What is the one true Church?

[quietthinker]

I understand how some interpret Revelation as talking about the Catholic Church and it fuels the hate in Christianity.
A lot of bad feelings between the Catholic Church and Protestants and others....
But you do not want to turn Christianity into a religion of hate. Hate fuels Satan and brings Satan into your heart and your life.
The past is past....one of the primary tenets of faith is forgiveness. The miracle of faith is that it works both ways. The miracle of forgiving others relievers the pain of hate for them and yourself.
Christ asks for very little.....love one another....if you cannot do that how deep is your understanding? If you do not forgive others why would you expect him to forgive you?
For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. Matthew 6:14-15
Some people think it is a demonstration of faith to hate Catholics....what it is, is a demonstration of not understanding Christ or Christianity.
It is one of the reasons I say that it is not enough to memorize the scriptures....that does not mean you understand them....and even more importantly know the Spirit of Christ and Christianity.
Hate in your heart destroys the Spirit of Christianity, not just you, but Christianity as a whole. The body of Christ is corrupted by the hate within. What have we learned from Christ....if we have not learned love and forgiveness....what have we learned?
A religion of hate is a disgrace to Christ.

Conflating hate with identifying a culprit is an extremely poor connection. I do not hate you Gh but I can see you are determined to maintain your view, even when there is good reason for reasonable doubt

 

[Grailhunter]

Conflating hate with identifying a culprit is an extremely poor connection. I do not hate you Gh but I can see you are determined to maintain your view, even when there is good reason for reasonable doubt

You have no good reason. It is a form of insanity and I have explained that in detail. The desire to control other people's bodies. The desire to control people down to the most personal level. The desire to control what people believe has always been a desire, but always the folly of fools. People want to tell you what to believe. Now a days freedom of speech is nearly non-existent, it is considered politically incorrect to speak the truth. If some one is killed for speaking the truth the court will let the murderer off as justifiable homicide. Labeling telling the truth as aggravated assault.....Didn't that guy learn anything from WOKE!

The history of individualism and rationality. There was a time the Church believed that people did not own their own bodies and that is one of the ways they justified the atrocities.

I pray that the Catholic Church can move forward out of this craziness....I love Catholics and the Church....I want to see it respected again. I only want good things for Catholics.

And I have demonstrated my patience and self control here on this thread....being called a liar and stupid and everything else. Because that is how love works, I only want good for you guys. I am sure the same thing happened to Paul and those in his ministry. But I am not under the same pressure as Paul or the minsters of today. I do not care if people believe the truth, my responsibility is to know the truth and tell the truth....Then I let go of it....The Johnny Appleseed of Truth....planting seeds just as Christ described. The seeds are not mine and what happens after I cast them is up to God and I march on smartly and continue on with my ministry. But it would never occur to me to want to control people, much less try to. So I am immune to the insanity.

 

[Illuminator]

This should be a sticky.

Thus, the true church is not a place to go to, nor is it a denomination to belong to. The church is the gathering of sincere believers.

You can fit 1000 sincere believers in your living room?

Paul emphasized this when he confirmed that Jesus’ followers were baptized only into Christ and not into an earthly organization.

A false dichotomy. First, Jesus' followers were always in an earthly organization.
The Seat of Moses was an earthly organization. It was the Magisterium of the OT.
The Twelve Thrones promised by Jesus to the Apostles was and is an earthly and heavenly organization.
The Council of Jerusalem was an earthly organization- Apostles and elders, the Magisterium of the biblical era.
The Council of Nicae (where the Nicene Creed came from) was the Magisterium of the post biblical era, following the model of the Jerusalem Council in it's ecclesial structure. It was an earthly organization.

There is but one baptism, and that is into Christ. Thus, it is a misconception that one joins or is baptized into a particular church denomination. Ephesians 4:4-6; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3, 4

This leads to the misconception that one can be a church unto themselves, or start their own church, or instill more division in forums. The Catholic Church accepts most non-Catholic baptisms as valid. That should be a sticky because those who seek more division don't want to know why and don't care.
The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

 

[St. Joseph]

You can fit 1000 sincere believers in your living room?

