Why do Catholics…

[Ferris Bueller]

“Faith alone” accomplishes nothing!
1 cor 13:2 even all faith (alone) without charity avails NOTHING!!!

You keep confusing James' 'faith alone' argument with Paul's 'righteousness apart from works' argument as if they were one and the same argument, which they are not:

"It is one thing that faith justifies without works (Paul's argument); it is another thing that faith exists without works (James' argument)." - Martin Luther (parentheticals and emboldening mine)​

Faith and baptism!

Faith all by itself makes one born again. Saying you have to perform a ceremony in order to be born again is the same as saying you have to be circumcised in order to be born again. That's what makes Catholicism a works salvation religion.

 

[Illuminator]

So, do you count Episcopalians (or any Anglican sects) as part of what you call the "Catholic" Church?

theefaith can't answer your question because he is a schismatic who doesn't recognize the validity of Vatican II, or the current papacy.
To seek healing and reconciliation of the wounds to unity is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is a Christian response to division. This enrages the anti-Catholic who seeks further division by chopping harder at their own roots. That is not a Christian response. Many Christians in this forum are slaves to conflict.
In fact, the CC has a whole commission dedicated to promoting Christian unity. Episcopalians (or any Anglican sects), are viewed as a separate community but still, in a sense, part of the Catholic Church whose full communion has been ruptured by an English king.

Catholics and Anglicans, the pope said, are called to walk together, "moving forward, leaving behind the things that divide, past and present, and keeping our gaze fixed on Jesus and the goal that he desires and points out to us: the goal of visible unity between us."​

Catholic-Anglican unity requires walking, working together, pope says

Pope Francis encourages the Anglican Communion to contribute to the Catholic Church’s synodal process, and looks ahead to his “pilgrimage of peace” to South Sudan in July in the company of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland.
Pope to Anglican-Catholic Dialogue Commission: 'Unity prevails over conflict' - Vatican News

After centuries of living apart, the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church have been on pilgrimage together since the historic visit of Archbishop Michael Ramsey to Pope Paul VI in March 1966. The establishment of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), now in its third major phase of work, grew out of that visit as a tangible expression of the joint commitment to walk together the path of ecclesial conversion and renewal so that, as traditions, we might grow into the fullness of communion in Christ and the Spirit.
https://anglicancommunion.org/media/332049/walking-together-21-may-2018.pdf

 

[BreadOfLife]

The point is that you mistakenly presumed I couldn't check the Ignatius boxes, with a snarky "That's what I thought" comment rendered without waiting for my answers. Are you always so presumptuous, or are you just having a bad day?

Meanwhile, Episcopalians trace their roots via apostolic succession just as you do. Yet you do not count Episcopalians (or any Anglican sects) as part of what you call the "Catholic" Church because -- unlike the Latin Rite and 20+ Eastern Rite Churches which recognize the Holy See of Rome as the ultimate ecclesiastical authority on earth -- we have no allegiance to the Pope. And it's THAT distinction which I meant to invoke in referring to yours as the Roman Catholic Church.

And, similarly, it's THAT Roman Catholic Church which I said Ignatius was not referring to in using the phrase Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία. He wouldn't have presumed to recognize any particular allegiance to the Bishop of Rome at the time he wrote.

Actually - valid Apostolic Succession had NOTHOING to fo with "allegiance to the Pope".

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid Aspotolic Succession - and are NOT in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It has more to do with the fact that the changes in the Ordination Rites that occurred with the Church of Englandd after the break from the Catholic Church.

So, once again, Ignatius wasn't referring to a "Roman" Catholic Church - but THE Catholic Church.
Consequesntly - that is one box you can't check.

 

[RedFan]

Actually - valid Apostolic Succession had NOTHOING to fo with "allegiance to the Pope".

We agree on something!

 

[RedFan]

Ignatius wasn't referring to a "Roman" Catholic Church - but THE Catholic Church.
Consequesntly - that is one box you can't check.

That's what I said.

And I checked all five boxes you posted in #962. Are you now adding another?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Theyn YOU differ with MOST Protestants that I have debated here who call it "Idolatry" to worship a piece of bread.
I completely agree with them - anbd so does Scripture.

I suppose I do differ that way from other non-Catholics. I don't go so far as to say Catholics are worshipping a piece of bread because they say it is literally the flesh of Christ. But, it just occurred to me...if the bread is actually Christ himself why wouldn't you?

