholic Church.

Indeed, the only place we see name of Constantine mentioned in reference to the Council of Nicaea is in a post-Council Synod Letter written to the Church of Alexandria, but only in regards paying him deference and honor due to him as the Emperor of Rome who called the bishops together to resolve the Arian heresy:

“To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicaea, wish health in the Lord...​

continue reading here)

Conclusion of the Emperor Constantine Founder Myth

Those who posit that Constantine founded the Catholic Church either with the Edict of Milan or by calling together the First Council of Nicaea are unable prove their claim. There is no documentation from that time, either explicit or implicit by historian or theologian that even hints that such an event transpired or was the intention of Constantine or the bishops of the Catholic Church to transpire.

This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable. The myth is that because the Church of the Apostles fell in to apostasy, a remnant of the true and orthodox believers of Jesus remained hidden from and often persecuted by the Catholic Church until THEY brought the reform and true faith back. Prior the rise of Protestantism, no one ever dared to tell this lie. Only in the space of the unintelligent, uncurious, and hostile can such a myth and lie bear fruit.

Again, none of which can be proved or supported by the documented facts that the Churches we read about in the Bible started calling themselves Catholics by the early Second Century, and the unique teachings of that Church founded by the Apostles are only present in the Catholic Church today that is in union with See of Rome where the successor of Peter presides.

*Used with permission.

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network

First off kudos on the work you did here, it is good information.
And I have already addressed the false belief that Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church. But he did preside at the Nicen council.
But do you think that the ecumenical councils could have occurred without the edict of Milan? Do you think the first Catholic church building could have occurred without Christianity being the state religion of the Roman Empire? Why do you think that it was called the Roman Catholic Church? And why Rome? Why was Rome so significant?

There is no doubt that Christians had secret meetings before the ecumenical councils, but on the topic of issuing "canons" do you think that canon is the correct term?

 

[Grailhunter]

Gate your father and mother” is an obvious comparison to the love we must have for God – and NOT a commandment to “hate” anybody.

I disagree.

They all are word for word....then we have to consider the context.

For this to be true – Jesus Christ would have to be a LIAR Because evil prevailed,

He promised His Church:
“… and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

There have been evil MEN in the Church – just as there gave been in EVERY Protestant faction.
The Church has never TAUGHT evil.

Evil men? Yea. But it is the grand magnitude of the evils of the Catholic Church that dwarfs the rest. And it all was fueled by the lust for power. Did Christ intend for the Church to come up with torture squads?...Was that the correct use of power? The Catholic Church missed the opportunity to unite Christianity...instead it became a corrupt horror. The Protestants had to do what they did...the evilness of the Church had to be stopped. I don't like that it had to happen, but if it continued where would we be today? The Protestant were only marginally successful in coming up with true beliefs but they did knock the Catholic Church off it pedestal and defang it. You will not see inquisition squads in your town today.

More back-pedaling.
You’re changing to argument.

You brought this simply to argue against Peter’s leadership – and now you’re moving the goalposts.

Good job . . .

No, I am address the fact that the Apostles did change
And the thing with the women....proves that there was no excuse for the fear and lack of faith that the all of the Apostles had.
But after the Apostles were convinced that Yeshua was who He said He was.....they did muster up faith and courage.
It was the women that had the greatest faith and courage.

 

[Illuminator]

You might think I would not like it if you found some one calling themselves father in their writings in the first three centuries.....but I would be delighted.

Written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."​

Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS: DEFINITION, OVERVIEW, INTRODUCTION​

The Church is a family, not a corporation.

I said I knew of them....nothing about agreeing with them.

The problem with this is that for people that know the truth, they see your denial as endorsing what the Church did.

People who know the truth don't need to exaggerate, falsify, and misrepresent the facts without ever citing primary or secondary sources. This board has no authentication requirements. Anybody can cite anything with no references as long as it feels good. Trying to get objectors to give the source of their falsehoods is like trying to pull a tusk out of an elephant. But I know a Hislopite, a Jack Chicklit or a Dave Hunt zombie when I see one.

