Peter the Rock?

[Illuminator]

Paganization of the Church:

Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-337), when he became a Christian, issued an Edict granting Everybody the right to choose his own Religion.

Emperor Theodosius (AD. 378-398), made Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire, and made Church Membership Compulsory. This was the Worst Calamity that has ever befallen the Church. This Forced Conversion filled the Churches with Unregenerate People.

Is that your reply to post #555 or are you trying to bury it?

A) Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-337), when he became a Christian, issued an Edict granting Everybody the right to choose his own Religion. Correct.

contradicts
B) made Church Membership Compulsory. False

It is impossible to have freedom of religion and "compulsory membership" at the same time. Anti-Catholicism leads to intellectual suicide.

Forced conversions have been condemned by the Church since they knew what it was, in the 3rd century. I would like to see scholarly documentation supporting your blatant LIE.

Cherry picking from the catechism the way you do is dishonest because no context with other paragraphs is given, no footnotes, and no link to the full page. Your editorializing looks like it's from a Jackkk Chickkk tract. You'll have to do better than that. Many of the readers here are not as stupid as you think.

Pagan Influence Fallacy​

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics; by Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics; and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

Is Catholicism Pagan?

Catholic beliefs are not "borrowed" from earlier pagan cults. We clear away the confusion and give you some helpful hints on how to respond to this charge.

www.catholic.com

 

[Illuminator]

By "Roman Catholic Church" is normally meant the denomination headquartered in Vatican City and led by the Pope.

Most people see it that way, but it is inaccurate and has to be explained 3 times a week WHY it is inaccurate.

These days, and indeed for over a thousand years, dropping the "Roman" would have deceived nobody, as everyone understood the phrase "Catholic Church" to refer to that same Vatican-based church.

But it was not always so. Whether in Latin or Greek or Syriac or Coptic, the phrase "Catholic Church" in the first three centuries of Christendom would have been understood as a reference to the universal, consensus set of doctrines held not only by the Roman See but by Sees throughout the Mediterranean world that recognized themselves as autonomous within their own episcopates, owing no obeisance or deference to the Pope in Rome, and not recognizing the Pope's authority over them. The "Catholic Church" in that era was far more than the faith led by the Roman See.

Oh, you must mean the Arians and the Monophysites.

For example, what became the Eastern Orthodox Church of today, just as is true with the Roman Catholic Church, would rightly have been part of the third-century or fourth-century "Catholic" Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church sees in Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch didn't "break away" from the Roman Catholic Church. They were always part of what was originally called the Catholic Church (just as Rome was) and simply maintained their historical autonomy, refusing -- as they had from the beginning -- to recognize Rome's hegemony.

"refusing -- as they had from the beginning". We've been over this before, you are too proud to be corrected.

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows:
All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
357-60 (Arian),
475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite),
and 640-42 (Monothelite):

a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time),
and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius — none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself.
Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy

 

[Illuminator]

Fair enough…
The church is built on Christ…

What is the church? It is a body of believers who believe in Christ… The rock that the church is built on is a spiritual rock… so what spiritual rock do you drink from? Christ or Peter?

Both. Not "either/or".

 

[Brakelite]

ONCE AGAIN brakelite, you have given your opinion and nothing else to back it up. However, you did inadvertently refer to Scripture. And by using that reference you added more credence to my facts and less credence to your opinions: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

That's a ludicrous defense. Paul changed the 4th Commandment by word of mouth? Seriously?

 

[Taken]

Taken said:
No different than a Jew accepting the teaching of the Jewish Apostles regarding Scripture…
Or you accepting the teachings of catholic men.

And…..
A “CATHOLIC GASLIGHTER’S”response.

"OR'??? "Catholic men" don't accept "the teaching of the Jewish Apostles regarding Scripture"??? That's what you are saying.

No, that is what YOU ARE SAYING.

Your little dig is a false dichotomy; another stupid insult based on prejudice and ignorance.

No, that IS YOUR dig. YOUR words AGAINST YOURSELF, of YOUR OWN ignorance.

CATHOLIC comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'.

Agree, there are Millions of people IN the entire world negatively affected by Catholics who ARE Gaslighters.

I have wonderful friends who Are Catholic, but your brand of Catholic are Gaslighters who instigate and promote anti-Catholicism.

Take your credit clearly due to you.

 

[RedFan]

Most people see it that way, but it is inaccurate and has to be explained 3 times a week WHY it is inaccurate.

Oh, you must mean the Arians and the Monophysites.

"refusing -- as they had from the beginning". We've been over this before, you are too proud to be corrected.

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows:
All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
357-60 (Arian),
475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite),
and 640-42 (Monothelite):

a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time),
and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius — none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself.
Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy

Let's not confuse the Eastern churches' agreement with Rome on doctrinal matters and their acknowledgement of Rome's authority in doctrinal matters. There were often disagreements in the first three centuries. But there was never acknowledgement of Roman authority by the Eastern churches. My point is simply that "Catholic" back then was not a reference to "the Church that recognized papal authority." It is today. It wasn't then.