A false dichotomy. First, Jesus' followers were always in an earthly organization.
The Seat of Moses was an earthly organization. It was the Magisterium of the OT.
The Twelve Thrones promised by Jesus to the Apostles was and is an earthly and heavenly organization.
The Council of Jerusalem was an earthly organization- Apostles and elders, the Magisterium of the biblical era.
The Council of Nicae (where the Nicene Creed came from) was the Magisterium of the post biblical era, following the model of the Jerusalem Council in it's ecclesial structure. It was an earthly organization.

This leads to the misconception that one can be a church unto themselves, or start their own church, or instill more division in forums. The Catholic Church accepts most non-Catholic baptisms as valid. That should be a sticky because those who seek more division don't want to know why and don't care.
The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Hol

You can fit 1000 sincere believers in your living room?

A false dichotomy. First, Jesus' followers were always in an earthly organization.
The Seat of Moses was an earthly organization. It was the Magisterium of the OT.
The Twelve Thrones promised by Jesus to the Apostles was and is an earthly and heavenly organization.
The Council of Jerusalem was an earthly organization- Apostles and elders, the Magisterium of the biblical era.
The Council of Nicae (where the Nicene Creed came from) was the Magisterium of the post biblical era, following the model of the Jerusalem Council in it's ecclesial structure. It was an earthly organization.

This leads to the misconception that one can be a church unto themselves, or start their own church, or instill more division in forums. The Catholic Church accepts most non-Catholic baptisms as valid. That should be a sticky because those who seek more division don't want to know why and don't care.
The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

You had me hooked until you started pulling for catholic so called church

 

[quietthinker]

You have no good reason. It is a form of insanity and I have explained that in detail. The desire to control other people's bodies. The desire to control people down to the most personal level. The desire to control what people believe has always been a desire, but always the folly of fools. People want to tell you what to believe. Now a days freedom of speech is nearly non-existent, it is considered politically incorrect to speak the truth. If some one is killed for speaking the truth the court will let the murderer off as justifiable homicide. Labeling telling the truth as aggravated assault.....Didn't that guy learn anything from WOKE!

The history of individualism and rationality. There was a time the Church believed that people did not own their own bodies and that is one of the ways they justified the atrocities.

I pray that the Catholic Church can move forward out of this craziness....I love Catholics and the Church....I want to see it respected again. I only want good things for Catholics.

And I have demonstrated my patience and self control here on this thread....being called a liar and stupid and everything else. Because that is how love works, I only want good for you guys. I am sure the same thing happened to Paul and those in his ministry. But I am not under the same pressure as Paul or the minsters of today. I do not care if people believe the truth, my responsibility is to know the truth and tell the truth....Then I let go of it....The Johnny Appleseed of Truth....planting seeds just as Christ described. The seeds are not mine and what happens after I cast them is up to God and I march on smartly and continue on with my ministry. But it would never occur to me to want to control people, much less try to. So I am immune to the insanity.

who wants to control you?

 

[Grailhunter]

who wants to control you?

We are talking about the Catholic Church.

 

[Marymog]

The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period.

Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291. Crusading declined rapidly during the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation and the decline of papal authority. (Brittanica.com)

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns organised by popes and Christian western powers to take Jerusalem and the Holy Land back from Muslim control and then defend those gains. There were eight major official crusades between 1095 and 1270, as well as many more unofficial ones.

Although there were many crusades, none would be as successful as the first, and by 1291 the Crusader-created states in the Middle East were absorbed into the Mamluk Sultanate. The idea of crusading was applied more successfully (for Christians) to other regions, notably in the Baltic against European pagans and in the Iberian Peninsula against the Muslim Moors.