I don't and have not ever denied anything. What bugs me is this anti-Catholic obsession with highlighting sins and pretending there never was any virtue or redeemable facts of the early episcopate, or any episcopate for that matter. Why is evidence of the ECF is automatically rejected and/or censored among the anti-Catholic camp? Try to explain the ECF preserved, proved inspiration, not assuming it, compiled and proclaimed the divine writings to be read in all the churches, a 400 years process. Sadly, that is interpreted as denial.

The Inquisition is a very complicated topic, and todays 'Christians' don't care what modern scholarship has to say about the matter, Protestant or secular, because it actually requires a lot of reading. Few people care about the recent research done in the Vatican Archives, where every minute detail of court proceedings have been meticulously preserved.
Protestant, secular or Catholic scholarly counter arguments about the ridiculous exaggerations of the Inquisition are blindly rejected as denials, rendering any discussion pointless.

Torturing and murdering men, women, and children. The inquisition squads are historical and the torture manual produced by the Church....the Malleus Maleficarum is still in print.....want one?

It's available on line.
Innocent VIII: BULL Summis desiderantes, Dec. 5th, 1484. A redacted form of a long, boring papal bull is available here:
It has never been declared an infallible and binding document.
Do you deny that witchcraft was a problem in 1484? What are the facts?
Do you deny the New Age Movement is a problem in 2023?

Summis desiderantes was written at a time when superstition and the concept of witchcraft and sorcery existed in Europe side by side as part of a cultural norm. The following two-hundred years would see those same concepts wrapped up together in an overblown and ugly way as unchecked fear ramped up and took hold of the culture and attitude around them.

Some attribute it to this Papal Bull and its appearance in a notorious book of the time, The Malleus Maleficarum written in 1487; a manual for the identification, prosecution, and punishment of those suspected of witchcraft, divination, and other (mostly imagined) offenses.

What many individuals forget is that the Summis Desiderantes was not written for the book nor intended as blanket permission for the Inquisition or church elders to torture and execute individuals that were suspected or rumored or biasedly accused without proper evidence of atrocities.

The history is this:

The bull was written in response to the request of Heinrich Kramer, an inquisitor in the Dominican order, for explicit authority to prosecute witchcraft in Germany. He had been refused assistance by local church and secular authorities, who stood by their decision that as the original letter of deputation for Kramer did not specifically mention where the inquisitors could operate, they could not legally exercise their duties as inquisitors in their [the local] areas. The bull had been requested to remedy this dispute by identifying individual jurisdictions, specifically the dioceses of Mainz, Köln, Trier, Salzburg, and Bremen.

Pope Innocent’s bull put into effect nothing new. Its direct purpose was to ratify the powers already conferred upon Heinrich Kramer (also called Henry Institoris in the Malleus) and James Sprenger, to deal with witchcraft as well as heresy, and it called upon the Bishop of Strasbourg to provide the inquisitors with whatever support was possible.

However, a short time later, Kramer published the book Malleus Maleficarum and used the wording of the Papal bull as a foreword. It gave the impression that the actions and thinking described in the book were condoned and supported by the Pope and the Church.

Neither was true as could be seen with the Inquisition denouncing Kramer in 1490 and the book being added to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) in by Pope Paul IV in 1559.

Unfortunately, the damage was done. The book was reproduced and found in several corners of Europe and the “witch craze” was under way with the worst scenes to be found in Germany and France.

The Catholic Church had many official doctrines out that defined witch craft, sorcery, divination, etc as separate and unique practices. How to identify these individuals, counsel them, and punish only if they had broken secular or created heresy. The misrepresentation of the bull by Kramer created huge distrust and fear among folks who were formally neighbors and friends.

The damage was done and the ramifications were beyond what they could then perceive.

The complete wording of the the Papal Bull by Pope Innocent VIII can be found here.
You seem to have Malleus Maleficarum, a forbidden book, a toy to play with.

 

[Illuminator]

Emperor Constantine did not start the Catholic Church, he enabled it. He provided the power and protection to allow it to exist.

Nothing wrong with that. He shifted persecution into protection.

