The Council of Trent and its support of paganism.

[Illuminator]

It was all to stop the Reformation, nothing to go back to the truths of Christ and the apostles, but to continue worship from another origin..

The first 40 popes (roughly) were killed by pagan Romans. Has that ever caught your attention?
You can't, or won't, acknowledge the facts. And your false histories fail the 4 logical test questions in post #36.

 

[Hobie]

The first 40 popes (roughly) were killed by pagan Romans. Has that ever caught your attention?
You can't, or won't, acknowledge the facts. And your false histories fail the 4 logical test questions in post #36.

They weren't "Popes", read your history, there were church leaders and at best bishops, but it wasn't till the secular power got into the act that anyone considered them more than that. Here is a good explanation..
"The Papal Church arose through the favor of the Emperors of the old Imperial Roman Empire. Constantine, who in 313 AD declared Christianity to be the state religion of Imperial Rome, set the stage for this. Before that time, the church was the fellowship of believers under one head, the Lord Jesus Christ, working under their pastors by the authority of the written Word as received in the gospel accounts of the life of the Lord, and the writings of the Apostles together with the Old Testament. The church by Constantine’s design, however, was to be organized and governed on the Imperial Roman Empire model. Thus was governance of the church divided into four great provinces and a bishop in each province elevated above his brothers. Historically, the power of the Bishop of Rome increased as the imperial power of the emperor declined. Besides Justinian’s edict in 538 AD, the edicts of the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman Bishop “as Rector of the whole Church.” So it is that by the edicts of civil powers, with the sanction of the Italian bishops, the Roman Bishop became the head of the Western clergy."...https://bereanbeacon.org/the-biblical-uncovering-of-the-pope-and-the-papacy/

 

[Illuminator]

They weren't "Popes", read your history, there were church leaders and at best bishops, but it wasn't till the secular power got into the act that anyone considered them more than that. Here is a good explanation.

So you refuse to admit the first 40 "leaders" were killed by pagan Romans?
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.

"The Papal Church arose through the favor of the Emperors of the old Imperial Roman Empire. Constantine, who in 313 AD declared Christianity to be the state religion of Imperial Rome, set the stage for this. Before that time, the church was the fellowship of believers under one head, the Lord Jesus Christ, working under their pastors by the authority of the written Word as received in the gospel accounts of the life of the Lord, and the writings of the Apostles together with the Old Testament. The church by Constantine’s design, however, was to be organized and governed on the Imperial Roman Empire model.

Wrong again. Councils follow the template of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and still does.

Thus was governance of the church divided into four great provinces and a bishop in each province elevated above his brothers. Historically, the power of the Bishop of Rome increased as the imperial power of the emperor declined. Besides Justinian’s edict in 538 AD, the edicts of the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman Bishop “as Rector of the whole Church.” So it is that by the edicts of civil powers, with the sanction of the Italian bishops, the Roman Bishop became the head of the Western clergy."...The Biblical Uncovering of the Pope and the Papacy | Berean Beacon

Does your reformist "history" accept the Council of Nicae of 325? I suspect you are an anti-trinitarian, as most, if not all, sabbitarians are. Are you a Seventh Day Adventist?
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. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even an 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.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church - Living Bread Radio Network
Are you an Arian?

Did the Church only become hierarchical after Constantine?

Independent Evangelicals imagine that the church only became hierarchical after it was ‘infected’ by the emperor Constantine’s conversion in 315. At that time, they argue, the monarchical model came across from the court of the emperor and the church moved from being independent, local and congregational to being a centralized, hierarchical arm of the Roman Empire.

Again, this theory has no relation to reality.

Was Leo the Great the First Pope?

The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.

The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

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.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
Authority of the First Popes - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

 

[Illuminator]

Here is the text from Eusebius...

Eusebius - The Quartodeciman Controversy

The controversy was resolved, except for made-in-America Sabbatarians founded in the last 200 years. Here's more from Eusebius:

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

 

[quietthinker]

The controversy was resolved, except for made-in-America Sabbatarians founded in the last 200 years. Here's more from Eusebius:

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

It is clear that even a cursory look at the gospels tells us the Church is built on Jesus, not Peter. A look at Revelation should clarify that beyond question and if you want to dig deeper, the Old Testament. Peter was probably the most outspoken and possibly the oldest but to interpret Jesus' words that the Church was built on Peter in the sense that he is the foundation is a blatant error.