Involving emperors, kings, and Europe's nobility, as well as thousands of knights and more humble warriors, the Crusades would have tremendous consequences for all involved. The effects, besides the obvious death, ruined lives, destruction and wasted resources, ranged from the collapse of the Byzantine Empire to a souring of relations and intolerance between religions and peoples in the East and West which still blights governments and societies today. (world history.org)

YOU are ignorant of your own Christian history and Scripture.

Thank you for agreeing with me Jim B and taking up my side against @amigo de christo when I said "It was not the Catholic Church that took up arms"!!! You pretty much REPEATED WHAT I SAID......

THE FACT IS: The Church DIDN'T HAVE ANY ARMIES therefore they could not take up arms.......

 

[Marymog]

The popes , some of them sure seemed to SUPPORT it and call for it . Sure they didnt pick up arms .

Yup, that is true. WE AGREE.....

 

[Marymog]

The popes , some of them sure seemed to SUPPORT it and call for it . Sure they didnt pick up arms .

Yup, that is true and what I said

This was the environment that the Catholic Church was born in and luckily it had the Roman Empire by its side to keep its enemies at bay. It is true that the Catholic clergy generally did not take up arms, but the Empires and Kingdoms were their military arms to do their bidding. Eventually you would have Christian Knights and some of them were monks.

The Catholic Church changed the Roman Empire, Christian beliefs made the Empire more civilized and kinder. Byzantium was built and it was a city of Christian learning. The Roman Empire changed but it still existed in a very primitive and violent era and the enemies of Rome saw this kinder Christian Rome as a weakness and the Roman Empire found itself under attack from all sides.

Hey Grailhunter,

Did you know that the first usage of the word “Catholic” to describe the Christians that were members of The Church is in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch and was written around the year 107AD???

The Roman authorities were killing Christians in 107 AD. Sooooo your theory that "the environment that the Catholic Church was born in" doesn't add up. The Roman Empire was NOT "by its side to keep its enemies at bay." The Roman Empire WAS the enemy.

 

[Grailhunter]

Did you know that the first usage of the word “Catholic” to describe the Christians that were members of The Church is in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch and was written around the year 107AD???

I do know that and we have talked about it on this thread.
And it makes some sense.
The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective, katholikos, meaning "universal," and from the adverbial phrase, kath' holou, meaning "on the whole." The term was first used by St. Ignatius
When Christianity offered salvation to the Pagans, from their perspective it became a world religion....you can say universal or the whole world. And it was known to be a Universal Church. When the Church of Rome was established after 312 AD they adopted the name quite appropriately. The Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman authorities were killing Christians in 107 AD. Sooooo your theory that "the environment that the Catholic Church was born in" doesn't add up. The Roman Empire was NOT "by its side to keep its enemies at bay." The Roman Empire WAS the enemy.

History confuses people. The Roman persecutions of Christians lasted approximately 250 years and they were worse than can be described here. Generations of Christians living under the threat of the horror.

Then came Constantine, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the Edict of Milan 312 AD and Emperor Constantine presided over the Council at Nicaea, shortly after that the Roman Catholic Church was born. Then Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-95) made the Catholic Church the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380. Emperor Constantine made plans to build a spectacular city dedicated to Christianity. In what was considered a miracle, Constantinople was built over a six years period, and consecrated on 11 May 330.

From the time of Constantine the Roman Empire was the military arm of the Roman Catholic Church. And through out history the Catholic Church was connected to most of the governments of Europe.....The Roman Empire then became the Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Charlemagne and he initiated a copy process in scriptoriums and a Catholic education renaissance called the Carolingian Renaissance which goals were to educate the public through the clergy and standardize Church services. After this nearly all of the kingdoms of Europe were connected to the Catholic Church, which did not go well at all. In America the colonies separated themselves from the Catholic Church and the concept of separation of church and state was made constitutional to prevent what had happened in Europe with the Catholic Church and the Church of England being part of the governing body.