And it was he that enforced their rulings. Tradition has it that Emperor Constantine was Baptized on his deathbed....not surprising because at that time it was thought to be a way to face Judgment Day sinless.

Isn't that what baptism is for?? Constantine also "enforced" the ruling for tolerance of all religions. But few people recognize that fact.

The Edict of Milan did not officially make Christianity the state religion that happened later. To be precise...The Edict of Thessalonica (also known as Cunctos populos), was issued on February 27th 380 AD.

"State religion" implies the church and the state were one and the same. An assertion made by ignorant hostile bigots. There had to be some cooperation between the two, but the state never told the Church what to teach. The Church has always rejected a state controlled religion. Nobody complains about the reformers giving power to the state over life and death. Do you want sources?

They were in fact not in agreement with each other ergo the need for the series of ecumenical councils and they were not organized. They had no church buildings and were renegade congregations....and the docket for the Council of Nicaea had more than the Arian issue at hand.

Indeed. Which councils were disorganized? Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox accept the Nicene Creed. I'm assuming you do too. Bible clubs and made-in-America fundie cults reject the Nicene Creed, but we call them "ecclesial communities"; we are being polite. BTW, the "congregation model", churches independent of the institutional church is not found in the book of Acts.

Boy Peter must of survived the cross and was really really old to personally appoint Ignatius Bishop of Antioch.
Actually Ignatius 108-140....218 years? Did he write the letter before he was born.

I said "218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word 'Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ.
You are misrepresenting what I said. 325 - 218 = 107. My calculator isn't lying, but we are dealing with approximations.
Ignatius was born in 35 A.D. Peter was crucified around 64 A.D.

So Ignatius was 29 when Peter was crucified. 64 - 35 = 29, and at the least, had plenty of time to know Peter personally as a young man. He sent his 7th letter to his friend, Polycarp, who was the bishop of the church in Smyrna, which is now Izmir, Turkey.
He was martyred at the age of 86. Polycarp wrote a letter to the church at Phillipi, which is dated between 110-140 AD. He was carrying the letters of his fellow church father Ignatius to the church at Phillipi, and decided to attach a letter of his own.
So by analyzing years and dates, it's obvious that Ignatius knew Polycarp personally as well as Peter.
Sadly, Bible worshippers dismiss or ignore the ECF because they are not in the Bible.

Yes the word Catholic was tossed around but none of the attendees at the council of Nicaea called themselves Catholics. Not the council of Catholics. It is a matter of semantics because Christianity was considered universal.

Well, that proves the Council of Nicaea was Protestant, doesn't it??? You frustrate me to no end. And just what do you think "catholic" means??? Do we have to resort to dictionary games??? Councils are named after their location.
I don't know what kind of "history" you studied, but I suggest you go back to your institution of learning, and demand a refund on the tuition.

The Edict of Milan was about Christians not the Catholic Church.

Yes, the Edict of Milan was a civil decree guaranteeing the rights of all religions, with emphasis to return the property to Catholics stolen by pagan Romans. So, yes, it was not a Catholic decree. All Christians were Catholics in 313 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary. All Christians were Catholics in 325 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 400 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 500 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 600 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 700 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 800 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Do you think that the Eucharist at that time was a manufactured Host?

What kind of question is that???

And I must commend the those discussing this that they have refrained from name calling.

Agreed. I can't think of a worse insult than a Bible-Christian Hislopite. They've infected CyB with diabolical attacks and refuse to cite sources.

 

[Grailhunter]

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.

Eph. 3:14-15 – every family in heaven and on earth is named from the “Father.” We are fathers in the Father.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
1 Cor. 4:17 – Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful “child” in the Lord.

2 Cor. 12:14 – Paul describes his role as parent over his “children” the Corinthians.
Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.
1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 – Paul calls Timothy his true “child” in the faith and his son.
Titus 1:4 – Paul calls Titus his true “child” in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.
Philemon 10 – Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus.
Heb. 12:7,9 – emphasizes our earthly “fathers.” But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).
1 Peter 5:13 – Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”
1 John 2:1,13,14 – John calls the elders of the Church “fathers.”
1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 – John calls members of the Church “children.”

