In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[OzSpen]

I will elucidate on the various groups I mentioned later, in the meantime....

THE CODE OF OUR LORD
THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR JUSTINIAN.
SECOND EDITION.

BOOK 1.
TITLE 1.
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE
CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE
SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.
1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.
We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.
(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.
Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.
2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Praetorian Prefect.
Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted to Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.
(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one [pg. 10] who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word These things, indeed do not require further proof, and should be respected.
(2) Let those who do not accept those doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic Churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.
Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the ides of January, under the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.
3. The Emperor Martian to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect.
No one, whether he belongs to the clergy, the army, or to any other condition of men, shall, with a view to causing a tumult and giving occasion to treachery, attempt to discuss the Christian religion publicly in the presence of an assembled and listening crowd; for he commits an injury against the most reverend Synod who publicly contradicts what has once been decided and properly established; as those matters relative to the Christian faith have been settled by the priests who met at Chalcedony by Our order, and are known to be in conformity with the apostolic explanations and conclusions of the three hundred and eight Holy Fathers assembled in Nicea, and the hundred and fifty who met in this Imperial City; for the violators of this law shall not go unpunished, because they not only oppose the true faith, but they also profane its venerated mysteries by engaging in contests of this kind with Jews and Pagans. Therefore, if any person who has ventured to publicly discuss religious matters is a member of the clergy, he shall be removed from his order; if he is a member of the army, he shall be degraded; and any others who are guilty of this offence, who are freemen, shall be banished from this most Sacred City, and shall be subjected to the punishment prescribed by law according to the power of the court; and if they are slaves, they shall undergo severest penalty.
Given at Constantinople, on the eighth of the Ides of February, under the consulship of Patricius.
4. John, Bishop of the City of Rome, to his most Illustrious and Merciful Son Justinian.
Among the conspicuous reasons for praising your wisdom and gentleness, Most Christian of Emperors, and one which radiates light [pg. 11]as a star, is the fact that through love of the Faith, and actuated by zeal for charity, you, learned in ecclesiastical discipline, have preserved reverence for the See of Rome, and have subjected all things to its authority, and have given it unity. The following precept was communicated to its founder, that is to say, the first of the Apostles, by the mouth of the Lord, namely: "Feed my lambs."
This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of the Emperors assert, and the words of your most reverend piety testify. It is therefore claimed that what the Scriptures state, namely, "By Me Kings reign, and the Powers dispense justice;" will be accomplished in you. For there is nothing which shines with a more brilliant lustre than genuine faith when displayed by a prince, since there is nothing which prevents destruction as true religion does, for as both of them have reference to the Author of Life and Light, they disperse darkness and prevent apostasy. Wherefore, Most Glorious of Princes, the Divine Power is implored by the prayers of all to preserve your piety in this ardor for the Faith, in this devotion of your mind, and in this zeal for true religion, without failure, during your entire existence. For we believe that this is for the benefit of the Holy Churches, as it was written, "The king rules with his lips," and again, "The heart of the King is in the hand of God, and it will incline to whatever side God wishes"; that is to say, that He may confirm your empire, and maintain your kingdoms for the peace of the Church and the unity of religion; guard their authority, and preserve him in that sublime tranquillity which is so grateful to him; and no small change is granted by the Divine Power through whose agency a divided church is not afflicted by any griefs or subject to any reproaches. For it is written, "A just king, who is upon his throne, has no reason to apprehend any misfortune."
We have received with all due respect the evidences of your serenity, through Hypatius and Demetrius, most holy men, my brothers and fellow-bishops, from whose statements we have learned that you have promulgated an Edict addressed to your faithful people, and dictated by your love of the Faith, for the purpose of overthrowing the designs of heretics, which is in accordance with the evangelical tenets, and which we have confirmed by our authority with the consent of our brethren and fellow bishops, for the reason that it is in conformity with the apostolic doctrine.
The following is the text of the letter of the Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome:
With honor to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, which is, and always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they [pg. 12] exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and according to the doctrines of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.
[pg. 125]

One Hundred and Thirty-First New Constitution.
[Novella 131 was issued in 545 A.D.]
The Emperor Justinian to Peter, Most Glorious Imperial Praetorian Prefect.
PREFACE.
We enact the present law with reference to ecclesiastical rules and privileges and other subjects in which holy churches and religious establishments are intrusted.