 

[Illuminator]

I do know that and we have talked about it on this thread.
And it makes some sense.
The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective, katholikos, meaning "universal," and from the adverbial phrase, kath' holou, meaning "on the whole." The term was first used by St. Ignatius
When Christianity offered salvation to the Pagans, from their perspective it became a world religion....you can say universal or the whole world. And it was known to be a Universal Church. When the Church of Rome was established after 312 AD they adopted the name quite appropriately. The Roman Catholic Church.

This is absurd. There is no evidence the Catholic Church was called "The Roman Catholic Church" at this time.

History confuses people. The Roman persecutions of Christians lasted approximately 250 years and they were worse than can be described here. Generations of Christians living under the threat of the horror.

Then came Constantine, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the Edict of Milan 312 AD and Emperor Constantine presided over the Council at Nicaea, shortly after that the Roman Catholic Church was born.

Nonsense. Emperor Constantine presided over the Council at Nicaea as a temporal ruler, not as a spiritual ruler. He had no say whatsoever in the formulations of the canons of the council, which you reject in the first place. The Church IN Rome was established by St's Peter and Paul where they were both executed by pagan Romans. "shortly after that the Roman Catholic Church was born" is revisionist lunacy, as it has been proven time and time again the Catholic Church existed from Pentecost on.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to convene an ecumenical council without the Pope. Pope Sylvester agreed with Constantine that a council had to be convened to deal with the Arian crisis, a fact you ignore because you deny there was a pope at all. The notion that Constantine convened a council independently from pope is stupid and absurd. Pope Sylvester was too sick to make the journey all the way to Nicae so he sent 2 legates with his full authority, as attested by every encyclopedia in the world, that you arrogantly deny.

13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:

Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network

This has been posted several times and the reason you deny it is because it doesn't fit your false version of church history.

Then Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-95) made the Catholic Church the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380.

The abolishment of pagan idolatry, that you never mention, is NOT a bad thing.

Emperor Constantine made plans to build a spectacular city dedicated to Christianity. In what was considered a miracle, Constantinople was built over a six years period, and consecrated on 11 May 330.

From the time of Constantine the Roman Empire was the military arm of the Roman Catholic Church. And through out history the Catholic Church was connected to most of the governments of Europe.....The Roman Empire then became the Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Charlemagne and he initiated a copy process in scriptoriums and a Catholic education renaissance called the Carolingian Renaissance which goals were to educate the public through the clergy and standardize Church services. After this nearly all of the kingdoms of Europe were connected to the Catholic Church, which did not go well at all. In America the colonies separated themselves from the Catholic Church and the concept of separation of church and state was made constitutional to prevent what had happened in Europe with the Catholic Church and the Church of England being part of the governing body.

The Roman Empire collapsed in the fourth century, and you never mention that because it doesn't fit your false version of church history.

The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy.[1] In many of the existing manuscripts (handwritten copies of the document), including the oldest one, the document bears the title Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris.[2] The Donation of Constantine was included in the 9th-century collection Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals.

Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439–1440,[3] although the document's authenticity had been repeatedly contested since 1001.[1]

Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope." is based on a forged document fabricated some 500 years after Constantine.

The Catholic Church the Pope and the Donation of Constantine - Catholic Truth

The truth about the Donation of Constantine from Catholic Truth

catholictruth.org

 

[Grailhunter]

This is absurd. There is no evidence the Catholic Church was called "The Roman Catholic Church" at this time.

So you think that the Church had no connection to Rome? It was definitely Roman. You guys want it both ways. You want to say that Peter had a connection to Rome but you want to distance the Catholic Church from the Roman Empire. Now you know why I have to have a sense of humor. It is all about the practice of making religions and history about what you like and don't like.....that is what is called a fantasy.....make it up as you go with no connection to reality. Back in the day it would be considered absurd to try to distance the Catholic Church from the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine was commanding that the Ecumenical Councils to assemble and he was funding all of it and attended some of them. The enemies of the Catholic Church were the enemies of the Roman Empire.....Priests did not saddle up with swords....it was roman soldiers.