The point of all this is I think it's just a misguided understanding on the part of the Catholics of what Jesus meant when he said his blood is real drink and his body is real food. A misguided understanding that the Catholic leadership uses to control its members. See, we non-Catholics understand that every believer has already partaken of the blood and body of Christ when they believed and so we have already been nourished by his body unto eternal life and the promise of life in the resurrection body to come. And that to partake of the carnal Passover elements after being nourished to eternal life is to simply remember and celebrate that fact, not enforce it or add to it, as if that needed to be done.

The elements consumed in the Passover celebration were a commemoration of God's deliverance of his people from Egypt through Moses, and they remain a commemoration of God's deliverance of his people from this world through Jesus. To turn Jesus' command to partake of the carnal Passover elements into how one is literally sustained in salvation, and to be damned if you don't, is to completely miss what he had intended it to be. So no church leadership can hold a requirement over our heads that we know does not exist.

That's why we don't worship bread - but the Sacramental Body, Blood, Sould and divinity of Jesus Christ.

But if the bread IS Jesus Christ why wouldn't you?

The Early Church believed in this Biblical and Apostolic teaching - and were MANY were martyred for it.

That doesn't mean that's what the Apostles taught.

These are the giants of the faith who passed on the teachings of the Apostles down to us - but according to YOUR logic - they're all languishiung in HELL for worshipping a piece of bread.

Hmm...you started out your post recognizing the fact that I DON'T consider your belief about the elements to be you worshipping a piece of bread. Now I DO?

And it tookyour bickering Protestant Fathers (many of whom ALSO worshipped the Eucharist) to set the record "straight" . . .

Despite your claim that your church, which eventually became known as the Catholic church, is the only denomination in existence from the time of the Apostles and which preserves the teachings of the Apostles, there were always the Freewill Baptists in existence whom your church persecuted and who have NOT deviated from the teachings of the Apostles. The Catholic church was not the only game in town in the beginning as it claims.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

There is not one 2000 year old apostolic community that agrees with you..

I guess the apostles must have got it wrong, for the entire Church, everywhere, to believe that Jesus is expressly talking about the Eucharist in John 6..

Good thing guys like you have come along to correct all those communities that the apostles founded... NOT

I know you won't, but you need to study the history of the Baptist church. I dare you. Do you have the courage to find out that you've been wrong about the Catholic church's claim to fame?

 

[Jim B]

I suppose I do differ that way from other non-Catholics. I don't go so far as to say Catholics are worshipping a piece of bread because they say it is literally the flesh of Christ. But, it just occurred to me...if the bread is actually Christ himself why wouldn't you?

The point of all this is I think it's just a misguided understanding on the part of the Catholics of what Jesus meant when he said his blood is real drink and his body is real food. A misguided understanding that the Catholic leadership uses to control its members. See, we non-Catholics understand that every believer has already partaken of the blood and body of Christ when they believed and so we have already been nourished by his body unto eternal life and the promise of life in the resurrection body to come. And that to partake of the carnal Passover elements after being nourished to eternal life is to simply remember and celebrate that fact, not enforce it or add to it, as if that needed to be done.

The elements consumed in the Passover celebration were a commemoration of God's deliverance of his people from Egypt through Moses, and they remain a commemoration of God's deliverance of his people from this world through Jesus. To turn Jesus' command to partake of the carnal Passover elements into how one is literally sustained in salvation, and to be damned if you don't, is to completely miss what he had intended it to be. So no church leadership can hold a requirement over our heads that we know does not exist.


But if the bread IS Jesus Christ why wouldn't you?


That doesn't mean that's what the Apostles taught.


Hmm...you started out your post recognizing the fact that I DON'T consider your belief about the elements to be you worshipping a piece of bread. Now I DO?


Despite your claim that your church, which eventually became known as the Catholic church, is the only denomination in existence from the time of the Apostles and which preserves the teachings of the Apostles, there were always the Freewill Baptists in existence whom your church persecuted and who have NOT deviated from the teachings of the Apostles. The Catholic church was not the only game in town in the beginning as it claims.

a) You are right about the bread and wine.
b) The Orthodox church is never mentioned in discussions about the earliest denomination. That is convenient oversight by the Catholic denomination, no?
c) In fact, Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics all can justifiably claim to be the oldest, since they all came from the same root: Jesus Christ and the apostles.

 

[Philip James]

I know you won't, but you need to study the history of the Baptist church. I dare you. Do you have the courage to find out that you've been wrong about the Catholic church's claim to fame?

Well lets see, after the Apostles I can identify apostolic communities in Alexandria, Crete, Antioch and Rome for starters..

Do you consider Ignatius and Polycarp part of this 'Baptist church'? Can you identify it down through the centuries?

That would be an interesting read..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Philip James]

But, it just occurred to me...if the bread is actually Christ himself why wouldn't you?