 

[Paul Christensen]

It is clear that even a cursory look at the gospels tells us the Church is built on Jesus, not Peter. A look at Revelation should clarify that beyond question and if you want to dig deeper, the Old Testament. Peter was probably the most outspoken and possibly the oldest but to interpret Jesus' words that the Church was built on Peter in the sense that he is the foundation is a blatant error.

And, there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was ever a bishop in the early church, and although he might have visited Rome and was martyred there, no evidence has been given that he was ever a bishop there and therefore could not have been the first 'pope'.

In fact, if Peter had been risen to a rank of pre-eminence in the church, the Apostle John would have been the first to go and correct him with a very strong rebuke. There was a guy in the church called Diotrephes who was trying to have the pre-eminence (maybe trying to be the first pope!) and John writes to the church saying: "So if I come, I will call attention to his malicious slander against us. And unsatisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers and forbids those who want to do so, even putting them out of the church" (3 John 1:10). Therefore, if Peter had either tried or if others tried to promote Peter to having the pre-eminent position in the church, John would have been the first to publicly oppose and rebuke those who tried to set up a "chair of Peter".

 

[Illuminator]

It is clear that even a cursory look at the gospels tells us the Church is built on Jesus, not Peter. A look at Revelation should clarify that beyond question and if you want to dig deeper, the Old Testament. Peter was probably the most outspoken and possibly the oldest but to interpret Jesus' words that the Church was built on Peter in the sense that he is the foundation is a blatant error.

Ephesians 2:20 is a blatant error?

And, there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was ever a bishop in the early church, and although he might have visited Rome and was martyred there, no evidence has been given that he was ever a bishop there and therefore could not have been the first 'pope'.

In fact, if Peter had been risen to a rank of pre-eminence in the church, the Apostle John would have been the first to go and correct him with a very strong rebuke. There was a guy in the church called Diotrephes who was trying to have the pre-eminence (maybe trying to be the first pope!) and John writes to the church saying: "So if I come, I will call attention to his malicious slander against us. And unsatisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers and forbids those who want to do so, even putting them out of the church" (3 John 1:10). Therefore, if Peter had either tried or if others tried to promote Peter to having the pre-eminent position in the church, John would have been the first to publicly oppose and rebuke those who tried to set up a "chair of Peter".

Peter and John preached the same gospel, they had no doctrinal differences. Peter as first Pope is a derailer to Hobie's false histories. The reason I quoted Eusebius was to show how Hobie cherry picks from him and ignores everything else. It's standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, not church history. Then he cites from Richard Bennett's web page, an apostate ex-priest whose lies have been refuted repeatedly. But after his hatchet job on the Council of Trent. It may not be wise to rush to the defense of an anti-trinity/sabbatarian in a supposedly Christian discussion board.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Ephesians 2:20 is a blatant error?

The reference doesn't prove that Peter was ever the head of the whole church. It says that the church is built on the foundation of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb, Peter just being one of them. The reference is quite clear who is the Head of the Apostles - Jesus Christ, not Peter.

Peter and John preached the same gospel, they had no doctrinal differences. Peter as first Pope is a derailer to Hobie's false histories. The reason I quoted Eusebius was to show how Hobie cherry picks from him and ignores everything else. It's standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, not church history. Then he cites from Richard Bennett's web page, an apostate ex-priest whose lies have been refuted repeatedly. But after his hatchet job on the Council of Trent. It may not be wise to rush to the defense of an anti-trinity/sabbatarian in a supposedly Christian discussion board.

There is absolutely no evidence that Peter was ever the first pope. There is nothing in the New Testament about it. In fact, after the first few chapters of Acts, Peter disappears from the scene. In Galatians Paul rebuked Peter in front of everyone because he sided with the false Judaisers.

The notion that Peter was the first pope is a pretention that was dreamed up later on as the Bishop of Rome decided he was the top dog, and that Peter was the first pope, and the Bishop decided that he occupies the "chair of Peter" through Apostolic succession, which is also something made up to justify his ascendancy to the pre-eminence in the church.

In fact, at the time when the Bishop of Rome asserted his leadership over the church, quite a number of the other bishops and church fathers opposed him.

 

[quietthinker]

Ephesians 2:20 is a blatant error?