And God is our Father which is why Christ said...call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father,
But I get your point.....LOL Father Illuminator......

The Church is a family, not a corporation.

And we are son and daughters in the family of God.

People who know the truth don't need to exaggerate, falsify, and misrepresent the facts without ever citing primary or secondary sources. This board has no authentication requirements. Anybody can cite anything with no references as long as it feels good. Trying to get objectors to give the source of their falsehoods is like trying to pull a tusk out of an elephant. But I know a Hislopite, a Jack Chicklit or a Dave Hunt zombie when I see one.
However, a short time later, Kramer published the book Malleus Maleficarum and used the wording of the Papal bull as a foreword. It gave the impression that the actions and thinking described in the book were condoned and supported by the Pope and the Church.

Neither was true as could be seen with the Inquisition denouncing Kramer in 1490 and the book being added to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) in by Pope Paul IV in 1559.

Reality is difficult for some people.....I can get you a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum if you want one. You understand how many times the
Malleus Maleficarum was reprinted and revised and how long it was reprinted. The Malleus Maleficarum and the Catholic death squads and the tortures were financed by the Catholic Church....the Church could have stopped it at anytime....the tap dance of denial is ludacris. Lessons learnt from the past....lets move on.

I don't and have not ever denied anything. What bugs me is this anti-Catholic obsession with highlighting sins and pretending there never was any virtue or redeemable facts of the early episcopate, or any episcopate for that matter. Why is evidence of the ECF is automatically rejected and/or censored among the anti-Catholic camp? Try to explain the ECF preserved, proved inspiration, not assuming it, compiled and proclaimed the divine writings to be read in all the churches, a 400 years process. Sadly, that is interpreted as denial.

I have brought this point up along the way.....and even have suggest that you and BOL post all the good things they have done. Can't get you guys to do it. In fact I have posted more good things about the Catholic Church than you guys have. I praise the Catholic Church more on this forum....more than anybody.....even the Catholics!

The horrors of the past are just that. What is the Catholic Church doing today?

It's available on line.
Innocent VIII: BULL Summis desiderantes, Dec. 5th, 1484. A redacted form of a long, boring papal bull is available here:
It has never been declared an infallible and binding document.
Do you deny that witchcraft was a problem in 1484? What are the facts?
Do you deny the New Age Movement is a problem in 2023?

Summis desiderantes was written at a time when superstition and the concept of witchcraft and sorcery existed in Europe side by side as part of a cultural norm. The following two-hundred years would see those same concepts wrapped up together in an overblown and ugly way as unchecked fear ramped up and took hold of the culture and attitude around them.

I am just going to call it a horror because the things the Catholic Church did would make a normal person puke.
The Witch-Hunts amounted to a hysteria.....a social religious hysteria....were any of them really satanic witches? Out of the millions tortured and killed....maybe one or two....most were Christian women. Of course it involve men and children too. And you are right superstition did play a part in it.

Witchcraft hysteria and Inquisitions so evil so grotesque that it could easily be classified as insanity. People study such things how does a society do such things. The Christian persecutions in the arena were like a football game.....crowds cheering......Christians tied to poles were set a fire to light the entertainment while people were murdered in most horrible fashions. How does that happen? But in all cases there has to be power behind that to get that done. The Catholic Church inherited that power and some of the nature from the Roman Empire....total power corrupts. No one should have that power.....who knows when the next hysteria will happen?

Martin Luther did not hate the Catholic Church but the resistance grew and got out of hand and the Protestants hated the Catholic Church. Then you had the 30 year war between the Catholics and Protestants....and some of us are old enough to remember Ireland. If you do a study of the French Revolutionary War....what they did to the Catholic clergy was horrible....but it was all revenge. The American colonies did not want any part of the Catholics for fear that that insanity would infect their society. Separation of church and state was put in place on America with the evils of the Catholic Church in mind.

