Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church (Real Church History People)!

[cweb255]

As the oldest running institution on Earth

Go here: • Edited by a Moderator •

The Catholic Church precedes the idea of a separate schismatic Eastern Orthodox Church by one thousand one hundred years. The Catholic Church is Church history.

Your bias shows. Both churches split over issues. They were divorced.

So from, the early days of Roman persecution, where nearly every Pope was martyred.

You have some evidence for this?

To the time of Constantine (without which the Christian Church likely would have been a minor blip on world history mind you).

Didn't he move the capital to Constantinople in the East?

Crafting Crusades (which every Christian should be vastly thankful for), punishing heretics (whom endanger the souls of the ones they lead astray), bringing Kings on their bare feet in the snow just to receive Papal absolution, toppling monarchies, and flourishing all that is Western Culture.

Oh yes, power hungry dictators that ruled the Papal States and beyond through wars and assassinations and mass burnings of people with different opinions was a great thing!

To the time of the Reformation, in which Satan dealt his mortal blow to Christendom in his never ending desire to kill the Church by “Divide and Conquer”. To the modern day, still one billion strong and keeping an unbroken line of Apostolic successors to St. Peter himself, the Rock Jesus founded his Faith on.

Satan dealt his blow by trying to reform the church? Come on man, it was the Catholic Church which excommunicated Martin Luther first. Catholics were selling escapes into heaven, appointing relatives to higher church positions, and basically running the church mafioso style and Luther wanted to stop that.

“I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

First of all, Jesus never said that Peter's successors were to have that same power, but Peter alone. Secondly, there is no evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome besides tradition alone. He probably never existed in the first place (unless you want to count him as the cowardly and fickle Peter in Paul's letters who was uber-loyal to James).

Questions, Comments, Concerns?

Read more.

[Slimt103]

cweb255 I run into this a lot. People who have no idea what to say in response, so instead run off a list of unsupported statements and end with little quips like "read more" or "learn history" ext. From my past experience this is usually the sign of a weaker background in this subject matter (outside what their local pastor tells them to believe).

First off, I'm not sure why you posted the link to that forum; I went there and found nothing of interest. Would you like to specify what you wanted me to see?

You want evidence that the Early Popes where martyred? Well first there is Peter (o yes you don’t believe in him, after all what does the Bible know? Since when are people in the Bible real people? In fact with that logic, who is to say that Jesus is real?). But perhaps you should read up on St. Linus and the like, early merited Bishops of Rome.

Constantine moved the capital yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about here. Constantine legalized Christianity, enough said.

And as for the Crusades and Inquisition. I don’t know if you’re Christian, or American. But let me speak from my perspective (Christian American). Looking at the middle east, and the Muslim culture, I thank God every day that the West was not conquered by the infidel. The Crusades stopped that from happening. Perhaps we need an Inquisition today, especially here in the US, sure would take care of some things...

As for Martin Luther, I agree the Church needed reform in his time (just as it had in many times before). The Church needed Saints to reform Her (like St. Francis, Benedict, Gregory, Leo, and ext.) not self a righteous monk who turned to Heresy for self gain and completely forgot the Church he was trying to reform.

And for Peter's primacy. I'm not going to argue Biblical theology with you, it is pointless. First because this wasn’t the purpose of the thread, second because you can just as easily say that something in the Bible isn’t true or didn’t exist (like St. Peter).

[santaro75]

ahhh come on dude. The protestant faith is not a step forward. It is exactly what the word says a "protest". A noble idea but the modern churches are a far cry from what the reformers had in mind.

[cweb255]

cweb255 I run into this a lot. People who have no idea what to say in response, so instead run off a list of unsupported statements and end with little quips like "read more" or "learn history" ext. From my past experience this is usually the sign of a weaker background in this subject matter (outside what their local pastor tells them to believe).

Pastors don't tell me to believe anything. I'm not a Christian, unlike you. And I didn't give positive statements, so your "unsupported statements" is irrelevant. All I did was question the validity of your statements, which, of course, you didn't support at all. Hypocrite.

First off, I'm not sure why you posted the link to that forum; I went there and found nothing of interest. Would you like to specify what you wanted me to see?

You claimed that the Church was the oldest institution. I pointed otherwise.

You want evidence that the Early Popes where martyred? Well first there is Peter (o yes you don’t believe in him, after all what does the Bible know? Since when are people in the Bible real people? In fact with that logic, who is to say that Jesus is real?). But perhaps you should read up on St. Linus and the like, early merited Bishops of Rome.

You ask since when are people in the Bible real people? Oh yes, all of them, right? And since we're not questioning ancient documents, that means that Zeus, Romulus and Remus, Achilles, Thor, Shiva, are all real too, right? Otherwise you'd be a two-faced hypocrite.

Constantine moved the capital yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about here. Constantine legalized Christianity, enough said.

