If We Protestants Truly Hated Catholics...

Benjamin Calvary said:

but in reality the 'reformers' were going back to the true faith as existed before the 'roman' faith, such as in the vaudois, and those persecuted into the wilderness

Click to expand...

Please demonstrate the comunnity or communities of these 'vaudois' or others that held the true faith not only predating the Church in Rome, as you have suggested, but down through history...
Do they share the ONE Cup with the apostles?
The Church in Rome and the Orthodox you mentioned, demonstrably do....

Pax!

BreadOfLife said:

First of all - Augustine's writings about predestination that Calvinists cling to were his early writings, which he later repudiated.
He later agreed with the Catholic position that God DOES predestine some - for good. BUT, none for evil or damnation as Calvin falsely taught.

Finally - Augustine didn't "Change" the teaching on Original Sin. He clarified it for many but he didn't change it. He didn't have the Authority to do that.

Click to expand...

Calvin got his idea from Augustine. I can't think of an ECF that taught predestination,,,although predestination is biblical but it refers to How we get saved and not Who gets saved ,,,,

Re original sin,,,the church always knew about what we call original sin, the first sin, but it didn't hold us personally responsible for it. He did, this is why babies get baptized as soon as possible,,,because he taught they go to hell if dying without baptism.

BreadOfLife said:

Uhhh, no - YOU prove it.
YOU'RE the one who made this idiotic charge so the onus is on YOU to prove it.

If you can't - then simply admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth so we can move on.
Until you can do that, however - I am going to hold you to this . . .

Click to expand...

I'll answer that.
1. Officially, before Vatican 2 in 1965, all non-catholic church-goers will go to hell.
Today it is different.
2. Sign of the cross not practiced by the Apostles but started in the 9th century.
Tertulian made the sign on his forehead.
Today it is different.
3. Marriage to non-catholics was invalid until 1818 AD.
4. Eucharist; withholding the communion cup from the laity began in 1416 AD.
5. Eucharist; Frequency of communion changed from weekly to daily in 500 AD.
6. Baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.
7. No infant baptism until the 4th century.
8. No pope was considered infallible until 1870 AD.
9. 53 roman catholic doctrines not found in the Bible ( 1400 years of doctrinal evolution).
Introduction of New Catholic doctrines not found in the Bible

Rollo Tamasi said:

I'll answer that.
1. Officially, before Vatican 2 in 1965, all non-catholic church-goers will go to hell.
Today it is different.
2. Sign of the cross not practiced by the Apostles but started in the 9th century.
Tertulian made the sign on his forehead.
Today it is different.
3. Marriage to non-catholics was invalid until 1818 AD.
4. Eucharist; withholding the communion cup from the laity began in 1416 AD.
5. Eucharist; Frequency of communion changed from weekly to daily in 500 AD.
6. Baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.
7. No infant baptism until the 4th century.
8. No pope was considered infallible until 1870 AD.
9. 53 roman catholic doctrines not found in the Bible ( 1400 years of doctrinal evolution).
Introduction of New Catholic doctrines not found in the Bible

Click to expand...

Did you GOOGLE that? If so, you may let Bol know, so that he may know how easy it is to demonstrate with minimal effort, when taking one's head out of his superiors arsenal.

GodsGrace said:

Calvin got his idea from Augustine. I can't think of an ECF that taught predestination,,,although predestination is biblical but it refers to How we get saved and not Who gets saved ,,,,

Re original sin,,,the church always knew about what we call original sin, the first sin, but it didn't hold us personally responsible for it. He did, this is why babies get baptized as soon as possible,,,because he taught they go to hell if dying without baptism.

Click to expand...

Right? Even when reading the history of the Reformation, I personally relate more to the other reformers (like George Wishart) than Calvin, and yet he has some good points, and give him the slack he desrves for his time (though frustrating at times, like Luther's stubborness was at the meeting with Zwingle and Hesse, but it was what was needed against the hard hearts of the papal and kingly courts), and yet those things which he taught which were incorrect wouldn't be so bad (like any other man), if people did not blindly follow fallible men, instead of the infallible Lamb, and continue to hold to errors, and worse add to them.