Peter and John preached the same gospel, they had no doctrinal differences. Peter as first Pope is a derailer to Hobie's false histories. The reason I quoted Eusebius was to show how Hobie cherry picks from him and ignores everything else. It's standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, not church history. Then he cites from Richard Bennett's web page, an apostate ex-priest whose lies have been refuted repeatedly. But after his hatchet job on the Council of Trent. It may not be wise to rush to the defense of an anti-trinity/sabbatarian in a supposedly Christian discussion board.

Sorry Illuminator your charges don't cut it. Whenever someone points out the the deviation the RCC has taken from the gospel these same old charges against them are regurgitated. It is the RCC who has fabricated a false history. Denial as long as is possible without losing face is how the RCC operates. There is no such thing as coming out up front with their history. The massive issue of pedophilia and buying people off or intimidating them on this issue within the RCC is ongoing and a case in point.

 

[Hobie]

Sorry Illuminator your charges don't cut it. Whenever someone points out the the deviation the RCC has taken from the gospel these same old charges against them are regurgitated. It is the RCC who has fabricated a false history. Denial as long as is possible without losing face is how the RCC operates. There is no such thing as coming out up front with their history. The massive issue of pedophilia and buying people off or intimidating them on this issue within the RCC is ongoing and a case in point.

Those are some serious issues and I don't think they can easily get out of it, as that was one of the reasons Jerome was disturb at and brought up against the church even back then.
"Jerome used a quotation from Virgil—"On all sides round horror spread wide; the very silence breathed a terror on my soul"[17]—to describe the horror of hell. He initially used classical authors to describe Christian concepts such as hell that indicated both his classical education and his deep shame of their associated practices, such as the pederasty then found in Rome...

In Rome Jerome was surrounded by a circle of well-born and well-educated women, including some from the noblest patrician families, such as the widows Lea, Marcella and Paula, with Paula's daughters Blaesilla and Eustochium. The resulting inclination of these women towards the monastic life, away from the indulgent lasciviousness in Rome, and his unsparing criticism of the secular clergy of Rome, brought a growing hostility against him among the Roman clergy and their supporters....

Jerome's letters or epistles, both by the great variety of their subjects and by their qualities of style, form an important portion of his literary remains. Whether he is discussing problems of scholarship, or reasoning on cases of conscience, comforting the afflicted, or saying pleasant things to his friends, scourging the vices and corruptions of the time and against sexual immorality among the clergy"..Jerome - Wikipedia

 

[Hobie]

On the Pagan roots of Transubstantiation its not to hard to make the connection....
"The doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic Church is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as: “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).”1)Catechism of the Catholic Church (Complete and Updated with modifications from the Editio Typica), Doubleday (New York, NY: 1997), p. 395; para 1413 ...

The Catholic’s only Biblical passage to support this doctrine is John 6:51-58. However, if one takes this passage in the sense of physically eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, there becomes major inconsistencies in the interpretation of this passage. First, Christ Himself said, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) Thus they are meant to be understood in a spiritual sense, not physical. Second, if they are taken in the physical sense than the same physical sense must be applied to His words “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51) In this case, eating the Eucharist should keep a person from physically dying. Third, consider the Lord’s words in John 6:35 “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” If understood in the spiritual sense that Christ Himself said it ought to be interpreted, never spiritually hungering or thirsting would confirm the sufficiency of His one time sacrifice not needing to be repeated."..History of the Heresy of Transubstantiation | Truth Watchers

"How did that simple worship evolve into the carefully choreographed practice of a Roman Catholic Mass? In looking at possible reasons, I think it worth taking another look at the practices of the cult of Mithras, which Christianity replaced as the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Justin Martyr accused the devotees of Mithraism of copying the Christian Eucharistic practice:

Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.--Justin Martyr, Op. cit,, Chap 66, p. 343..

During Justin's lifetime and for a millennium after, that powerful and supposedly infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Church debated the issue of transubstantiation. It was settled, at least for those in submission to the Roman high priest, in 1215, when Pope Innocent III declared transubstantiation to be a dogma of the church.

The worship of Mithras was older by nearly two millennia than Christianity. Does it seem reasonable that the priests of Mithras copied Christian sacrificial practice? Or is it more likely that some in the infant church had begun to assimilate doctrine and practice from the official state religion of Rome.