 

[Brakelite]

By "Roman Catholic Church" is normally meant the denomination headquartered in Vatican City and led by the Pope. These days, and indeed for over a thousand years, dropping the "Roman" would have deceived nobody, as everyone understood the phrase "Catholic Church" to refer to that same Vatican-based church.

But it was not always so. Whether in Latin or Greek or Syriac or Coptic, the phrase "Catholic Church" in the first three centuries of Christendom would have been understood as a reference to the universal, consensus set of doctrines held not only by the Roman See but by Sees throughout the Mediterranean world that recognized themselves as autonomous within their own episcopates, owing no obeisance or deference to the Pope in Rome, and not recognizing the Pope's authority over them. The "Catholic Church" in that era was far more than the faith led by the Roman See.

For example, what became the Eastern Orthodox Church of today, just as is true with the Roman Catholic Church, would rightly have been part of the third-century or fourth-century "Catholic" Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church sees in Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch didn't "break away" from the Roman Catholic Church. They were always part of what was originally called the Catholic Church (just as Rome was) and simply maintained their historical autonomy, refusing -- as they had from the beginning -- to recognize Rome's hegemony.

....continued from above...
And the result of such heresy as refusing to recognise Roman authority was to be charged as heretics, and accusing such churches and their leaders of false teachings and unorthodox doctrines. These accusations were then written down as 'official' church sponsored 'truth:, the actual teachings of those churches falsified or destroyed, and the 'Catholic' church in Rome promoted as the sole source of truth. Where have we heard that before, even very recently?

 

[Brakelite]

In brief, it is Scriptural….Gentiles, learning about God and Christ the Lord, according to Christ’s Church, gathering on the First Day of the week.

Scripture reveals Paul preaching ON the First Day of the Week.

Paul was appointed to Preach to the Gentiles.

you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
—The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.

 

[Taken]

you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
—The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.

Hi @Brakelite ~

God introduced and Sanctified PARTICULAR DAY(S), set aside unto Himself FOR His People Israel, to gather and pay REMEMBRANCE TO their God.

And Further, in the NT, when Gods people, ISRAEL were being introduced to their Promised Messiah; ISRAEL was reminded TO: Keep their Traditions, God had established for their fathers before them.

I am NOT “Israel” by blood descent, from Abraham, Issac, Jacob or King David.
I was NOT “given” the Laws of God, preached by Moses and Arron and Levites.

I Heard, Learned, Trust, Believe, ISRAEL’S Messiah came to seek Gods People, with His Good News, OF SALVATION before their physical Death.

I Heard, Learned, Trust, Believe, ISRAEL’S Christ Messiah, FULFILLED their LAWS….
AND provided an Offering FOR Gentiles to become INCLUDED, as a son of Abraham, entitled to Gods Offering of SALVATION before physical Death, and by Gods offering and Power, to become MADE a son of God.

THAT ^ Offering….DID NOT INCLUDE Gentile men “becoming Israel”, “becoming subject to Mosaic Laws”, “becoming subject to participating in ISRAELS Traditions, Feasts, etc.”

Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday…..IS the DAY the Lord HAS MADE….

Alone or Gathering with others AND Remembering, Praising, Worshipping, Honoring, Blessing, Exalting, Serving, Singing, unto the Lord God REQUIRES no PARTICULAR Day, Time, Appointment, Garb, Permission, etc.
24-7 The Lord IS WITH a man who IS WITH the Lord.
24-7 A man IS to TAKE CARE of his own, his family, his property, which the Lord Has Blessed him with. (1 Tim 5:8)

Pss 118:
[24] This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Marymog]

Acts 2:5-12​

And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” 12So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?” ​

14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.​

Not just upon the eleven, nor even just upon men.

You didn't finish.....


Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, ‘Brothers,[i] what should we do?’ 38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized (with water) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Getting baptized in water and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit = I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;

 

[Marymog]

I don’t twist Scriptures….Gentiles being address IN Christ…applies to me.

Lol...no, YOU don't twist Scripture. But everyone else does.

 

[Marymog]

That's a ludicrous defense. Paul changed the 4th Commandment by word of mouth? Seriously?

Nope. I never said that and Christianity doesn't teach that.

 

[Taken]

Lol...no, YOU don't twist Scripture.

But everyone else does.

So YOU say. Per usual, I disagree with you.

 

[ScottA]

You didn't finish.....


Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, ‘Brothers,[i] what should we do?’ 38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized (with water) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Getting baptized in water and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit = I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;

That was not the point of discussion...and you adding your own interpretations to the scriptures puts you under a curse. But what did John the Catholic say--oh, right--he wasn't a Catholic, he was a Baptist! But what did he say?

Mark 1:8​

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”​

​

And Paul?

Ephesians 4:4-6​

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is clear documentation to the contrary of this statement.