As, yes, 'predestination' of Paul, marvelous when people understand it refers to Christ, the elect of God, for all the promises are yea and amen in Him.

I am with you sister on the other subject also, in regards the sin of Adam. And babies would not need to be 'baptised' (most of the time it isn't even real "baptism" (full immersion, as the flood of Noah, but since catholicism bascially denies the globality of the flood and make it ethnocentric (localized) they have their other errors added such as), but rather infusion (drizzled upon like a french pastry) or aspersion (sprinkled like a doughnut)), if catholicism had a right understanding of death, heaven and hell, and of salvation (which it has none of).

Anyway, liked your response.

Benjamin Calvary said:

Did you GOOGLE that? If so, you may let Bol know, so that he may know how easy it is to demonstrate with minimal effort, when taking one's head out of his superiors arsenal.

Click to expand...

Breadman will ignore it as usual.

Rollo Tamasi said:

2. Sign of the cross not practiced by the Apostles but started in the 9th century.
Tertulian made the sign on his forehead.
Today it is different.

Click to expand...

Lol. Youre gonna have to do a lot better than this list if you want to try and prove changing doctrine. Most of your list isnt even doctrine but discipline praxis, and misrepresentations... And this one above contradicts itself... If the Tertullian used the sign of the cross, clearly it starting in the 9th century is bogus...

Try again

Pax!

Benjamin Calvary said:

Rabid catholics have this delusion that the historic true church was the 'roman' faith when it grew into the church/state power, and that the 'reformers' were somehow separted from truth, but in reality the 'reformers' were going back to the true faith as existed before the 'roman' faith, such as in the vaudois, and those persecuted into the wilderness, who still held to the bible. It was the 'roman' faith that separated itself from truth (and one can even as the eastern 'orthodoxy', how they feel about it, also in 1054), read - The Two Republics - The two republics;

The true church, never separated from anyone, but as we see, there was a Jezebel amidst the true, teaching people to sacrifice to idols:

Rev 2:19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Click to expand...

There was never a "church/state" power. Radical Protestants are forced to re-write history to force fit it into their presuppositions.
Ignorant anti-Catholic bigots have this habit of asserting "false doctrines" and "Catholic fantasies" but lack the manners to discuss one at a time in a civilized manner. Flaming zingers is not discussion.
Bringing up "1065" is a lazy man's rabbit hole because the complex schism doesn't discredit the Church, if rabid Protestants are willing to examine the truth of history, which they are incapable of. Writing their own is easier.

Alonzo Trevier 1850-1923 Jones, author of your all holy and infallible "The Two Republics" IS A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST.

The Vaudois weren't persecuted, they were excomunicated for being heretics, almost 500 years before the Protestant Revolt even started. False histories is standard SDA methodology.

Your "mission" on this board, is to create a climate of division, separation, wall building and immature hostilies making it impossible for Catholics and Protestants to have any degree of fellowship.
What did Paul say about division???

If the SDA spent as much of it's resources on helping people as it does attacking Catholicism with lies, it might slow the exodus of it's members.

The Catholic Church does not claim to exclusivly own what you call "evil works", but teaches them the same as normal Protestants:

Rollo Tamasi said:

I'll answer that.
1. Officially, before Vatican 2 in 1965, all non-catholic church-goers will go to hell.
Today it is different.
2. Sign of the cross not practiced by the Apostles but started in the 9th century.
Tertulian made the sign on his forehead.
Today it is different.
3. Marriage to non-catholics was invalid until 1818 AD.
4. Eucharist; withholding the communion cup from the laity began in 1416 AD.
5. Eucharist; Frequency of communion changed from weekly to daily in 500 AD.
6. Baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.
7. No infant baptism until the 4th century.
8. No pope was considered infallible until 1870 AD.
9. 53 roman catholic doctrines not found in the Bible ( 1400 years of doctrinal evolution).
Introduction of New Catholic doctrines not found in the Bible

Click to expand...