Chapter I.
Concerning Four Holy Councils.
Therefore We order that the sacred, ecclesiastical rules which were adopted and confirmed by the four Holy Councils, that is to say, that of the three hundred and eighteen bishops held at Nicea, that of the one hundred and fifty bishops held at Constantinople, the first one of Ephesus, where Nestorius was condemned, and the one assembled at Chalcedon, where Eutyches and Nestorius were anathematized, shall be considered as laws. We accept the dogmas of these four Councils as sacred writings, and observe their rules as legally effective.

Chapter II.
Concerning The Precedence of Partriarchs.
Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees.
Source: Corpus Juris Civilis (The Civil Law, the Code of Justinian), by S.P. Scott, A.M., published by the Central Trust Company, Cincinnati, copyright 1932, Volume 12 [of 17], pages 9-12, 125.

brakelite,

You have got to be kidding! :huh:

I have located this citation on an anti-Catholic, pro-Seventh-Day Adventist website that has this emblem. We are not dealing here with objective historical verification but with an anti-Roman Catholic antagonism. CyB will not allow me to post the image in this post.

It is located HERE.

Oz

 

[tom55]

What the article actually said, was;
Emperor Constantine may have been a Christian at the time (although this is a matter of dispute: Constantine was baptized shortly before he died). Despite this, (it can be argued that*) he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria (modern Albania).

If you're going to quote something it's best that you quoted in context and not out of context. You also know if you take a look at it carefully that they cited several Publications to support their conclusion.

What I quoted is not out of context. All the other statements in that paragraph does not change what I quoted and what I quoted does not change the rest of the paragraph. They are separate statements: Constantine may have been a Christian at the time has NOTHING to do with he made Christianity the official state religion.

Notice how the biased author put (it can be argued that*) BEFORE he made that statement? If the author is so confident in what he has to say then just say it and back it up with facts. However since the author can't back it up with fact they put their personal opinion in their and you act like they are writing historical fact.

I also noticed how you did not even mention or comment on the quote I provided from the Edict of Milan which destroys the authors opinion. Why is that?

So if I cite other peoples opinions that back up my opinion that makes me reliable? But if I cite the actual thing we are talking about (the Edict of Milan) I am not reliable? Weird.....

 

[tom55]

True...Christianity never became the religion of the empire. However, Catholicism did, through the edict of Vespasian, declaring the bishop of Rome the officially recognized head of all churches. Of course the vast majority of Christendom rejected this idea, which resulted in persecution by the papacy through the sword of what then was Constantinople, or the eastern arm of the Roman empire. The Heruli, Vandals, and Goths, Christian tribes purported to be Arian, were wiped out because of their refusal to bow to papal "authority". Add to that the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Lombards, the Celtic church of early Britain founded by such as Columbanus, Dinooth, Aiden, Patrick....all this a long time before the reformation, which adds to the list the Hussites, the Heugenot..which simply continued the persecutions....I do hope you are getting the picture.

Not sure what "history" book you are reading.

FlaviusTheodosius and Gratian published in February of 380 an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria.

I don't think it was an edict from Vespasian since he ruled from 69-79 AD.

 

[StanJ]

What I quoted is not out of context. All the other statements in that paragraph does not change what I quoted and what I quoted does not change the rest of the paragraph. They are separate statements: Constantine may have been a Christian at the time has NOTHING to do with he made Christianity the official state religion.

Yes that's right if you don't convey the context, then you're taking it out of context.