Hello Ferris,

Exactly!

Pax et Bonum

 

[Philip James]

to be damned if you don't

Where did you get that idea? To participate unworthily may bring condemnation.. But Jesus alone will judge our final state..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Illuminator]

I know you won't, but you need to study the history of the Baptist church. I dare you. Do you have the courage to find out that you've been wrong about the Catholic church's claim to fame?

Baptist Successionism is an embarrassment to Baptists

 

[Jim B]

Well lets see, after the Apostles I can identify apostolic communities in Alexandria, Crete, Antioch and Rome for starters..

Do you consider Ignatius and Polycarp part of this 'Baptist church'? Can you identify it down through the centuries?

That would be an interesting read..

Pax et Bonum

The Baptist denomination and all other Protestant denominations, and the Orthodox, have their origins in the apostles. It is absurd to claim that the Catholic denomination is the true church.

The Catholic denomination screwed up, beginning with the crusades, continuing on with the inquisitions, the murders, and the excommunications. Thank God that Martin Luther and others heeded God's call and put the body of Christ on the right track!

To me, Martin Luther is the equivalent of Moses, who stood up to pharaoh and led His people out of slavery.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I suppose I do differ that way from other non-Catholics. I don't go so far as to say Catholics are worshipping a piece of bread because they say it is literally the flesh of Christ. But, it just occurred to me...if the bread is actually Christ himself why wouldn't you?

Because it is NO LONGER bread. It is only the appearance of bread and wine – also known as the accidents of bread and wine.

That’s why St. Augustine said based on the words of CHRIST Himself:
"What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. BUT WHAT YOUR FAITH OBLIGES YOU TO ACCEPT is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction" (Sermons 272 [A.D. 411]).

If you don’t have the faith to accept this – there is NOTHING I can say to change your mind OR your heart.

That is a job for the Holy Spirit.

The point of all this is I think it's just a misguided understanding on the part of the Catholics of what Jesus meant when he said his blood is real drink and his body is real food. A misguided understanding that the Catholic leadership uses to control its members. See, we non-Catholics understand that every believer has already partaken of the blood and body of Christ when they believed and so we have already been nourished by his body unto eternal life and the promise of life in the resurrection body to come. And that to partake of the carnal Passover elements after being nourished to eternal life is to simply remember and celebrate that fact, not enforce it or add to it, as if that needed to be done.

The elements consumed in the Passover celebration were a commemoration of God's deliverance of his people from Egypt through Moses, and they remain a commemoration of God's deliverance of his people from this world through Jesus. To turn Jesus' command to partake of the carnal Passover elements into how one is literally sustained in salvation, and to be damned if you don't, is to completely miss what he had intended it to be. So no church leadership can hold a requirement over our heads that we know does not exist.

And ONCE again -= if I can't make you see that the Passover celebration is a SHADOW of things to come - and the REALITY is Christ (Cik 2:16-17), the fulfillment of the Passover - then there is NOTHING I can do for you but pray.

But if the bread IS Jesus Christ why wouldn't you?

Read my answer above.
It is NO LONGER bread - but the flesh of our Savior..

That doesn't mean that's what the Apostles taught.

YOUR understanding of Sacred Oral Tadistion is as shallow as your understanding of Scripture because you DON'T believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to sustaun or protect it.

We know it is what the Apostles taught because Jesus Himself stated that theHoly Spirit would guide His Church to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15). Hw saud that it would NOT succimb to the gares of Hell (Matt. 16:18) and that WHATEVER His Church loosed or held boud on earth would be loosed and held bound in Heaven (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:15-18).

I trust JESUS - therefore I trust His Church, to whom He gave supreme earthly Authority.

Hmm...you started out your post recognizing the fact that I DON'T consider your belief about the elements to be you worshipping a piece of bread. Now I DO?

Despite your claim that your church, which eventually became known as the Catholic church, is the only denomination in existence from the time of the Apostles and which preserves the teachings of the Apostles, there were always the Freewill Baptists in existence whom your church persecuted and who have NOT deviated from the teachings of the Apostles. The Catholic church was not the only game in town in the beginning as it claims.[/QUOTE]
And correct – the Catholic Church was NOT the “only game in town” in the early says. However - there were also the Gnostics, Judaizers and other heretics.
The Catholic Church was the ONLY Church established by the Apostles.

As for the “Freewill Baptists“ myth – I’ve heard that unsubstantiated, revisionist fairy tale before.
I've also heard of the Tooth Fairy . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's what I said.

And I checked all five boxes you posted in #962. Are you now adding another?