Have an older friend that use to open his home to foreign exchange students and those young Germans....if you get them on the topic of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany they are ashamed of it.....they had no idea how that could happen. Evil plus Power. Did the Catholic Church do all that because it was evil? Was it the evil of man given limitless power? Was it the influence of Satan on the Church? Who knows.

Look at terrorists or the BLM riots.....a horrible expression of the human spirit. I would never do anything to the blacks, but I will never be concerned about their civil rights again. It not just those that participated in the BLM riots it all the blacks that do not stand up and condemn it.

Evil is something we have to contend with. And the Protestants did contend with the evils of the Catholic Church. But as the Bible teach us, there is a time for war and a time for peace and time for healing. The past is the past..... We should forgive....the Catholics are good people and you and BOL should let the people here know about all the good the Catholics missions around the world are doing in modern times. The Church should set their sights on the future.

The complete wording of the the Papal Bull by Pope Innocent VIII can be found here.
You seem to have Malleus Maleficarum, a forbidden book, a toy to play with.

Yep, and it is not the only historic source.

 

[Grailhunter]

"State religion" implies the church and the state were one and the same. There had to be cooperation between the two, but the state never told the Church what to believe. The Church has always rejected a state controlled religion. Nobody complains about the reformers giving power to the state over life and death. Do you want sources?

No that is not right. The Catholic Church told "the state" what to believe and the state was the military arm of the Catholic Church. And if you think the Protestants did anything like the Catholics did......bring it on!

Indeed. Which council was disorganized? Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox accept the Nicene Creed. I'm assuming you do too. Bible clubs and made-in-America fundie cults reject the Nicene Creed, but we call them "ecclesial communities"; we are trying to be polite.

Yep I like the creed....not is total agreement with all of the councils.

I said "218 years before the Council of Nicaea Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, appointed by Saint Peter, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans in which he used the word 'Catholic’ to denote the Church established by Jesus Christ.
You are misrepresenting what I said. 325 - 218 = 107. My calculator isn't lying, but we are dealing with approximations.
Ignatius was born in 35 A.D. Peter was crucified around 64 A.D.

So Ignatius was 29 when Peter was crucified. 64 - 35 = 29, and at the least, knew Peter personally as a young man. He sent his 7th letter to his friend, Polycarp, who was the bishop of the church in Smyrna, which is now Izmir, Turkey.
He was martyred at the age of 86. He wrote a letter to the church at Phillipi, which is dated between 110-140 AD. He was carrying the letters of his fellow church father Ignatius to the church at Phillipi, and decided to attach a letter of his own.
So by analyzing years and dates, it's obvious that Ignatius knew Polycarp personally as well as Peter.

Nothing wrong with my calculator either...Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was born in 104 AD....how does that compute with Peter?

You frustrate me to no end. Well, that proves the Council of Nicaea was Protestant, doesn't it??? And just what do you thing "catholic" means??? Do we have to resort to dictionary games??? Councils are named after their location.

We are talking about an idea versus an actual established organization. The idea of Christianity being the universal Church was accurate. When Paul's ministry turned to the Pagans and converted them into Christianity, that made Christianity in that era a world religion .....universal. The seven churches of Asia Minor were not called the seven Catholic Churches of Asia....but eventually they were, but that occurred after Nicaea.

The Edict of Milan was a civil decree guaranteeing the rights of all religions, with emphasis to return the property to Christians stolen by pagan Romans. IT WAS NOT A CATHOLIC DECREE!!! All Christians were Catholics in 313 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary. All Christians were Catholics in 325 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 400 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 500 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 600 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 700 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.
All Christians were Catholics in 800 A.D. and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Yes the Edict of Milan.....freedom of religion.....right.
All Christians were Catholic....I do not know why you would say that.
We can go over the different religions in these eras.
Are you forgetting about the Gnostics?
The Coptic Church schism....what about 400 AD.

 

[Illuminator]

Reality is difficult for some people.....I can get you a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum if you want one. You understand how many times the
Malleus Maleficarum was reprinted and revised and how long it was reprinted. The Malleus Maleficarum and the Catholic death squads and the tortures were financed by the Catholic Church....the Church could have stopped it at anytime....the tap dance of denial is ludacris. Lessons learnt from the past....lets move on.