I could say why is it that I have to teach Catholics about their own history? But that would sound like I was complaining. But I have to do the same thing with the Protestants. Most Christian denominations....and yes I consider the Catholic Church a denomination....were not started by theologians nor are their priests or preachers theologians.....they preach what they like. Educated theologians know that, that is why there are so many denominations and the Catholic Church is no exception. I had to tell the Protestants that it was part of their history that they were the first to require a wedding ceremony to be married....oh shock shock.

I call it the Roman Catholic Church because it was not West African. Its root are from Rome, Italy, it owes it existence to the Roman Empire....

When the Greek Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church, they still considered themselves Catholic.....the term was used to differentiate the difference between the two churches.

Here ya go....
The Eastern Orthodox Church, also called the Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church is the second-largest Christian church, ...

Now did the Catholic Church ever refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church? I would say yes. Did other people call the Church out of Rome the Roman Catholic Church....that I can prove. Now a days the Protestants use it as an insult and the Catholic Church prefers to distance itself from the Roman Empire because.....they do not like it....not because it is not reality. The Roman Empire supported the Catholic Church and between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire they were the military arm of the Catholic Church. So their is no one saying back then that they needed to distance themselves from Rome.

Nonsense. Emperor Constantine presided over the Council at Nicaea as a temporal ruler, not as a spiritual ruler.

Can you provide a transcript or minutes of the meeting.....again believing what you like to believe.

He had no say whatsoever in the formulations of the canons of the council,

This would be technically incorrect.
First Council of Nicaea, (325), was called by the emperor Constantine I, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. I do not think that Constantine knew enough about Christian theology to make decisions, but was part of the discussions.

And I never said I do not agree with all of the councils decisions.

The Church IN Rome was established by St's Peter and Paul where they were both executed by pagan Romans

More accurate to say that Peter may have started a congregation in Rome.....the Catholic Church did not exist back then

shortly after that the Roman Catholic Church was born"

The Catholic Church was born after 312 AD. A lot of people worked at organizing the Catholic Church....but to say that their was one person that caused to happen....it was Constantine.

is revisionist lunacy, as it has been proven time and time again the Catholic Church existed from Pentecost on.

As your fantasy.

13 Logical Problems with the Constantine Founder Myth:
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | Living Bread Radio Network This has been posted several times and the reason you deny it is because it doesn't fit your false version of church history.

This is all organized fantasy.
Who made Christianity legal?
Who made it made the Catholic Church the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Who commanded the councils to assemble?
Who funded the Ecumenical Councils?
Who funded the Catholic Church?
Who funded the first Catholic Church buildings.
Who moved against the people that the Church declaimed as heretics
Who defended the Catholic Church....did the Priests fight the Pagan Visigoths and Ostrogoths Maguire horsemen, and Vikings.

If you are going to pick a fantasy religion may I recommend the Lord of the Rings.

The Roman Empire collapsed in the fourth century, and you never mention that because it doesn't fit your false version of church history.

You want to dabble in history? Or do you just want to make it up as you go....not the Roman Catholic Church but the Fantasy Catholic Church. First off the Roman Empire did not collapse in the 4th century...now the city of Rome fell to the Pagans in the 5th century. So now that you are dabbling in history.....where were the Catholics when the city of Rome fell? Go look it up. And then tell me when the Roman Empire did "fall."

 

[Marymog]

I do know that and we have talked about it on this thread.
And it makes some sense.
The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective, katholikos, meaning "universal," and from the adverbial phrase, kath' holou, meaning "on the whole." The term was first used by St. Ignatius
When Christianity offered salvation to the Pagans, from their perspective it became a world religion....you can say universal or the whole world. And it was known to be a Universal Church. When the Church of Rome was established after 312 AD they adopted the name quite appropriately. The Roman Catholic Church.



History confuses people. The Roman persecutions of Christians lasted approximately 250 years and they were worse than can be described here. Generations of Christians living under the threat of the horror.

Then came Constantine, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the Edict of Milan 312 AD and Emperor Constantine presided over the Council at Nicaea, shortly after that the Roman Catholic Church was born. Then Emperor Theodosius I (r. 379-95) made the Catholic Church the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380. Emperor Constantine made plans to build a spectacular city dedicated to Christianity. In what was considered a miracle, Constantinople was built over a six years period, and consecrated on 11 May 330.

From the time of Constantine the Roman Empire was the military arm of the Roman Catholic Church. And through out history the Catholic Church was connected to most of the governments of Europe.....The Roman Empire then became the Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Charlemagne and he initiated a copy process in scriptoriums and a Catholic education renaissance called the Carolingian Renaissance which goals were to educate the public through the clergy and standardize Church services. After this nearly all of the kingdoms of Europe were connected to the Catholic Church, which did not go well at all. In America the colonies separated themselves from the Catholic Church and the concept of separation of church and state was made constitutional to prevent what had happened in Europe with the Catholic Church and the Church of England being part of the governing body.

Thank you for your response.

In Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he writes: Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

That shows that there was a established “Catholic Church” with leadership (bishops) 200 years BEFORE Constantine caused the Catholic Church to be……as you said….”born” after Nicaea.

Furthermore, there were distinctive doctrines of the Catholic Church that were taught WELL before Constantine lived.

And finally when the council of Nicaea was called…..WHO did they call To come to particpate in the council?

 

[Marymog]

So you think that the Church had no connection to Rome? It was definitely Roman. You guys want it both ways. You want to say that Peter had a connection to Rome but you want to distance the Catholic Church from the Roman Empire. Now you know why I have to have a sense of humor. It is all about the practice of making religions and history about what you like and don't like.....that is what is called a fantasy.....make it up as you go with no connection to reality. Back in the day it would be considered absurd to try to distance the Catholic Church from the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine was commanding that the Ecumenical Councils to assemble and he was funding all of it and attended some of them. The enemies of the Catholic Church were the enemies of the Roman Empire.....Priests did not saddle up with swords....it was roman soldiers.

I could say why is it that I have to teach Catholics about their own history? But that would sound like I was complaining. But I have to do the same thing with the Protestants. Most Christian denominations....and yes I consider the Catholic Church a denomination....were not started by theologians nor are their priests or preachers theologians.....they preach what they like. Educated theologians know that, that is why there are so many denominations and the Catholic Church is no exception. I had to tell the Protestants that it was part of their history that they were the first to require a wedding ceremony to be married....oh shock shock.

I call it the Roman Catholic Church because it was not West African. Its root are from Rome, Italy, it owes it existence to the Roman Empire....

When the Greek Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church, they still considered themselves Catholic.....the term was used to differentiate the difference between the two churches.

Here ya go....
The Eastern Orthodox Church, also called the Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church is the second-largest Christian church, ...

Now did the Catholic Church ever refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church? I would say yes. Did other people call the Church out of Rome the Roman Catholic Church....that I can prove. Now a days the Protestants use it as an insult and the Catholic Church prefers to distance itself from the Roman Empire because.....they do not like it....not because it is not reality. The Roman Empire supported the Catholic Church and between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire they were the military arm of the Catholic Church. So their is no one saying back then that they needed to distance themselves from Rome.


Can you provide a transcript or minutes of the meeting.....again believing what you like to believe.


This would be technically incorrect.
First Council of Nicaea, (325), was called by the emperor Constantine I, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. I do not think that Constantine knew enough about Christian theology to make decisions, but was part of the discussions.

And I never said I do not agree with all of the councils decisions.