That's what I like about you, Rollo - you NEVER disappoint.
Your posts can always be counted on to be as moronic and uninformed as the next . . .

I'll destroy them one-by-one with the facts . . .

1. Officially, before Vatican 2 in 1965, all non-catholic church-goers will go to hell.
Today it is different.[/QUOTE]
This is a complete and total lie. The Church has NEVER condemned non-Catholics to Hell.
The onus is on YOU to show me the document, declaration or decree .indicating this.
Happy hunting . . .

2. Sign of the cross not practiced by the Apostles but started in the 9th century.
Tertulian made the sign on his forehead. Today it is different.
And again, the onus is on YOU to show the document, declaration or decree from the 9th century because Tertullian wrote about it in the 2nd century . . .

3. Marriage to non-catholics was invalid until 1818 AD.
Again - WHERE'S the proof??
Document, declaration, decree, etc, please . . .

4. Eucharist; withholding the communion cup from the laity began in 1416 AD.
Ummmm, this is a matter of DISCIPLINE - not Doctrine, Einstein.

5. Eucharist; Frequency of communion changed from weekly to daily in 500 AD.
This is a LIE that illustrates your total ignorance of Scripture.

6. Baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.
This one is almost hilarious if it weren't so tragically ignorant . . .

The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), a FIRST CENTURY document shows the different methods of Baptism:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

You should stop posting for a while until you have done some REAL homework.
Truly pathetic . . .

7. No infant baptism until the 4th century.
Had you bothered to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers - you would have been embarrassed to include this lie on your list. Unfortunately for YOU - you never come prepared . . .

ECF's like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nazianz, John Chrysostom and Augustine not only wrote about the importance of Baptizing INFANTS - they claimed it was a Tradition handed down by the APOSTLES themselves.

8. No pope was considered infallible until 1870 AD.
This is truly laughable and shows that you're NOT a student of history . . .
Doctrines and dogmas are officially defined in Church history when they are challenged or a heresy arises relating to them.

This is true for the Nestorian Heresy, after which the doctrines of the Hypostatic Union and Theotokos were declared at the Council of Ephesus in 431. It is also true for the dogma of the Trinity which was declared after the Arian Hersey arose in the 4th century. These doctrines were ALWAYS believed in and taught - but needed to be officially defined at those times.

Do your homework, Einstein . . .

9. 53 roman catholic doctrines not found in the Bible ( 1400 years of doctrinal evolution).
And 9 lies I just obliterated with Scripture and History . . .

GodsGrace said:

Calvin got his idea from Augustine. I can't think of an ECF that taught predestination,,,although predestination is biblical but it refers to How we get saved and not Who gets saved ,,,,

Re original sin,,,the church always knew about what we call original sin, the first sin, but it didn't hold us personally responsible for it. He did, this is why babies get baptized as soon as possible,,,because he taught they go to hell if dying without baptism.

Click to expand...

Predestination IS Biblical in a limited sense - but never DOUBLE Predestination.
God have NEVER created a single person just for the pleasure of throwing him into Hell as Calvin taught. This would make verses like 1 Tim. 2:4 and John 3:16 nothing but LIES.

Augustine didn't create or invent Original Sin. He didn't create the doctrine because he didn't have the Authority to do so.
Augustine was a great thinker who had the ability to look at moral issues from all sides. He clarified and enlightened the position - but he did not create it.

BreadOfLife said:

That's what I like about you, Rollo - you NEVER disappoint.
Your posts can always be counted on to be as moronic and uninformed as the next . . .

I'll destroy them one-by-one with the facts . . .

1. Officially, before Vatican 2 in 1965, all non-catholic church-goers will go to hell.
Today it is different.

Click to expand...

This is a complete and total lie. The Church has NEVER condemned non-Catholics to Hell.
The onus is on YOU to show me the document, declaration or decree .indicating this.
Happy hunting . . .

2. Sign of the cross not practiced by the Apostles but started in the 9th century.
Tertulian made the sign on his forehead. Today it is different.
And again, the onus is on YOU to show the document, declaration or decree from the 9th century because Tertullian wrote about it in the 2nd century . . .