Notice how the biased author put (it can be argued that*) BEFORE he made that statement? If the author is so confident in what he has to say then just say it and back it up with facts. However since the author can't back it up with fact they put their personal opinion in their and you act like they are writing historical fact.

Did you actually read the whole thing or look for contradictions? Seems you did read this and then neglected to include it in your response so what exactly were you trying to accomplish buy only quoting what he did say without this qualifier that you know do quote? To me this is a tad disingenuous.

I also noticed how you did not even mention or comment on the quote I provided from the Edict of Milan which destroys the authors opinion. Why is that?

Because I have no problem with the Edict of Milan. It is what it is. But one thing I don't do is read into it but it doesn't actually say. The mentality of the population and Constantine's time would definitely taken edict at face value and not try to pussyfoot around it which sadly many people in our modern era do. The consequences of trying to contradict an emperor back then where extreme & final.

So if I cite other peoples opinions that back up my opinion that makes me reliable? But if I cite the actual thing we are talking about (the Edict of Milan) I am not reliable? Weird.....

You're basically the one that set the standard by saying you only take reliable historians at face value when indeed you don't know whether or not the Articles you're reading are produced by reliable people or not, at you just assume they aren't. It's not the first time I've debated with you tom55, and I understand your style very clearly.

 

[tom55]

Yes that's right if you don't convey the context, then you're taking it out of context.
Did you actually read the whole thing or look for contradictions? Seems you did read this and then neglected to include it in your response so what exactly were you trying to accomplish buy only quoting what he did say without this qualifier that you know do quote? To me this is a tad disingenuous.
Because I have no problem with the Edict of Milan. It is what it is. But one thing I don't do is read into it but it doesn't actually say. The mentality of the population and Constantine's time would definitely taken edict at face value and not try to pussyfoot around it which sadly many people in our modern era do. The consequences of trying to contradict an emperor back then where extreme & final.
You're basically the one that set the standard by saying you only take reliable historians at face value when indeed you don't know whether or not the Articles you're reading are produced by reliable people or not, at you just assume they aren't. It's not the first time I've debated with you tom55, and I understand your style very clearly.

Definition of context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

There are two different contexts in the two different sentences:

1. Emperor Constantine may have been a Christian at the time.
2. Despite this, he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria (modern Albania).

The "meaning" or the context of the fist sentence was that he may have been a Christian.
The "meaning" or the context of the second sentence the author alleges (without evidence) that he made Christianity the official state religion.

CLEARLY two DIFFERENT subjects that do not need one to support the other. You can state one without the other and they both support themselves. #1 does not provide context for #2 or vice a versa. Anyone with a high school diploma can figure that one out. (BTW...I only have a HS diploma)

I did actually read the whole article AND looked for contradictions. You would have known that I read the whole thing if you would have read what I wrote: "The article you provided was not a bad article".

BTW....You should try my little technique of finding contradictions in articles. It's called searching for the truth in what you read. You do want to know the truth; don't you??

I agree with you StanJ. I have set a high standard for myself by taking reliable historians at face value. As I stated before I rely on "history books that have been vetted by a majority of scholars". I know the history I read has been written and researched by reliable people because of my high standards. (you should try it)

I know it's not the first time you have debated with me. You always stop debating with me when I prove you wrong OR you can't logically answer my questions. I suspect it will happen this time.

Therefor my original statement*** still stands and you have failed to prove me wrong.

***It said that Constantine "had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire." If you, StanJ, were to do your own research and read The Edict of Milan you would see that it gave Christianity legal status which made it legal to practice Christianity AND it ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them but it DID NOT make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

 

[brakelite]

brakelite,

You have got to be kidding! :huh:

I have located this citation on an anti-Catholic, pro-Seventh-Day Adventist website that has this emblem. We are not dealing here with objective historical verification but with an anti-Roman Catholic antagonism. CyB will not allow me to post the image in this post.