Mithraism, the soldier's cult and official religion of Rome in Justin's time, celebrated a ritual meal. Archaeological evidence indicates that this sacrificial community meal occupied a central position in Mithran worship. In this "divine" meal, worshipers ate the flesh of a sacrificed bull and drank its blood. When no bull was available, bread or fish were used as substitutes for the meat and wine took the place of blood. Mithran initiates believed that, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the bull, they would be born again and would have eternal life.

He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.--M. J. Vermaseren, Mithraic Communion, Mithras, "The Secret God"...

Though the Worship of Mithras can be traced back nearly 4000 years, it was not until sometime in the 2nd century that the cult became powerful in Rome. It is unlikely it in any way colored the writings of the New Testament.

The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament. Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.--Dr. Ronald H. Nash, Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?

Some would disagree with Dr. Nash, pointing out that, in the Mithran practice, the highest of seven levels of attainment for the faithful was that of "pater" (father) and that the senior father was a kind of pope, or senior bishop, whose permanent residence was in Rome.

There were seven degrees of initiation into the mithraic mysteries. The consecrated one (mystes) became in succession crow (corax), occult (cryphius), soldier (miles), lion (leo), Persian (Perses), solar messenger (heliodromos), and father (pater). . . Crows, occults and soldiers formed the lower orders, a sort of catechumens; lions and those admitted to the other degrees were participants of the mysteries. The fathers conducted the worship. The chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called "Pater Patrum" or Pater Patratus." The members below the degree of pater called one another "brother," and social distinctions were forgotten in Mithraic unity.--J.P. Arendzen, Mithraism, "Catholic Encyclopedia", © 1911 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version Copyright © 2007 by Kevin Knight

As Christianity gathered momentum and eventually became the Roman Empire's state religion, Mithraism was shoved to one side and fell out of fashion. However, there was much in the pagan practice that the new state religion adapted for its own use, arguing that they were doing these things to make it easier for them to draw converts from the cult to the bosom of the increasingly Roman Church.

The Mithraic clergy's duty was to maintain the perpetual holy fire on the altar, invoke the planet of the day, offer the sacrifices for the disciples, and preside at initiations. The Mithraic priests were known as Patres Sacrorum, or Fathers of the Sacred Mysteries. Today, the Catholic parish priest is to maintain a vigil flame burning before the tabernacle or other place where the consecrated host is kept, offers sacrifices for the disciples and presides at initiations (baptisms, confirmations, holy orders). Of course, everyone knows Catholic priests answer to the title of "Father."...The Pagan Roots of Transubstantiation

"Transubstantiation has it's origin in ancient pagan religion, not in Christianity.
a. "Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion" (The Story of Civilization, p. 741.) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. (Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, by Dill.)" (Mark Edward Sohmer, The Gospel of Rome, Part 15: Transubstantiation, www.sohmer.net)
b. "In Egypt, priests would consecrate meat cakes, which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris! (an ancient Egyptian god of the lower world and judge of the dead - Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76.) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharistic rites. (Ibid.)" (Mark Edward Sohmer, The Gospel of Rome, Part 15: Transubstantiation, www.sohmer.net)
c. "The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries, "their surpass was heightened when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion... an image made of flour... and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it... declaring it was the flesh of deity." (Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.)" (Mark Edward Sohmer, The Gospel of Rome, Part 15: Transubstantiation, www.sohmer.net)"...Communion (Part 5) - Origin of Transubstantiation; Eucharist in One Kind; Eucharist Worship | The Excelsior Springs Church

 

[Hobie]

Here is more.."The Zucchetti which is worn by Catholic priests, cardinals and the Pope, represents respect, fear and submission to Cybele, the Mother Goddess of Rome.

Everything that Catholic/Anglican priest wears from head to feet is of Pagan origin. The Mitre hat of Popes, Cardinal, Archbishops, and Bishops we need look no further than the Babylonian Fish God’s priest head regalia. Also, the sources of their vestment that they wear come from the Pagan Priest of Rome and Babylon.

Eucharist/Transubstatioation

By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation. (3) as defined by the council of Trent

Where did this teaching and practise really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practised by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practised by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is “one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion.” 12 The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. 13 In Egypt, priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. 14 The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites"....True Pagan Origins

 

[historyb]

These are no lies neither is it hate speech historyb. It is the Great Babylon being exposed and the more so as the consumption draws closer.