By moving the capital to Constantinople he stripped the power (or tried to) from Rome's hands to the newly founded city. Thus his legalization really put the "Real Church" in the East thus nullifying your arguement.

And as for the Crusades and Inquisition. I don’t know if you’re Christian, or American. But let me speak from my perspective (Christian American). Looking at the middle east, and the Muslim culture, I thank God every day that the West was not conquered by the infidel. The Crusades stopped that from happening. Perhaps we need an Inquisition today, especially here in the US, sure would take care of some things...

You're suggesting mass murder for people who disagree with your beliefs. You sir, are the most dispicable creature, and belong, if there was one, in the depths of hell to be forever tormented by demons. I believe your statements are also anti-Christian (turn the other cheek) and anti-American (freedom of religion). In short, you're nothing but a psychopath with murderous tendencies. You need help, man, serious help.

As for Martin Luther, I agree the Church needed reform in his time (just as it had in many times before). The Church needed Saints to reform Her (like St. Francis, Benedict, Gregory, Leo, and ext.) not self a righteous monk who turned to Heresy for self gain and completely forgot the Church he was trying to reform.

The church acted first. By excommunicating him, they left him with no alternative but to found a new church. In your own words, then, the church must be the devil.

And for Peter's primacy. I'm not going to argue Biblical theology with you, it is pointless. First because this wasn’t the purpose of the thread, second because you can just as easily say that something in the Bible isn’t true or didn’t exist (like St. Peter).

Sure. Good for you. Now your point in all this was?

[jason]

As for Martin Luther, I agree the Church needed reform in his time

Yes it did, and the Catholic Church still does. It has not put aside the false teachings from Luthers time even today.

The Church needed Saints to reform Her (like St. Francis, Benedict, Gregory, Leo, and ext.) not self a righteous monk who turned to Heresy for self gain and completely forgot the Church he was trying to reform.

Self gain ?

You are aware that Luther was thrown out, he did not leave. He was not the Schismatic, the Pope was.

Jason

[Sheepdog]

It simply took 1200 years for someone within the church to stand up and oppose the corruption.l

Actually, it didn't take that long. There were many who attempted to reform the Catholic church. Granted, some were heretical as agreed upon by all sides, but a few others are notable as predicessors to Luther. Unfortunately they came in a time before the Pope's political power waned.



In regards to the topic of the thread in general, perhaps it is more accurate to say that both sides split from each other, as the scism started when the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other.

[Slimt103]

cweb, forget it, run along somewhere else to be annoying.

Sheepdog, the point is the Bishop of Constantinople had no power to excommunicate the Pope. Both sides agreed upon this when the Patriarch of the east accepted second authority UNDER ROME.

Jason, I meant the Church had abuses at the time of Luther. Notice that the reformation brought about no change of doctrine. And Martin Luther was excommunicated because of his own acts. He was called to Rome to answer questions of heretical teachings (which he was guilty of) so he decided to burn the Papal document summoning him and call the Pope the anti-Christ. It is like spitting in the deans face at a suspension conference. You’re going to get expelled.

[cweb255]

cweb, forget it, run along somewhere else to be annoying.

Of course, I bring up valid points and you ignore it completely. How Christian of you.

[jason]

Jason, I meant the Church had abuses at the time of Luther.

No kidding and it still has them today.

Notice that the reformation brought about no change of doctrine.

That depends what you mean. Given there is a clear rejection of Aristotealean silliness like Transubstantiation.

And Martin Luther was excommunicated because of his own acts.

Yes for teaching salvation is by Faith alone. Which it is. You cannot earn or merit salvation by your own actions.

He was called to Rome to answer questions of heretical teachings (which he was guilty of) so he decided to burn the Papal document summoning him and call the Pope the anti-Christ.

Which given the character of the Popes at the time may not have been an entirely inappropriate action. Don't forget, Luther didn't want to leave the Church.

Jason

[James Peter]

The Catholic Church which didn't really exist until the 4th Century although it has always tried to claim an earlier legacy, had such a glorious next thousand or so years as a political institution and then gave way to the rise of modern western civilisation via Protestant Countries that were at war with the pawns of Rome (France, Spain etc) for a few more centuries. Very glorious. Very powerful. If you go for temporal definitions and still live in the 13th Century.

Lets not forget what Rome did to the legitimate Church in Britain when it refused to bow to her (sixth century or so I believe), thats right...massacred all the Bishops who were present, changed the rituals and beliefs from the ones they had received centuries earlier and so forth. Again, really good.

So much of 'Christian' history has seen religion merely used as a tool. The Romans always used Religion to control the people and after a thousand years they simply switched from Polytheism to a perversion of Christianity which those at the time accepted because it was nice to not worry about being killed any more. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Protestant Church has got it right yet but it is closer to the Truth than Rome is. You're right though that 'Protestant' is a silly way to still be defining ourselves.