3. Marriage to non-catholics was invalid until 1818 AD.
Again - WHERE'S the proof??
Document, declaration, decree, etc, please . . .

4. Eucharist; withholding the communion cup from the laity began in 1416 AD.
Ummmm, this is a matter of DISCIPLINE - not Doctrine, Einstein.

5. Eucharist; Frequency of communion changed from weekly to daily in 500 AD.
This is a LIE that illustrates your total ignorance of Scripture.

6. Baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.
This one is almost hilarious if it weren't so tragically ignorant . . .

The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), a FIRST CENTURY document shows the different methods of Baptism:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

You should stop posting for a while until you have done some REAL homework.
Truly pathetic . . .

7. No infant baptism until the 4th century.
Had you bothered to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers - you would have been embarrassed to include this lie on your list. Unfortunately for YOU - you never come prepared . . .

ECF's like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nazianz, John Chrysostom and Augustine not only wrote about the importance of Baptizing INFANTS - they claimed it was a Tradition handed down by the APOSTLES themselves.

8. No pope was considered infallible until 1870 AD.
This is truly laughable and shows that you're NOT a student of history . . .
Doctrines and dogmas are officially defined in Church history when they are challenged or a heresy arises relating to them.

This is true for the Nestorian Heresy, after which the doctrines of the Hypostatic Union and Theotokos were declared at the Council of Ephesus in 431. It is also true for the dogma of the Trinity which was declared after the Arian Hersey arose in the 4th century. These doctrines were ALWAYS believed in and taught - but needed to be officially defined at those times.

Do your homework, Einstein . . .

9. 53 roman catholic doctrines not found in the Bible ( 1400 years of doctrinal evolution).
And 9 lies I just obliterated with Scripture and History . . .[/QUOTE]
It's really sad. Fundie cults indoctrinate poorly catechetized ex-Catholics, add love bombing, feed them all kinds of taurus excretum about the Big Meanie church, and POOF! you have an anti-Catholic. In my parish, there is a special bi-monthly Mass just for the youth ministry. They all participate, they do not spectate.
Kids shouldn't ache for friends and acceptance; they will go anywhere to get it.

BreadOfLife said:

Predestination IS Biblical in a limited sense - but never DOUBLE Predestination.
God have NEVER created a single person just for the pleasure of throwing him into Hell as Calvin taught. This would make verses like 1 Tim. 2:4 and John 3:16 nothing but LIES.

Augustine didn't create or invent Original Sin. He didn't create the doctrine because he didn't have the Authority to do so.
Augustine was a great thinker who had the ability to look at moral issues from all sides. He clarified and enlightened the position - but he did not create it.

Click to expand...

Hi BoL
Regarding predestination...I did say that the bible speaks of HOW one is predestined and not WHO. For example:
Romans 8:29-30
29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Also, God does predestine us to do good, as the above also states:
Ephesians 2:10
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

So I agree with you 100%, Calvin was wrong on every point of the "tulip" and other beliefs He had.

As to Augustine and original sin...
What Augustine essentially did was to IMPUTE Adam's sin to every man born.
God does not impute sin...we suffer the effects of what Adam did, which we call Original Sin...it was the first and original sin, but not understood as Augustine explained it.

Here's a quick history of it. We could "debate" as to whether origina sin is inherited or if we suffer the effects of it. The entire bible, to me, seems to say that God does not hold us individually responsible for another's sin...

We begin with the Eastern Church fathers because they spoke and wrote in Greek, the language of the New Testament. Toews notes that it was the middle of the second century before a “post-Paul” reference to Genesis 3 appears in the writings of the Eastern Church fathers. That would seem to indicate that while the church was expanding rapidly during its first century the concept of original sin was not part of its message.

When Justin Martyr references Adam’s role in introducing sin into the world (165 CE), he takes pains to say that all subsequent humans are responsible for their own sins, as was Adam. Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons held the view that Adam and Eve sinned because of their mental and spiritual immaturity, but even so that had been their free choice. Clement and Origen of Alexandria later added the idea that Genesis 3 should be interpreted allegorically in which Adam represents all humans; that is to say that all people sinned, “not so much from nature as from Adam’s example” (57). The Antiochene fathers took a more Hebraic approach to biblical interpretation than the more Hellenistic approach of the Alexandrian fathers. They believed that “…infants were born without sin, and thus did not recognize any doctrine of inherited sinfulness” (60).

In summarizing the view of Eastern Church fathers, Toews states that “…the Greek fathers taught that humanity inherited Adam’s punishment, death, but not Adam’s guilt. Guilt could only be the result of a freely committed personal act” (60). He also notes that “The early Greek Christian theological emphasis on free will and human accountability was a deliberate counter to the various forms of determinism and fatalism of much classical religion and philosophy from the time of Homer through the era of the Roman Empire” (61).

The Latin-speaking church fathers came from Carthage and Hippo in North Africa and Milan and Rome in Italy. They mostly read the New Testament in an early Latin translation from the original Greek, Vetus Latina, which was replaced by a more accurate work by St. Jerome in 382, known as the Latin Vulgate.

Tertullian (155-220 CE) was the first of the Western church fathers to believe in the “traducian origin” of the soul, that is “In procreation a fragment of the father’s soul shapes itself into a new soul bearing all the hereditary qualities of the father” (63). Thus every soul bears the mark of the “original moral fault” (64). This fault was “corruption” rather than “weakness” as the Greek speaking fathers saw it. Cyprian, also of Carthage, followed up on Tertullian’s views by proclaiming that this hereditary sin is “remitted” through infant baptism.

Ambrose of Milan (339-97 CE) was the first to speak of Adam’s sin as a “fall” brought on by his pride; he wanted to be equal with God. Furthermore when Adam fell he came to bear the ugly scar of sexuality, which was the means by which Adam’s sin was passed on to his posterity. That necessitated the virgin birth of Christ so he could be sinless.

Ambrosiaster, a contemporary of Ambrose, wrote a major commentary on the Book of Romans using the early Latin translation of the New Testament, Vetus Latina. He is the first commentator to use its faulty translation of Romans 5:12 on which to build his case for the “original moral fault.” The problem was that this translation renders the Greek phrase “eph ho” as “in whom” rather than “on account of” or “because of” as the corrected Latin Vulgatedoes. So he was certain that all humanity sinned while “in Adam”.

By the time Augustine came on the scene, Western church fathers had departed from the theology of sin of the Eastern Church, with one exception; they still held to the notion of human free will and responsibility. Augustine was quick to pounce on this awkward combination of ideas his western predecessors had left behind; namely, involuntary inherited sinfulness coupled with free choice. In 395 CE he wrote, “We have all become one lump of clay, that is, a lump of sin…we as sinners deserve nothing other than eternal damnation” (74). A few years later, in 397 CE he first “…uses the epoc-making phrase, ‘original sin’ for the first time in the history of Christian thought” (74).

source: Original Sin – Early Church Fathers (lll)

epostle1 said:

There was never a "church/state" power. Radical Protestants are forced to re-write history to force fit it into their presuppositions.
Ignorant anti-Catholic bigots have this habit of asserting "false doctrines" and "Catholic fantasies" but lack the manners to discuss one at a time in a civilized manner. Flaming zingers is not discussion.
Bringing up "1065" is a lazy man's rabbit hole because the complex schism doesn't discredit the Church, if rabid Protestants are willing to examine the truth of history, which they are incapable of. Writing their own is easier.

Alonzo Trevier 1850-1923 Jones, author of your all holy and infallible "The Two Republics" IS A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST.

The Vaudois weren't persecuted, they were excomunicated for being heretics, almost 500 years before the Protestant Revolt even started. False histories is standard SDA methodology.

Your "mission" on this board, is to create a climate of division, separation, wall building and immature hostilies making it impossible for Catholics and Protestants to have any degree of fellowship.
What did Paul say about division???

If the SDA spent as much of it's resources on helping people as it does attacking Catholicism with lies, it might slow the exodus of it's members.

The Catholic Church does not claim to exclusivly own what you call "evil works", but teaches them the same as normal Protestants:

View attachment 3869

Isaiah 5:20
​

Click to expand...

Not meaning to cause division but what's right is right.
The CC DID grow into a church/state power.
How can you deny this?

Are you saying the church was not involved in politics and even ran entire regions here in Europe? Or are you speaking just to the States?
The CC became, unfortunately, involved in state matters back when it became the pronounced church of the Roman Empire. If you remember, Constantine was officiating at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD....if I remember correctly HE called it; I'd have to check this out...but he was DEFINITELY one of the main characters in its formation.

Happily for everyone, the church is now out of the "state" business and is back to doing what it's supposed to do...saving souls.

Constantine was present at the Council of Nicae because he had an interest in the state of his empire, but he had absolutely no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever. The amount of misinformation about Constantine is staggering.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
There were times when Popes had to assume temporal powers, but there was never a fusion between the Church and the sate, into a single entity. That is a myth invented by hate cults.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/the-early-papacy-1

epostle1 said:

Constantine was present at the Council of Nicae because he had an interest in the state of his empire, but he had absolutely no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever. The amount of misinformation about Constantine is staggering.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
There were times when Popes had to assume temporal powers, but there was never a fusion between the Church and the sate, into a single entity. That is a myth invented by hate cults.

"...However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.​

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/the-early-papacy-1

Click to expand...

First of all, I didn't say Constantine had any spiritual influence.
He DID however, make Christianity become involved in state affairs.

Second, I NEVER said Constantine founded the CC. Why did you post this?
Did you think I thought this? I happen to know the history of the church.

As to Popes not wanting to assume power...
LOL
Why were there Catholic states then? Why didn't popes just declare that their only mission was to save souls?

No. The popes throughout history wanted power just as much as the next guy. I find this very disconcerting, but true.

There's so much about this even on the internet...
Here's one source, aside from the fact that I live in Europe and have learned the history first-hand.


Temporal power (papal) - Wikipedia

GodsGrace said:

First of all, I didn't say Constantine had any spiritual influence.
He DID however, make Christianity become involved in state affairs.

Click to expand...

He cooperated with the pope to hold a council. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a council without the Pope.

Second, I NEVER said Constantine founded the CC. Why did you post this?
Did you think I thought this? I happen to know the history of the church.

Click to expand...

I use that source as a standard refutation whenever Constantine myths show up. The wording was not directed at you.

As to Popes not wanting to assume power...
LOL

Click to expand...

Go through the list of Popes that hyperlinks to a bio. Make a list of all the power hungry popes, and the dates. Give examples of what the popes did that indicated they wanted power.Your generalities are false.

Why were there Catholic states then?

Click to expand...

They were countries, the Church didn't own them. The kings and queens happened to be Catholic who ruled their own states.

Why didn't popes just declare that their only mission was to save souls?

Click to expand...

It's the primary mission, not the only mission. Inculturation is a 50 cent word that means conversion of a society, as well as individuals.

No. The popes throughout history wanted power just as much as the next guy. I find this very disconcerting, but true.

Click to expand...

If you will not or cannot provide proof for this lame assertion, then you are just blowing forum flatus. There have been some bad popes, about 10 in all, (who never taught anything) but painting all popes with the same brush is just ignorance.

There's so much about this even on the internet...
Here's one source, aside from the fact that I live in Europe and have learned the history first-hand.

Click to expand...

You have learned first hand that a small number of popes unworthy of their office dominated the papacy. That's not history, its revisionism. Wikipedia doesn't explain where all this papal power went when Napolean placed the false goddess of reason in the Vatican. Wikipedia lists martyred and murder popes, but you have to go to a different page.

Be sure to count the first 40 Popes who were killed by pagan Romans who had all this power you talk about.

Temporal power (papal) - Wikipedia[/QUOTE]
Martyr popes
Murdered popes
List of popes who died violently - Wikipedia
It doesn't look to me that such a long list of Popes have all this power you speak of. Where did you learn your history, from the Jehovas' Witnesses???

Do you know what Modernism is?

epostle1 said:

He cooperated with the pope to hold a council. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a council without the Pope.

I use that source as a standard refutation whenever Constantine myths show up. The wording was not directed at you.

Go through the list of Popes that hyperlinks to a bio. Make a list of all the power hungry popes, and the dates. Give examples of what the popes did that indicated they wanted power.Your generalities are false.
They were countries, the Church didn't own them. The kings and queens happened to be Catholic who ruled their own states. It's the primary mission, not the only mission. Inculturation is a 50 cent word that means conversion of a society, as well as individuals.

If you will not or cannot provide proof for this lame assertion, then you are just blowing forum flatus. There have been some bad popes, about 10 in all, (who never taught anything) but painting all popes with the same brush is just ignorance.

You have learned first hand that a small number of popes unworthy of their office dominated the papacy. That's not history, its revisionism. Wikipedia doesn't explain where all this papal power went when Napolean placed the false goddess of reason in the Vatican. Wikipedia lists martyred and murder popes, but you have to go to a different page.

Be sure to count the first 40 Popes who were killed by pagan Romans who had all this power you talk about.

Temporal power (papal) - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Martyr popes
Murdered popes
List of popes who died violently - Wikipedia
It doesn't look to me that such a long list of Popes have all this power you speak of. Where did you learn your history, from the Jehovas' Witnesses???

Do you know what Modernism is?
[/QUOTE]
It's the black pope who stands behind the white pope
He has all the power
The Jesuits
The Illuminati
And if you don't know that then you've got your head in a hole.

epostle1 said:

He cooperated with the pope to hold a council. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a council without the Pope.

Click to expand...

No pope existed in 325 ad. (Only the Bishop of Rome)
The council was called by Constantine as I stated.
I won't post any links ,,you could confirm yourself since you don't trust my links.

I use that source as a standard refutation whenever Constantine myths show up. The wording was not directed at you.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Go through the list of Popes that hyperlinks to a bio. Make a list of all the power hungry popes, and the dates. Give examples of what the popes did that indicated they wanted power.Your generalities are false.
They were countries, the Church didn't own them. The kings and queens happened to be Catholic who ruled their own states. It's the primary mission, not the only mission. Inculturation is a 50 cent word that means conversion of a society, as well as individuals.

Click to expand...

You're cute. Why don't YOU give me a list of popes that were NOT power hungry? It would be easier.
Here's a link for those that may be interested.

HISTORY OF THE PAPACY

If you will not or cannot provide proof for this lame assertion, then you are just blowing forum flatus. There have been some bad popes, about 10 in all, (who never taught anything) but painting all popes with the same brush is just ignorance.

Click to expand...

Is it not possible on this forum to discuss topics without having to resort to personal insult?
We're not even discussing "bad popes"...I was discussing popes interested in temporal power. Read my link.

You have learned first hand that a small number of popes unworthy of their office dominated the papacy. That's not history, its revisionism. Wikipedia doesn't explain where all this papal power went when Napolean placed the false goddess of reason in the Vatican. Wikipedia lists martyred and murder popes, but you have to go to a different page.

Be sure to count the first 40 Popes who were killed by pagan Romans who had all this power you talk about.

Temporal power (papal) - Wikipedia
Martyr popes
Murdered popes
List of popes who died violently - Wikipedia
It doesn't look to me that such a long list of Popes have all this power you speak of. Where did you learn your history, from the Jehovas' Witnesses???

Do you know what Modernism is?

Click to expand...

Some popes died violently? Wow. I'm impressed. What does that have to do with anything?

The wikipedia article is good. I hope it's read to its end. Popes had a lot of power here in Europe up until about the late 1800's and some even till the end of WWII.

So now I'm a JW?
Whateva...
I have to learn to ingore much of what you say.

Rollo Tamasi said:

Click to expand...

Yes!
Even the Beatles knew it!
Why don't we know it?

I love to just discuss stuff, without insulting anyone.