It is located HERE.

Oz

brakelite,

You have got to be kidding! :huh:

I have located this citation on an anti-Catholic, pro-Seventh-Day Adventist website that has this emblem. We are not dealing here with objective historical verification but with an anti-Roman Catholic antagonism. CyB will not allow me to post the image in this post.

It is located HERE.

Oz

Are you kidding? Because it comes from a site whose principles you disagree with,, it must be a forgery or of some spurious origin? Seriously?

 

[brakelite]

brakelite,

You have got to be kidding! :huh:

I have located this citation on an anti-Catholic, pro-Seventh-Day Adventist website that has this emblem. We are not dealing here with objective historical verification but with an anti-Roman Catholic antagonism. CyB will not allow me to post the image in this post.

It is located HERE.

Oz

Original source here...https://www.amazon.es/Justinianus-Corpus-Civilis-English-Edition-ebook/dp/B00ELO6YJW

 

[StanJ]

Definition of context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

There are two different contexts in the two different sentences:

1. Emperor Constantine may have been a Christian at the time.
2. Despite this, he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria (modern Albania).

The "meaning" or the context of the fist sentence was that he may have been a Christian.
The "meaning" or the context of the second sentence the author alleges (without evidence) that he made Christianity the official state religion.

CLEARLY two DIFFERENT subjects that do not need one to support the other. You can state one without the other and they both support themselves. #1 does not provide context for #2 or vice a versa. Anyone with a high school diploma can figure that one out. (BTW...I only have a HS diploma)

I did actually read the whole article AND looked for contradictions. You would have known that I read the whole thing if you would have read what I wrote: "The article you provided was not a bad article".

BTW....You should try my little technique of finding contradictions in articles. It's called searching for the truth in what you read. You do want to know the truth; don't you??

I agree with you StanJ. I have set a high standard for myself by taking reliable historians at face value. As I stated before I rely on "history books that have been vetted by a majority of scholars". I know the history I read has been written and researched by reliable people because of my high standards. (you should try it)

I know it's not the first time you have debated with me. You always stop debating with me when I prove you wrong OR you can't logically answer my questions. I suspect it will happen this time.

Therefor my original statement*** still stands and you have failed to prove me wrong.

***It said that Constantine "had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire." If you, StanJ, were to do your own research and read The Edict of Milan you would see that it gave Christianity legal status which made it legal to practice Christianity AND it ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them but it DID NOT make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean I didn't but that would be your problem not mine.

 

[OzSpen]

Are you kidding? Because it comes from a site whose principles you disagree with,, it must be a forgery or of some spurious origin? Seriously?

Your copy and paste was not from a reliable historical source.

 

[OzSpen]

Original source here...https://www.amazon.es/Justinianus-Corpus-Civilis-English-Edition-ebook/dp/B00ELO6YJW

You can't do a copy and paste from that source. Now tell us the real source that enabled you do to a copy and paste.

 

[brakelite]

Not sure what "history" book you are reading.

FlaviusTheodosius and Gratian published in February of 380 an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria.

I don't think it was an edict from Vespasian since he ruled from 69-79 AD.

Sorry, my bad. You are correct, Vespasian wrong dude. Try Justinian.

 

[brakelite]

You can't do a copy and paste from that source. Now tell us the real source that enabled you do to a copy and paste.

Because you don't deem it reliable does not make the copy a forgery. The site itself cites the original source...I am sure you can access that thru the amazon/kindle download I provided in my previous post. Me, I can't be bothered spending money to confirm...I see no reason not to trust the site I copied from. To believe otherwise i to believe that the owner o f the site made it all up and fabricated the entire thing. To believe that is the extreme of cynicism and doubt. In this case, I refuse to entertain that idea. You? You are welcome to follow the leads provided.

 

[StanJ]

307 AD
Constantine is promoted to Augustus and assumes the title of “Pontifex Maximus,” a title he will keep until death.

Seems pretty clear that would make Christianity the state religion at that time.

 

[Wormwood]

Sorry Stan, I would have to side with Tom on this one. The Edict of Milan (323 i think?) essentially gave Christians protection and made it no longer illegal to be a Christian. Christianity wasnt deemed the "official" religion of the Roman empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 (as I understand it). However, it certainly is true that after Constantine became a Christian (reportedly) that this potentially made becoming a Christian a politically beneficial move. Thus, many question the purity of the Church as a whole after the reign of Constantine because motives for conversion could certainly be called into question after this time whereas previously being a Christian or church leader would have been a dangerous confession to make. Personally I think this clearly led to a lot of corruption, simoney and so forth, but I dont think the entire Church became corrupt due to Constantine's favor toward Christianity (regardless of his true motives).

 

[StanJ]

Sorry Stan, I would have to side with Tom on this one. The Edict of Milan (323 i think?) essentially gave Christians protection and made it no longer illegal to be a Christian. Christianity wasnt deemed the "official" religion of the Roman empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 (as I understand it). However, it certainly is true that after Constantine became a Christian (reportedly) that this potentially made becoming a Christian a politically beneficial move. Thus, many question the purity of the Church as a whole after the reign of Constantine because motives for conversion could certainly be called into question after this time whereas previously being a Christian or church leader would have been a dangerous confession to make. Personally I think this clearly led to a lot of corruption, simoney and so forth, but I dont think the entire Church became corrupt due to Constantine's favor toward Christianity (regardless of his true motives).

The edict, which happened four years afterwards, only put into words what was already a reality. That Constantine was the emporer and took on the title of “Pontifex Maximus", made Christianity, at that point, the state religion.
No different than the Act of Succession and the Act of Supremacy only confirmed what was already a reality, in that the Church of England was the state Church.

 

[BjornFree]

The edict, which happened four years afterwards, only put into words what was already a reality. That Constantine was the emporer and took on the title of “Pontifex Maximus", made Christianity, at that point, the state religion.
No different than the Act of Succession and the Act of Supremacy only confirmed what was already a reality, in that the Church of England was the state Church.

Makes sense to me.
Well said Stan .... IMO

 

[brakelite]

Brakelite,

I do wish you would document your sources.This is what happens when you gather your information from 'somewhere' and don't provide the bibliographic details.

When I checked with Encyclopaedia Britannica, I got a rather different picture to the one you attempted to draw:

• 
  The Heruli, 3rd century, Scandinavia and Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Vandals, 5th-6th Germanic people (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Goths, 2nd century Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Albigenses were from 12th-13th century in southern France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Waldenses were early 12th century in France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Lollards originated in the late 14th century England, followers of John Wycliffe (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  

You state: <<Christianity never became the religion of the empire. However, Catholicism did, through the edict of Vespasian, declaring the bishop of Rome the officially recognized head of all churches.>> Would you please provide substantive, historical documentation for such a statement?

I am aware of the "Edict of Vespasian on physicians' and teachers' privileges" in AD 74 (see Allan Johnson et al, Ancient Roman Statutes (2003).

In what sense are you using Catholicism? Roman Catholicism?