[Sheepdog]

Moderator Notice

cweb255, we do not permit "arguments by weblink," here. for future reference, please post whatever quotes here you find relevant, and provide a link only for citation purposes. thank you.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Slimt103]

yes cweb255, since "You're suggesting mass murder for people who disagree with your beliefs. You sir, are the most despicable creature, and belong, if there was one, in the depths of hell to be forever tormented by demons. I believe your statements are also anti-Christian (turn the other cheek) and anti-American (freedom of religion). In short, you're nothing but a psychopath with murderous tendencies. You need help, man, serious help." is very valid point. Perhaps you should read my analogy of the Crusades to World War II earlier in the thread, and then when you are done, run along and be annoying somewhere else.

James Peter... look into European History more. They even teach this stuff at Public High School's. The Catholic Church wasn’t around until the fourth century? I suggest you read the Didache, a document similar to the Catechism, in that it is very obviously Catholic. It was written around 70 AD. Or maybe most of the historians are in a big conspiracy with the Vatican! We should contact Dan Brown.

[Tween]

No matter what your interpretation of the history of the Church may be, does anyone honestly think that what Christ had in mind as "The Body of Christ" looked anything like ANY Church (Roman or otherwise) of today?

Go here: * edited by a moderator *


Your bias shows. Both churches split over issues. They were divorced.


You have some evidence for this?


Didn't he move the capital to Constantinople in the East?


Oh yes, power hungry dictators that ruled the Papal States and beyond through wars and assassinations and mass burnings of people with different opinions was a great thing!


Satan dealt his blow by trying to reform the church? Come on man, it was the Catholic Church which excommunicated Martin Luther first. Catholics were selling escapes into heaven, appointing relatives to higher church positions, and basically running the church mafioso style and Luther wanted to stop that.


First of all, Jesus never said that Peter's successors were to have that same power, but Peter alone. Secondly, there is no evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome besides tradition alone. He probably never existed in the first place (unless you want to count him as the cowardly and fickle Peter in Paul's letters who was uber-loyal to James).


Read more.

[James Peter]

James Peter... look into European History more. They even teach this stuff at Public High School's. The Catholic Church wasn’t around until the fourth century? I suggest you read the Didache, a document similar to the Catechism, in that it is very obviously Catholic. It was written around 70 AD. Or maybe most of the historians are in a big conspiracy with the Vatican! We should contact Dan Brown.

Trust me, my european history isn't lacking. And I've already read the didache - I'm not sure why you'd date it so early though, earlier than the academically accepted dates for the canonical gospels. I'd personally place it around 100 or later, after the pastorals. In what ways would you consider the didache 'Catholic'? That people are urged to confess their sins in church? It certainly leans towards an 'institutional' view of christianity but so do the pastorals. I'm not contending that there was an institution of christianity from as early as the late first century (although congregations were at this point independent from each other), I'm arguing that the existance of churches doesn't equate to the existance of the Roman Catholic Church.

It was in the 4th Century that the Church became a unified, political entity. It was in the 4th Century that the political institution which would be used to control europe for the next 1200 years was really born.

Of course there are those who will argue that there was a continuity between the 3rd and 4th centuries or that the Church remained faithful for a while and only later after a few generations of political appointments did it cease to be the true church. I just find that it is the best date to place the birth of the Roman Catholic Church and won't comment on how 'orthodox' her beliefs were at this point. Its almost impossible to know how faithful this early church was or how it differed from the church of a hundred years earlier because few documents survive such long periods, those that do are difficult to date exactly and the RCC spent centuries rewriting history, so much so that the original history is practically unrecoverable.

[aquinas1991]

Go here: * edited by a moderator *


Your bias shows. Both churches split over issues. They were divorced.


You have some evidence for this?


Didn't he move the capital to Constantinople in the East?


Oh yes, power hungry dictators that ruled the Papal States and beyond through wars and assassinations and mass burnings of people with different opinions was a great thing!


Satan dealt his blow by trying to reform the church? Come on man, it was the Catholic Church which excommunicated Martin Luther first. Catholics were selling escapes into heaven, appointing relatives to higher church positions, and basically running the church mafioso style and Luther wanted to stop that.


First of all, Jesus never said that Peter's successors were to have that same power, but Peter alone. Secondly, there is no evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome besides tradition alone. He probably never existed in the first place (unless you want to count him as the cowardly and fickle Peter in Paul's letters who was uber-loyal to James).


Read more.

In the old testament , the sucessor of a king always had the same power as the king himself or the successor of a vice-roy always had the same power as the previous vice-roy the same applies when we look at history.
the sucessors of a king or prince had all the powers of a prince or king or a vice-roy.

to suggest that only peter had that peter is to say the least silly, for peter wouldn't be the rock of the church if there was no succession.