Reality is difficult for you, and you haven't moved on. Death squads? Your drum pounding over a forbidden book is ludacris. Ignatius wasn't born in 104 A.D., he WROTE in 104 A.D. He was born in 35 A.D.

I have brought this point up along the way.....and even have suggest that you and BOL post all the good things they have done. Can't get you guys to do it. In fact I have posted more good things about the Catholic Church than you guys have. I praise the Catholic Church more on this forum....more than anybody.....even the Catholics!

The horrors of the past are just that. What is the Catholic Church doing today?

We boil babies in oil and hide the bodies in convent basements.

I am just going to call it a horror because the things the Catholic Church did would make a normal person puke.
The Witch-Hunts amounted to a hysteria.....a social religious hysteria....were any of them really satanic witches? Out of the millions tortured and killed....maybe one or two....most were Christian women. Of course it involve men and children too. And you are right superstition did play a part in it.

Oh, millions now, is it? But you don't cite any source for such insane exaggerations.

Witchcraft hysteria and Inquisitions so evil so grotesque that it could easily be classified as insanity. People study such things how does a society do such things. The Christian persecutions in the arena were like a football game.....crowds cheering......Christians tied to poles were set a fire to light the entertainment while people were murdered in most horrible fashions. How does that happen? But in all cases there has to be power behind that to get that done. The Catholic Church inherited that power and some of the nature from the Roman Empire....total power corrupts. No one should have that power.....who knows when the next hysteria will happen?

I suggest you go here:

The Flat Earth Society

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society, home of the flat earth forums and the largest library of Flat Earth Society journals, newsletters, interviews, and books.

theflatearthsociety.org

. The American colonies did not want any part of the Catholics for fear that that insanity would infect their society. Separation of church and state was put in place on America with the evils of the Catholic Church in mind.

More hateful revisionism. I am beginning to lose patience with you.

Have an older friend that use to open his home to foreign exchange students and those young Germans....if you get them on the topic of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany they are ashamed of it.....they had no idea how that could happen. Evil plus Power. Did the Catholic Church do all that because it was evil? Was it the evil of man given limitless power? Was it the influence of Satan on the Church? Who knows.

Now you are blaming the Holocaust on the Catholic Church.

Yep, and it is not the only historic source.

Your only source is a false book that was never any kind of guide, that stole the first paragraph from Summis desiderantes, on a deceiving pretense to make it look like it was from the pope, with devastating social consequences for 200 years, as I already explained to you. It made the list of prohibited books. That does not mean censorship. It's available on line as I already explained to you. Here you are, vomiting the same impotent venom because you like the taste.
The Protestant Inquisition, a thorough, well documented treatise featuring Protestant and secular scholars with an immense bibliography that you will never read.

You cite nothing, just the same boring garden variety anti-Catholic garbage you lap up because it meets some sick need.
Good bye.

​

 

[Augustin56]

Прошу подсказать?
Не могу написать в топик.
Спасибо.

Почему нет?

 

[Grailhunter]

Reality is difficult for you, and you haven't moved on. Death squads? Your drum pounding over a forbidden book is ludacris.

Ya know when a dog poops on the rug and they rub his nose in it....same principle.

he WROTE in 104 A.D. He was born in 35 A.D.

Ah! Ok, I am straight now.

Oh, millions now, is it? But you don't cite any source for such insane exaggerations.

Will exaggerations do happen in history. Well I have read anywhere from 20 people to 3 million people and the number differs between witch trials and just the number of witches killed. And the dates are a little inconsistent. Then you have deaths associated with the inquisitions.

This is from an article from Time Life.
“In Germany the slaughter reached its climax in the mid 1600s. Whole villages were depopulated at a stroke. According to some accounts, the chief witchcraft prosecutor of Saxony, one Benedict Carpzov, personally signed no fewer than 20,000 death warrants. Many of the court’s documents have been lost, and the full number of judicial murders will never really be known. The best estimate is that, in Germany alone 200,000 people were condemned to death as witches before the witch-hunt hysteria came to an end around 1690. All in all it was a dark, ugly, and shameful experience for western civilization and for Christianity.”