It is all lies. This thread is why I have come to resent evangelicals so much

 

[quietthinker]

It is all lies. This thread is why I have come to resent evangelicals so much

Thats unfortunate. How can a system that claims the higher ground produce adherents that resent others because they have a different view?... or is it that their enthusiasm will have them travel land and sea to make a single convert and when they have made him he becomes twice as much the son of hell as themselves?
I'm asking you to consider the questions seriously.

 

[Philip James]

Here is more.."The Zucchetti which is worn by Catholic priests, cardinals and the Pope, represents respect, fear and submission to Cybele, the Mother Goddess of Rome.

Everything that Catholic/Anglican priest wears from head to feet is of Pagan origin. The Mitre hat of Popes, Cardinal, Archbishops, and Bishops we need look no further than the Babylonian Fish God’s priest head regalia. Also, the sources of their vestment that they wear come from the Pagan Priest of Rome and Babylon.

Eucharist/Transubstatioation

By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation. (3) as defined by the council of Trent

Where did this teaching and practise really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practised by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practised by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is “one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion.” 12 The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. 13 In Egypt, priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. 14 The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites"....True Pagan Origins

See post #7

 

[historyb]

Thats unfortunate. How can a system that claims the higher ground produce adherents that resent others because they have a different view?... or is it that their enthusiasm will have them travel land and sea to make a single convert and when they have made him he becomes twice as much the son of hell as themselves?
I'm asking you to consider the questions seriously.

I am serious and I am not Catholic. This part of yours " or is it that their enthusiasm will have them travel land and sea to make a single convert and when they have made him he becomes twice as much the son of hell as themselves" I consider many evangelicals

 

[Paul Christensen]

On the Pagan roots of Transubstantiation its not to hard to make the connection....
"The doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic Church is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as: “By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).”1)Catechism of the Catholic Church (Complete and Updated with modifications from the Editio Typica), Doubleday (New York, NY: 1997), p. 395; para 1413 ...

The Catholic’s only Biblical passage to support this doctrine is John 6:51-58. However, if one takes this passage in the sense of physically eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, there becomes major inconsistencies in the interpretation of this passage. First, Christ Himself said, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) Thus they are meant to be understood in a spiritual sense, not physical. Second, if they are taken in the physical sense than the same physical sense must be applied to His words “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51) In this case, eating the Eucharist should keep a person from physically dying. Third, consider the Lord’s words in John 6:35 “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” If understood in the spiritual sense that Christ Himself said it ought to be interpreted, never spiritually hungering or thirsting would confirm the sufficiency of His one time sacrifice not needing to be repeated."..History of the Heresy of Transubstantiation | Truth Watchers

"How did that simple worship evolve into the carefully choreographed practice of a Roman Catholic Mass? In looking at possible reasons, I think it worth taking another look at the practices of the cult of Mithras, which Christianity replaced as the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Justin Martyr accused the devotees of Mithraism of copying the Christian Eucharistic practice:

Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.--Justin Martyr, Op. cit,, Chap 66, p. 343..

During Justin's lifetime and for a millennium after, that powerful and supposedly infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Church debated the issue of transubstantiation. It was settled, at least for those in submission to the Roman high priest, in 1215, when Pope Innocent III declared transubstantiation to be a dogma of the church.

The worship of Mithras was older by nearly two millennia than Christianity. Does it seem reasonable that the priests of Mithras copied Christian sacrificial practice? Or is it more likely that some in the infant church had begun to assimilate doctrine and practice from the official state religion of Rome.

Mithraism, the soldier's cult and official religion of Rome in Justin's time, celebrated a ritual meal. Archaeological evidence indicates that this sacrificial community meal occupied a central position in Mithran worship. In this "divine" meal, worshipers ate the flesh of a sacrificed bull and drank its blood. When no bull was available, bread or fish were used as substitutes for the meat and wine took the place of blood. Mithran initiates believed that, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the bull, they would be born again and would have eternal life.

He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.--M. J. Vermaseren, Mithraic Communion, Mithras, "The Secret God"...

Though the Worship of Mithras can be traced back nearly 4000 years, it was not until sometime in the 2nd century that the cult became powerful in Rome. It is unlikely it in any way colored the writings of the New Testament.

The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything that appears in the New Testament. Moreover, no monuments for the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions. Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable. Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an influence.--Dr. Ronald H. Nash, Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?

Some would disagree with Dr. Nash, pointing out that, in the Mithran practice, the highest of seven levels of attainment for the faithful was that of "pater" (father) and that the senior father was a kind of pope, or senior bishop, whose permanent residence was in Rome.