Constantine:

His conversion: In the course of his wars with competitors, to establish himself on the throne, on the eve of the battle of Milvain Bridge, just outside Rome (October 27, AD. 312), he saw in the sky, just above the setting sun, a vision of the Cross, and above it the words: "In This Sign Conquer." He decided to fight under the banner of Christ, and he Won the Battle, a Turning Point in the history of Christianity.

His Edict of Toleration (A.D. 313): By this Edict, Constantine granted to "Christians and to all others Full Liberty of following that Religion which each may choose," the first edict of its kind in history. He went further. He favored Christians in every way: filled chief offices with them: exempted Christian ministers from taxes and military service; encouraged and helped in building Churches: made Christianity the Religion of his Court: issued a general exhortation (A.D. 325), to all his subjects, to embrace Christianity: and, because the Roman Aristocracy persisted in adhering to their Pagan Religions, Constantine moved his Capitol to Byzantium, and called it Constantinople, "New Rome," Capital of the New Christian Empire.

Constantine and the Bible: He ordered, for the Churches of Constantinople, 50 Bibles, to be prepared under the direction of Eusebius, on the finest vellum, by skillful artists; and he commissioned two Public Carriages for their speedy conveyance to the Emperor. It is possible that the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts are of this group.

Constantine and Sunday: He made the Christians day of Assembly, Sunday, a Rest Day; forbidding ordinary work; permitting Christian soldiers to attend Church services, This Rest for One Day a week meant much for slaves.

Houses of Worship: The First Church Building was erected in the reign of Alexander Severus (A.D. 222--235). After the edict of Constantine they began to be built everywhere.

Reforms: Slavery, Gladiatorial Fights, Killing of Unwelcome Children, and Crucifixion as a form of execution, were abolished with the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

Paganization of the Church:
Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-337), when he became a Christian, issued an Edict granting Everybody the right to choose his own Religion.

Emperor Theodosius (AD. 378-398), made Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire, and made Church Membership Compulsory. This was the Worst Calamity that has ever befallen the Church. This Forced Conversion filled the Churches with Unregenerate People.

First of all – you didn’t address my challenge to your earlier LIE that the first Pope was Gregory I in the SIXTH century. Is that an admission – or do you have actual proof?

As for Constantine having “created” Sunday observance – this is also false.
In the FIRST century, Christians were ALREADY observing Sunday, the first day of the week - as the “Lord’s Day” Sunday (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2).

The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), is a 1st century document that chronicles the practices and teachings of the Apostles. In it, we read about gathering for worship and prayer on the Lord’s Day, Sunday.

As to the rest of your post – it is nothing but a diversion from your obvious failure to address my earlier point.

 

[Illuminator]

Let's not confuse the Eastern churches' agreement with Rome on doctrinal matters and their acknowledgement of Rome's authority in doctrinal matters. There were often disagreements in the first three centuries. But there was never acknowledgement of Roman authority by the Eastern churches. My point is simply that "Catholic" back then was not a reference to "the Church that recognized papal authority." It is today. It wasn't then.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, many of the the eastern patriarchs back then who didn't recognize papal authority were heretics. The eastern churches were excommunicated 5 times. Disputes were eventually settled by Rome, as agreed by all parties. The eastern churches argument to discredit papal authority is an epic fail.

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• The Arian schisms (343-398)
• The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
• The Acacian schism (484-519)
• Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
• Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.
The eastern churches argument to discredit papal authority simply doesn't work, but it is used all the time.

 

[Illuminator]

Taken said:
No different than a Jew accepting the teaching of the Jewish Apostles regarding Scripture…
Or you accepting the teachings of catholic men.

And…..
A “CATHOLIC GASLIGHTER’S”response.



No, that is what YOU ARE SAYING.



No, that IS YOUR dig. YOUR words AGAINST YOURSELF, of YOUR OWN ignorance.



Agree, there are Millions of people IN the entire world negatively affected by Catholics who ARE Gaslighters.

I have wonderful friends who Are Catholic, but your brand of Catholic are Gaslighters who instigate and promote anti-Catholicism.

Take your credit clearly due to you.

I demonstrated, in post #555, where "Catholic" is in the Bible, that you ran from, and you call it gaslighting.

 

[Marymog]

That was not the point of discussion...and you adding your own interpretations to the scriptures puts you under a curse. But what did John the Catholic say--oh, right--he wasn't a Catholic, he was a Baptist! But what did he say?

Mark 1:8​

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”​

​

And Paul?

Ephesians 4:4-6​

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​

ohhhh......under a curse?

 

[ScottA]

ohhhh......under a curse?

Revelation 22

 

[Truthnightmare]

Both. Not "either/or".

You removed the scripture!

1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV

It doesn’t say both.. it clearly says Jesus is the rock… If you want to believe the church was built off a sinful man, who tried to walk on water but started to drown, a man who denied Christ, a man who was rebuked by Christ, go right ahead. But don’t cut out scriptures that proves you wrong ! So once again.

1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV