Dead faith.

[Illuminator]

You do understand the history of the Catholic Church...that Constantine was the first Pope; and that this was in the 4th Century A.D..

13 LOGICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CONSTANTINE FOUNDER MYTH:

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

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

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

5. The reason why Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. (he could not do this without the Pope) Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even a counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

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

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

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

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

Prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been many local councils where local bishops, priests, and deacons gathered to issue canons to the faithful; such as the Councils of Carthage, where Saint Cyprian presided at the Seventh Council in 256 A.D. where a canon was issued stating, “. . . heretics, who are called antichrists and adversaries of Christ, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one Baptism of the Church, so that friends may be made of adversaries, and Christians of antichrists.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in 256 A.D.?

Another example is the Council of Elvira, Spain in 300 A.D. where 19 bishops and 26 priests and deacons gathered together to issue 81 canons. Canon 16 stated, “Heretics, if they do not wish to come over to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls in marriage.” Therefore, how could Constantine have started the Catholic Church in 325 A.D. if it already existed in Spain in 300 A.D.?

The Romans were aficionados when it came to documenting the legal affairs and history of the Empire. If it had been the case that Constantine established his own state religion or established a new state Church, we would have been able to find it documented somewhere in history that such an event happened, but when we examine the history and legal documents from ancient Rome, we find no traces that the myth that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is true, or the first pope.

Moreover, if Constantine did found the Catholic Church at the First Council of Nicaea then we should be able to find at least some once reference to the Roman Emperor in the creed and canons of the Council, but in the Creed of Nicaea and in its Twenty Canons nothing was mentioned about the Roman Emperor. Nothing at all.

To the contrary, what all the canons are dealing with is membership of those who had rejected the faith during the persecution, fallen lapse, or who had been excommunicated, primacy of Churches, and the administration of the Sacraments. Altogether the canons are concerned with establishing solidarity and uniformity of administration and liturgy in the Catholic Church. There is no concern whatsoever in these canons for the Roman Empire or the Roman Emperor in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea. In regards to the Nicene Creed, it was dealing with more fully proclaiming the Apostle’s Creed, which the Church already affirmed in a manner that resolved the Arian heresy. We find nothing in the Creed of this Council that supports the Myth of Constantine Founding the Catholic Church or being the first pope.

Prior to the rise of Protestantism, no one ever dared to tell this lie. Only in the space of the unintelligent, uncurious, and hostile can such a myth and lie bear fruit.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
justbyfaith offers no evidence to support such myths and lies, and refuses to accept the facts out of pride and prejudice.

 

[justbyfaith]

Catholic no longer means Universal; because there are many Protestants who are not a part of the Catholic Church who nevertheless have faith in Jesus Christ, and are born again/saved. These are by definition members of the body of Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

Perhaps Diotrephes was the first Pope.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay...what did I do to you?
I changed my mind about putting you on Ignore.

But since you are accusing me of lying, prove it.

Show the nature of my lie by using the quote feature and explain to me just how I have lied to you. What did I do to you other than try to convince you of my pov?

I could care less about whether you are Catholic or not. You call my posts anti-Catholic; I am merely attempting to defend Pauline theology.

If Pauline theology is anti-Catholic, then I accept it...guilty as charged!

In such a case Catholic doctrine would be anti-Pauline theology.

Because Paul came before the Catholic church and its order of things.

You do understand the history of the Catholic Church...that Constantine was the first Pope; and that this was in the 4th Century A.D..

Incredible.
You asked me to “prove” to you that you LIED – all the while, sounding very “indignant” that I accused you of lying. Then, you follow it up with ANOTHER lie. You just lost ALL credibility.

Let’s start with your FIRST lie. I explained to you on at least FIVE posts that Catholics do NOT believe in “works Salvation”. I explained that the works that we do which are en essential element of faith were PREPARED FOR US BY GOD (Eph. 2:10). I repeatedly explained that we CANNOT take credit for them because they were prepared by HIM – and WE are simply HIS instrument in accomplishing them.

What was YOUR repeated response?
“Catholics believe in a ’works salvation’”.

It was like you completely ignored my FIVE explanations of the same thing – just to spew the same, tired anti-Catholic mantra “works salvation”.

Works salvation implies that we are saved BY our works – and that is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, as I repeatedly explained – and YOU repeatedly ignored.

As to your latest LIE: “Constantine was the first Pope, and this was in the 4th century A.D.”

This is a CLASSIC anti-Catholic lie, based on nothing. Constantine was not only NOT a Catholic until his death bed Baptism – he was NEVER a Pope. The Catholic Church existed from the FIRST century – and we see this in the writings of the FIRST century Bishop, Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, written right before his death around the year 107 AD:
“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 107 AD)

You ARE a dishonest person and I just PROVED it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Perhaps Diotrephes was the first Pope.

Or, perhaps YOU just can't stop lying . . .

 

[justbyfaith]

@BreadOfLife,

It appears that you have some kind of root of bitterness. I will leave you alone from now on.

Heb 12:15, Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

 

[Joseph77]

nvm

 

[justbyfaith]

God says we are to realize anyone who brings a false gospel is ANATHEMA ! ACCURSED !

Is God showing a root of bitterness ? !

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Why would you suddenly accuse the Lord of having a root of bitterness just because the subject of "root of bitterness" has been brought up?

That there is such a thing as a root of bitterness and that it has the capacity to defile many is a scriptural fact.

Leave God out of it.

(iow, don't accuse God).

 

[Joseph77]

nvm

 

[justbyfaith]

Sorry, you totally missed the point.
Did not someone just claim /post/ that YOU (to them) had or appeared to have a root of bitterness ?