Oz

I believe you are educated sufficiently to understand that 'Catholicism', in the strict sense of the word 'universal', was carried on in those churches which rejected the Papal attempt to usurp the authority of Christ over the church, in contradistinction to the Roman bishops who in reality, abandoned the true meaning of the word Catholic, by making the papal church exclusive and persecuting dissenters through the arm of the secular power, in particular those armies of Justinian (under Belisarius) and later converts to Rome such as Clovis. Those groups I mentioned are merely examples of Christian communities that also rejected Roman authority over their consciences, and were rigorously persecuted as a result. I was using the word "Catholicism" above in the generally accepted sense of the 'Roman' variety.
Their histories are documented in many reliable works, such as Merle d'Aubigne, History of the Reformation; Wylie's History of Protestantism; Bower's History of the Popes; Mosheim, History of the Church; Ranke, History of the Popes; Stanley History of the Eastern Church; and many other historians or Bible commentators such as Albert Barnes, Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton. Of course one could add Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
Here is a quote from A J Wylies work, "The History of the Waldenses".
"The Waldenes stand apart and alone in the Christian world. Their place on the surface of Europe is unique; their position in history is not less unique; and the end appointed them to fulfill is one which has been assigned to them alone, no other people being permitted to share it with them. The Waldenses bear a twofold testimony. Like the snow-clad peaks amid which their dwelling is placed, which look down upon the plains of Italy on the one side, and the provinces of France on the other, this people stand equally related to primitive ages and modern times, and give by no means equivocal testimony respecting both Rome and the Reformation. If they are old, then Rome is new; if they are pure, then Rome is corrupt; and if they have retained the faith of the apostles, it follows incontestably that Rome has departed from it. That the Waldensian faith and worship existed many centuries before Protestantism arose is undeniable; the proofs and monuments of this fact lie scattered over all the histories and all the lands of mediaeval Europe; but the antiquity of the Waldenses is the antiquity of Protestantism. The Church of the Reformation was in the loins of the Waldensian Church ages before the birth of Luther; her first cradle was placed amid those terrors and sublimities, those ice-clad peaks and great bulwarks of rock. In their dispersions over so many lands—over France, the Low Countries, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, England, Calabria, Naples—the Waldenses sowed the seeds of that great spiritual revival which, beginning in the days of Wycliffe, and advancing in the times of Luther and Calvin, awaits its full consummation in the ages to come."

The Waldenses, are but one group of people whose history is well worth studying. Not from the Roman perspective, for they were their most bitter enemies, and it is far from common sense to believe that modern or ancient papal historians would offer a fair and unbiased view of a people who stood for truth and withstood the inroads of heresy and pagan dogma for so many centuries.

PS. Please don't presume that I have read all the above cited works. But I have read extensive excerpts relevant to things I was interested in, and do count them as reliable sources. There is a great deal of misinformation out there, and false teaching and revisionist history to hide the sins of the past.

 

[brakelite]

Sorry Stan, I would have to side with Tom on this one. The Edict of Milan (323 i think?) essentially gave Christians protection and made it no longer illegal to be a Christian. Christianity wasnt deemed the "official" religion of the Roman empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 (as I understand it). However, it certainly is true that after Constantine became a Christian (reportedly) that this potentially made becoming a Christian a politically beneficial move. Thus, many question the purity of the Church as a whole after the reign of Constantine because motives for conversion could certainly be called into question after this time whereas previously being a Christian or church leader would have been a dangerous confession to make. Personally I think this clearly led to a lot of corruption, simoney and so forth, but I dont think the entire Church became corrupt due to Constantine's favor toward Christianity (regardless of his true motives).

There is a general perception with modern Christianity regarding history of the early church, and I think a grave and sad misconception, that the Roman church was the "only shop in town" so to speak. While over 2 or 3 centuries the Emperors certainly gave more and more favor to the Roman branch of the church, the authority thus bestowed upon Rome was not shared with much magnanimity among the rest of Christendom, which by the 3rd and 4th centuries, had extended well into Britain, Africa, Europe, all around central and southern Asia and even as far as the far east into China (Seres)and Vietnam. Papal supremacy, as granted to Rome, was rejected at first by most churches that came within reach of the Roman tentacles over the ensuing centuries, and it was only by force of arms through secular powers that brought about any sense of Roman Catholic "unity" in Europe.