Now you are just being an ill-informed bigot.

So finally name calling.....well you are just a dirty bird.

Now you are blaming the Holocaust on the Catholic Church.

The Catholics had nothing to do with the Holocaust.....just an example of the mass insanity that occurs in history.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I disagree.

They all are word for word....then we have to consider the context.

Doesn’t matter of YOU disagree.

Jesus isn’t telling us to “hate” our parent in this verse – otherwise, He would be telling us to violate God’s Commandment about honoring them (Exod. 20:12).

You’re simply wrong here . . .

Evil men? Yea. But it is the grand magnitude of the evils of the Catholic Church that dwarfs the rest. And it all was fueled by the lust for power. Did Christ intend for the Church to come up with torture squads?...Was that the correct use of power? The Catholic Church missed the opportunity to unite Christianity...instead it became a corrupt horror. The Protestants had to do what they did...the evilness of the Church had to be stopped. I don't like that it had to happen, but if it continued where would we be today? The Protestant were only marginally successful in coming up with true beliefs but they did knock the Catholic Church off it pedestal and defang it. You will not see inquisition squads in your town today.

REALLY??
Is it the killing, torture, burning at the stake or sex scandals?
Because ALL of that has been don against Catholics as well by Protestants.

Matt. 7:3
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

As for “Inquisition squads" – like every other anti-Catholic, you have NO idea what you’re talking about.

No, I am address the fact that the Apostles did change
And the thing with the women....proves that there was no excuse for the fear and lack of faith that the all of the Apostles had.
But after the Apostles were convinced that Yeshua was who He said He was.....they did muster up faith and courage.
It was the women that had the greatest faith and courage.

The women weren’t displaying any special “courage”. They were simply going to the tomb to anoint and prepare the body for proper burial.

They didn’t get a chance to finish before the Sannath. The Jews weren’t on the lookout for them – they were looking for the Apostles.

 

[Illuminator]

Почему нет?

Perhaps brother Evarry is using a Russian keybard. He can read, but cannot write. Googel translator comes in handy

Google Translate

Google's service, offered free of charge, instantly translates words, phrases, and web pages between English and over 100 other languages.

translate.google.com

 

[Illuminator]

Прошу подсказать?
Не могу написать в топик.
Спасибо.

Добро пожаловать в СайБи. Вы коптский православный? Рад встрече с вами.

 

[Illuminator]

Почему нет?

Что общего между орденами иезуитов и доминиканцев?
Ну, оба они были основаны испанцами, святым Домиником для доминиканцев и святым Игнатием Лойолой для иезуитов.
Они также были основаны для борьбы с ересью: доминиканцы для борьбы с альбигойцами, а иезуиты для борьбы с протестантами.

Чем отличаются ордена иезуитов и доминиканцев?
Ну что, встречали ли вы в последнее время альбигойцев?

 

[Grailhunter]

Jesus isn’t telling us to “hate” our parent in this verse – otherwise, He would be telling us to violate God’s Commandment about honoring them (Exod. 20:12).

You’re simply wrong here . . .

The scripture says to.....but of course He did not mean it....and I am probably not going to agree with your assessment of it. The reason I brought it up was over the Key thing. He said He was giving him the keys to heaven and what he bound on earth was bound in heaven.....but did not see a lot of that happening in the storyline because Peter did not take a leadership role.

REALLY??
Is it the killing, torture, burning at the stake or sex scandals?
Because ALL of that has been don against Catholics as well by Protestants.

Matt. 7:3
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

As for “Inquisition squads" – like every other anti-Catholic, you have NO idea what you’re talking about.

Well tell us the story.

The women weren’t displaying any special “courage”. They were simply going to the tomb to anoint and prepare the body for proper burial.

While the Apostles were hiding
At the cross while the Apostles were hiding.

They didn’t get a chance to finish before the Sannath. The Jews weren’t on the lookout for them – they were looking for the Apostles.

Ya because the Romans did not like doing things to women...LOL