Since they are bringing a false gospel, and God says that those who bring a false gospel are accursed, I just asked if then God has a root of bitterness for saying that anyone who brings a false gospel is accursed.

What do you think?

 

[Joseph77]

nvm

 

[Illuminator]

Catholic no longer means Universal; because there are many Protestants who are not a part of the Catholic Church who nevertheless have faith in Jesus Christ, and are born again/saved. These are by definition members of the body of Christ.

I have no problem with that. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches this very thing, without changing the meaning of words.
Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

footnotes:
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1G 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
277 UR 4 § 3.
278 Jn 17:21; cf. Heb 7:25.
279 Cf. UR 1.
CCC - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3

 

[Illuminator]

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Why would you suddenly accuse the Lord of having a root of bitterness just because the subject of "root of bitterness" has been brought up?
.

This is laughable. You may not like BofL's firm style (due to thick skulls around here), but I have never seen him call your church or any other church a whore or harlot. Maybe you can explain how this raw hatred doesn't violate the rules, moderators won't. Stop the myths and lies and we will BOTH leave YOU alone.

 

[Illuminator]

Or, perhaps YOU just can't stop lying . . .

It not really her fault. Protestants have been trained to accept false histories all their lives, and reinforced by books, pamphlets and videos. The Baptist "Trail of Blood", which sold 3 million copies, is an embarrassment to Baptists. It's held by Protestant scholars as a joke. Here is another example:

Jim McCarthy, author of The Gospel According to Rome, has engaged with Catholic apologists for years. He knows Catholicism does not teach works righteousness, but lies about it anyway.
Catholic Merit vs. Distorted Caricatures (James McCarthy)

Bottom line: Many Protestants are fed packs of lies by so called reputable teachers, and the only thing that can heal prejudice is the power of the Holy Spirit, or a surgical removal of the brain.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It not really her fault. Protestants have been trained to accept false histories all their lives, and reinforced by books, pamphlets and videos. The Baptist "Trail of Blood", which sold 3 million copies, is an embarrassment to Baptists. It's held by Protestant scholars as a joke. Here is another example:

Jim McCarthy, author of The Gospel According to Rome, has engaged with Catholic apologists for years. He knows Catholicism does not teach works righteousness, but lies about it anyway.
Catholic Merit vs. Distorted Caricatures (James McCarthy)

Bottom line: Many Protestants are fed packs of lies by so called reputable teachers, and the only thing that can heal prejudice is the power of the Holy Spirit, or a surgical removal of the brain.

Actually - I usually give most Protestants a break with this kind of nonsense - until it is explained to them.

In her case - it was explaied in great detail about FIVE times - and she STILL reverted to the lie - so she has nobody to blame but herself.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry, you totally missed the point.
Did not someone just claim /post/ that YOU (to them) had or appeared to have a root of bitterness ?

Since they are bringing a false gospel, and God says that those who bring a false gospel are accursed, I just asked if then God has a root of bitterness for saying that anyone who brings a false gospel is accursed.

Then YOU should be quaking on your boots.
The "false" gospels - and there are literally tens of thousands of them now - were born in the 16th century with your Protestant Fathers.

 

[BreadOfLife]

@BreadOfLife,
It appears that you have some kind of root of bitterness. I will leave you alone from now on.

Ummmmmm, that's what you said last time.

I'll leave you alone as well - until you lie about the Church again.
Then I'll expose you . . .

 

[justbyfaith]

but I have never seen him call your church or any other church a whore or harlot.

You have never seen me call his church a whore or harlot either.

I have refrained from doing so because it is not my ministry to deal primarily with Catholicism.

But if the subject comes up, of course I will tout the regular Protestant line...

That Rome does in fact have seven hills and that Revelation 17 speaks of the religious system that is based in Rome.

I will probably not go so far as to say, directly, that the Catholic Church is the whore spoken of in the book of Revelation.

Because I care about the salvation of Catholics; and therefore I am not anti-Catholic in the slightest.

I may be considered to be anti-Catholicism.

I'm certain that @BreadOfLife will accuse me of being a liar again...but I suppose that this is par for the course.

tbh it makes me feel like I don't even want to bother with you...maybe I should just let you travel headlong into the lake of fire.

Because I know that some (if not all) Catholics believe the lie of Mary being co-redemptress; and that this lie is damning to hell...because it means that your average Catholic will not place their faith wholly in what Christ has done for them on the Cross: and to do so is the only way to be saved.

You may be the kind of Catholic that doesn't believe the Catholic doctrine of Mary as co-redeemer...well, good for you! You need to go and minister to your Catholic brothers and sisters that this is a lie from the pit of hell that will place them smack-dab in the middle of hell.

 

[justbyfaith]

You seem to think that we are sitting around thinking about what lies to tell about the Catholic Church.

This is not the case.

We who know that the Catholic Church is not conducive to salvation in its adherents for the most part, are attempting to expose the lies that the Catholic Church has told to its parishioners as a matter of doctrine, in order that they might be saved.

It is a matter of public record that the Catholic Church's official doctrine is of Mary as co-redeemer; but I wouldn't be surprised if @BreadOfLife came out as saying that this is also a lie.

It is not. It is a matter of public record.

And, since it is so damning (since it takes away from the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ Himself and divides the faith of the Catholic so that they do not trust wholly in that which alone can save them) we seek to expose this as a lie.

It is not that we are against Catholics. We are for Catholics; we want them to be saved.

 

[justbyfaith]

Ummmmmm, that's what you said last time.

I'll leave you alone as well - until you lie about the Church again.
Then I'll expose you . . .

Go for it.

I believe that the fact that you haven't yet responded to my last two posts speaks volumes about the fact that you know that I am not speaking lies concerning what I have said in them.