 

[OzSpen]

I believe you are educated sufficiently to understand that 'Catholicism', in the strict sense of the word 'universal', was carried on in those churches which rejected the Papal attempt to usurp the authority of Christ over the church, in contradistinction to the Roman bishops who in reality, abandoned the true meaning of the word Catholic, by making the papal church exclusive and persecuting dissenters through the arm of the secular power, in particular those armies of Justinian (under Belisarius) and later converts to Rome such as Clovis. Those groups I mentioned are merely examples of Christian communities that also rejected Roman authority over their consciences, and were rigorously persecuted as a result. I was using the word "Catholicism" above in the generally accepted sense of the 'Roman' variety.
Their histories are documented in many reliable works, such as Merle d'Aubigne, History of the Reformation; Wylie's History of Protestantism; Bower's History of the Popes; Mosheim, History of the Church; Ranke, History of the Popes; Stanley History of the Eastern Church; and many other historians or Bible commentators such as Albert Barnes, Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton. Of course one could add Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
Here is a quote from A J Wylies work, "The History of the Waldenses".
"The Waldenes stand apart and alone in the Christian world. Their place on the surface of Europe is unique; their position in history is not less unique; and the end appointed them to fulfill is one which has been assigned to them alone, no other people being permitted to share it with them. The Waldenses bear a twofold testimony. Like the snow-clad peaks amid which their dwelling is placed, which look down upon the plains of Italy on the one side, and the provinces of France on the other, this people stand equally related to primitive ages and modern times, and give by no means equivocal testimony respecting both Rome and the Reformation. If they are old, then Rome is new; if they are pure, then Rome is corrupt; and if they have retained the faith of the apostles, it follows incontestably that Rome has departed from it. That the Waldensian faith and worship existed many centuries before Protestantism arose is undeniable; the proofs and monuments of this fact lie scattered over all the histories and all the lands of mediaeval Europe; but the antiquity of the Waldenses is the antiquity of Protestantism. The Church of the Reformation was in the loins of the Waldensian Church ages before the birth of Luther; her first cradle was placed amid those terrors and sublimities, those ice-clad peaks and great bulwarks of rock. In their dispersions over so many lands—over France, the Low Countries, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, England, Calabria, Naples—the Waldenses sowed the seeds of that great spiritual revival which, beginning in the days of Wycliffe, and advancing in the times of Luther and Calvin, awaits its full consummation in the ages to come."

The Waldenses, are but one group of people whose history is well worth studying. Not from the Roman perspective, for they were their most bitter enemies, and it is far from common sense to believe that modern or ancient papal historians would offer a fair and unbiased view of a people who stood for truth and withstood the inroads of heresy and pagan dogma for so many centuries.

PS. Please don't presume that I have read all the above cited works. But I have read extensive excerpts relevant to things I was interested in, and do count them as reliable sources. There is a great deal of misinformation out there, and false teaching and revisionist history to hide the sins of the past.

So I'm wasting my time providing links to historical sources that contradict your views on:

• 
  The Heruli, 3rd century, Scandinavia and Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Vandals, 5th-6th Germanic people (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Goths, 2nd century Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Albigenses were from 12th-13th century in southern France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Waldenses were early 12th century in France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Lollards originated in the late 14th century England, followers of John Wycliffe (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
  

I'm in serious historical discussion, not in one that is filtered through an anti-Roman Catholic, pro-SDA website.

Oz

 

[brakelite]

So I'm wasting my time providing links to historical sources that contradict your views on:

• 
  The Heruli, 3rd century, Scandinavia and Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Vandals, 5th-6th Germanic people (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Goths, 2nd century Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Albigenses were from 12th-13th century in southern France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Waldenses were early 12th century in France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Lollards originated in the late 14th century England, followers of John Wycliffe (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
  

I'm in serious historical discussion, not in one that is filtered through an anti-Roman Catholic, pro-SDA website.

Oz

I am familiar with the reality and history of the groups mentioned, and in general terms, have no issue with Britannica's summary, exceot in the points it was making regards these people being "heretics'. What I am not sure of is why you are claiming that your links are somehow contradictory to what I have thus far offered. Can you detail your basis for any differences please? I do recommend those other sources...