There were seven degrees of initiation into the mithraic mysteries. The consecrated one (mystes) became in succession crow (corax), occult (cryphius), soldier (miles), lion (leo), Persian (Perses), solar messenger (heliodromos), and father (pater). . . Crows, occults and soldiers formed the lower orders, a sort of catechumens; lions and those admitted to the other degrees were participants of the mysteries. The fathers conducted the worship. The chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called "Pater Patrum" or Pater Patratus." The members below the degree of pater called one another "brother," and social distinctions were forgotten in Mithraic unity.--J.P. Arendzen, Mithraism, "Catholic Encyclopedia", © 1911 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version Copyright © 2007 by Kevin Knight

As Christianity gathered momentum and eventually became the Roman Empire's state religion, Mithraism was shoved to one side and fell out of fashion. However, there was much in the pagan practice that the new state religion adapted for its own use, arguing that they were doing these things to make it easier for them to draw converts from the cult to the bosom of the increasingly Roman Church.

The Mithraic clergy's duty was to maintain the perpetual holy fire on the altar, invoke the planet of the day, offer the sacrifices for the disciples, and preside at initiations. The Mithraic priests were known as Patres Sacrorum, or Fathers of the Sacred Mysteries. Today, the Catholic parish priest is to maintain a vigil flame burning before the tabernacle or other place where the consecrated host is kept, offers sacrifices for the disciples and presides at initiations (baptisms, confirmations, holy orders). Of course, everyone knows Catholic priests answer to the title of "Father."...The Pagan Roots of Transubstantiation

"Transubstantiation has it's origin in ancient pagan religion, not in Christianity.
a. "Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion" (The Story of Civilization, p. 741.) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. (Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, by Dill.)" (Mark Edward Sohmer, The Gospel of Rome, Part 15: Transubstantiation, www.sohmer.net)
b. "In Egypt, priests would consecrate meat cakes, which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris! (an ancient Egyptian god of the lower world and judge of the dead - Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76.) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharistic rites. (Ibid.)" (Mark Edward Sohmer, The Gospel of Rome, Part 15: Transubstantiation, www.sohmer.net)
c. "The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries, "their surpass was heightened when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion... an image made of flour... and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it... declaring it was the flesh of deity." (Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.)" (Mark Edward Sohmer, The Gospel of Rome, Part 15: Transubstantiation, www.sohmer.net)"...Communion (Part 5) - Origin of Transubstantiation; Eucharist in One Kind; Eucharist Worship | The Excelsior Springs Church

Very informative!

 

[Paul Christensen]

The controversy was resolved, except for made-in-America Sabbatarians founded in the last 200 years. Here's more from Eusebius:

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

Eusebius misinterpreted the Scripture reference that clearly states that Jesus Christ, being the chief corner stone, is the Rock on which the church is built. Jesus said to Peter that he was just a little stone, but by comparison, the great Rock is the revelation that came to Peter from the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

In effect, the Roman Catholic church has pushed Jesus Christ aside as the foundation of the church, and replace Him with Peter, and because the present pope is Peter's "successor" through "Apostolic Succession", he replaces Jesus Christ as the head of the church and that all revelation has to come through him, even though much of it has superceded what is clearly stated in the written Scriptures.

 

[Illuminator]

Here is more.."The Zucchetti which is worn by Catholic priests, cardinals and the Pope, represents respect, fear and submission to Cybele, the Mother Goddess of Rome.

Everything that Catholic/Anglican priest wears from head to feet is of Pagan origin. The Mitre hat of Popes, Cardinal, Archbishops, and Bishops we need look no further than the Babylonian Fish God’s priest head regalia. Also, the sources of their vestment that they wear come from the Pagan Priest of Rome and Babylon.

Eucharist/Transubstatioation

By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation. (3) as defined by the council of Trent

Where did this teaching and practise really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practised by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practised by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is “one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion.” 12 The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. 13 In Egypt, priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. 14 The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites"....True Pagan Origins

Chick Publications? More lies and false histories. It would take a book to refute them all. They don't hold up to scrutiny; they fail the 4 logical test questions in post #36. Here it is again:
Is Catholicism Pagan?
I will not waste my time with a revisionist that denies the Trinity and references anti-Catholic bigots like Richard Bennett and Jack Chick. You disqualify yourself.