I'm glad we agree oon much.
But I'm sorry - you can't checck the "Catholic Church" box.

 

[Illuminator]

The early Church Fathers are indispensable resources for helping to bridge the gap between our own time and the age of the apostles. Not only do they provide extra biblical verification of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they also provide a great deal of insight into what the early Christians believed and how they interpreted Scripture.

This can go a long way to demonstrate that certain Catholic distinctives have been believed from the very beginning. One Church Father I find to be particularly helpful in apologetics is St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John (cf. The Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.

On the Authority of the Catholic Church
The Greek root of the term catholic means “according to the whole” or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8​

Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God:

But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
—Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5
​

Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
—Letter to the Romans, Intro
read more here

The fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give Protestants serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church. It's no wonder Calvin rejected all of them so fiercely.
​

 

[RedFan]

The early Church Fathers are indispensable resources for helping to bridge the gap between our own time and the age of the apostles. Not only do they provide extra biblical verification of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they also provide a great deal of insight into what the early Christians believed and how they interpreted Scripture.

This can go a long way to demonstrate that certain Catholic distinctives have been believed from the very beginning. One Church Father I find to be particularly helpful in apologetics is St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John (cf. The Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.

On the Authority of the Catholic Church
The Greek root of the term catholic means “according to the whole” or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8​

Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God:

But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
—Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5
​

Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
—Letter to the Romans, Intro
read more here

The fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give Protestants serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church. It's no wonder Calvin rejected all of them so fiercely.
​

Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία is used by Ignatius as a reference to the doctrinally unadulterated Church – preserving what he and others viewed as the true apostolic traditions against all manner of heresies that were regularly cropping up. He was at pains to distinguish universal truth from factional deviations by reference to teachings of the apostles, and the disciples of those apostles, and the disciples of those disciples -- in short, the bishops of apostolic succession.

But in none of these three quotes from Ignatius do we see a reference to the Roman See’s dominance, whether based on Peter’s bishopric there or anything else, over other episcopates throughout the Mediterranean world, as opposed to in Italy ("the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans"). These quotes show a concern to preserve allegiance to each bishop within that bishop's jurisdiction, not to establish Rome's preeminent authority over them.

In the middle of the third century Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Heretics (Council of Carthage)

Cyprian's was the prevailing view at the time. Even as late as the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.) we see autonomy of arch-episcopates within their own spheres. Aside form its famous Creed, that Council produced about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (and elsewhere) within their particular hegemonies, whose archbishops or “Metropolitans” had authority over other bishops in those jurisdictions. www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/

It thus appears that in mid- Fourth Century and earlier, Rome had no recognized authority over eastern bishoprics. Afterwards the notion started to gain traction. The schism that eventually split Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western Church proves that Papal authority never gained complete support. But my point is that the primacy of the Bishops of Rome over other Sees outside of the Italian peninsula cannot be traced back to the traditions of the early Church. And that should give Catholics serious pause, since it disproves many Catholic theories about the nature of the early Church.

 

[Brakelite]

The early Church Fathers are indispensable resources for helping to bridge the gap between our own time and the age of the apostles. Not only do they provide extra biblical verification of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they also provide a great deal of insight into what the early Christians believed and how they interpreted Scripture.

This can go a long way to demonstrate that certain Catholic distinctives have been believed from the very beginning. One Church Father I find to be particularly helpful in apologetics is St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John (cf. The Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.

On the Authority of the Catholic Church
The Greek root of the term catholic means “according to the whole” or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8​

Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God:

But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
—Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5
​

Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
—Letter to the Romans, Intro
read more here

The fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give Protestants serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church. It's no wonder Calvin rejected all of them so fiercely.
​

Ignatius, as you mentioned, lived contemporaneously with John and the other apostles. We cannot know for sure, but he very likely may have either escaped Jerusalem before it's destruction in 70ad with the rest of the church, who fled to Antioch, Pella, and Decapolis, establishing churches there, and converting thousands of those people already in those cities, mainly Jews but some Gentiles also. Antioch, after Jerusalem, became the principle center of Christian evangelism in those early centuries, spreading the gospel further afield across Asia, and down into Africa. It is interesting that those Christian missionaries quickly copied the scriptures on order for the gospel to be disseminated throughout the world. Not long after Lucian translated those hell manuscripts into Itala, the common language of the empire, but he invited the wrath of Jerome who by all accounts was a cantankerous mean mouthed ascetic by this time, using corrupted manuscripts, from which came the Vulgate. The claims that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible falls flat when real history is presented.

 

[theefaith]

Because neanderthals build cathedrals

what is a cathedral?

 

[BeyondET]

what is a cathedral?

Catholic church I think