 

[Illuminator]

Here is more.."The Zucchetti which is worn by Catholic priests, cardinals and the Pope, represents respect, fear and submission to Cybele, the Mother Goddess of Rome.

Everything that Catholic/Anglican priest wears from head to feet is of Pagan origin. The Mitre hat of Popes, Cardinal, Archbishops, and Bishops we need look no further than the Babylonian Fish God’s priest head regalia. Also, the sources of their vestment that they wear come from the Pagan Priest of Rome and Babylon.

Eucharist/Transubstatioation

By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation. (3) as defined by the council of Trent

Where did this teaching and practise really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practised by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practised by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is “one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion.” 12 The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. 13 In Egypt, priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. 14 The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites"....True Pagan Origins

How the Satanic Black Mass Proves the Truth of Catholicism
There have been a number of stories in the news lately of small Satanic groups publicly performing so-called “Black Masses.”

These rituals are based on the Catholic mass but are inverted toward Satan and often involve the desecration of a Eucharistic host.

This sort of thing is evil and should not be taken lightly. It’s also occurred to me, though, how these Black Masses offer a powerful argument for the truth of Catholicism.

[See also: Why Satan Is So Scared of St. John Paul II, According to Rome’s Chief Exorcist]

[See also: A Priest’s Warning Against the Devil’s 10 Deadliest Tricks]

The Eucharist is either Jesus or Evil
The Eucharist is either Jesus or mere bread and wine.

If the Eucharist is Jesus, everyone should be at Mass, worshipping Our Lord. If the Eucharist is Jesus, there should be no such thing as Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, atheism, etc. But if the Eucharist isn’t Jesus, then for two thousand years, the would-be followers of Jesus Christ were actually idolaters. If that’s the case, nobody should be Catholic.

So those are the stakes. Everyone who encountered Jesus of Nazareth was faced with a crucial question: is this God, in some mysterious guise, or not? The early Christians called this the “aut Deus aut malus homo” (“either God or a bad man”). Everyone encountering the Eucharist is faced with the same question: either God or idolatry.

And of course, if the Eucharist is pagan idolatry, it’s demonic. As 1 Corinthians 10:20 says, “what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.”

The whole world hangs on this point: is the Eucharist Jesus or an idol? Is the Sacrifice of the Mass being offered to God, or to demons?

Satan Hates the Eucharist
The satanic Black Mass is a ritual inversion (and mockery) of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed by Satanists. Now, there are two types of Satanists: “LaVey Satanists,” and “theological Satanists.” LaVey Satanists atheists who don’t believe in Satan, and use “Satanism” as a tool to harass and provoke Christians (unlike“theological Satanists,” who believe in Satan and worship him). But whether the practitioners are playing at the occult, or serious, there’s no question that they’re tapping into some seriously dark spiritual forces. Satan is at work here.

And it worth pointing out that when Satanists (of both kind) want to mock a religious ritual, you can bet that it’s going to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that they target. How often do you hear about Muslim or Hindu or Jewish (or even Protestant) services being subjected to such intense Satanic mockery?

Nor is this Satanic targeting of the Mass anything new. As far back as the fourth century, St. Epiphanius of Salamis described a sect of Gnosticism performing a perverted mockery of Mass. I won’t go into the details, but it was graphic enough that the members of this sect became known as “Borborians” (“filthy ones”).

Satan Doesn’t Drive Out Satan
So the Eucharist is either Jesus or evil (since if it’s not Jesus, it’s idolatry) and since the devil hates the Eucharist, we can cross “evil” off the list.

For some additional Biblical support, consider Matthew 12.22-28:

“Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Be-el′zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”

“Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Be-el′zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

This passage is important: it shows, for example, that Catholic exorcists are operating by the Spirit of God when they drive out demons. But it also means that if Satan hates the Mass, we can be sure that the Mass isn’t evil.

Of course, if the Mass isn’t demonic, if it isn’t idolatry, that really only leaves one option: that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass is presenting Jesus to the Father. This (and as far as I can tell, this alone), accounts for the Satanic mockery.

The Target of Satan
Even if the only thing you knew about Catholicism was that its central form of worship, the Mass, was the target of Satanic ire, you would already have good reason to believe that Catholicism was the true religion.

But taken with all of the other evidence for the truth that the Eucharist is Jesus, that the Mass is a Sacrifice instituted by God, and that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, Satan is just one more (unwitting) witness for the truth of Jesus Christ and His Church.