More accurate to say that Peter may have started a congregation in Rome.....the Catholic Church did not exist back then


The Catholic Church was born after 312 AD. A lot of people worked at organizing the Catholic Church....but to say that their was one person that caused to happen....it was Constantine.


As your fantasy.

This is all organized fantasy.
Who made Christianity legal?
Who made it made the Catholic Church the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Who commanded the councils to assemble?
Who funded the Ecumenical Councils?
Who funded the Catholic Church?
Who funded the first Catholic Church buildings.
Who moved against the people that the Church declaimed as heretics
Who defended the Catholic Church....did the Priests fight the Pagan Visigoths and Ostrogoths Maguire horsemen, and Vikings.

If you are going to pick a fantasy religion may I recommend the Lord of the Rings.


You want to dabble in history? Or do you just want to make it up as you go....not the Roman Catholic Church but the Fantasy Catholic Church. First off the Roman Empire did not collapse in the 4th century...now the city of Rome fell to the Pagans in the 5th century. So now that you are dabbling in history.....where were the Catholics when the city of Rome fell? Go look it up. And then tell me when the Roman Empire did "fall."

WHO did Constantine command to “assemble” at the Council of Nicaea? There was already a Pope at that time with bishops and priests under him. Wasn’t there?

 

[Grailhunter]

Thank you for your response.

In Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he writes: Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

That shows that there was a established “Catholic Church” with leadership (bishops) 200 years BEFORE Constantine caused the Catholic Church to be……as you said….”born” after Nicaea.

Furthermore, there were distinctive doctrines of the Catholic Church that were taught WELL before Constantine lived.

And finally when the council of Nicaea was called…..WHO did they call To come to particpate in the council?

Who was invited to the Council of Nicaea?
Constantine had invited all 1800 episcopus of the Christian churches (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but only 250 to 320 episcopus actually participated...episcopus if they were talking Latin....basically overseer. You are not going to be able to call them popes or bishops until the English language come into play.....1400s give or take a few decades.

Seven churches of Asia Minor....plus a few were invited. Meaning seven congregations...no congregation was calling themselves Catholic. Overall Christianity was refered to as the universal church.

Some Christians were writing about what they believed but no central body of leadership to declare it a doctrine until after 312 AD.

No popes in this era....probably the first people that were called popes were in the 15th century.....But certainly not until the word came into existence. I have went over these words in relation to the time period a few times. So I have to ask...is there something about the fact that they could not use a word until that word and language existed, that is going over your heads.

 

[Illuminator]

So you think that the Church had no connection to Rome?

That's not what I said.

It was definitely Roman. You guys want it both ways. You want to say that Peter had a connection to Rome but you want to distance the Catholic Church from the Roman Empire.

"Roman Catholic Church", a term designating all Catholics, was first used as a slur by the Anglicans. There was no church called "The Roman Catholic Church" in the 3rd century. It was called , "The Catholic Church". You are using the prefix "Roman" like a name tag. "Roman" can refer to a document, a people, a city, a rite, etc. The Latin or Roman rite is the largest rite of the Church, and that's where confusion starts. "Roman" Catholic is never used to mean the Universal Church that encompasses all rites. Maybe you don't understand what a "rite" is.

Now you know why I have to have a sense of humor. It is all about the practice of making religions and history about what you like and don't like.....that is what is called a fantasy.....make it up as you go with no connection to reality. Back in the day it would be considered absurd to try to distance the Catholic Church from the Roman Empire.

Nobody is doing that. What is absurd is trying to make the state and Church a single entity. You will have to find primary source evidence of an emperor telling the Pope what to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Emperor Constantine was commanding that the Ecumenical Councils to assemble and he was funding all of it and attended some of them.

It was the only way he could stop the Arians from wrecking havoc in his country, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do anything without the Pope.

The enemies of the Catholic Church were the enemies of the Roman Empire.....Priests did not saddle up with swords....it was roman soldiers.

Who or what are you trying to blame???

I could say why is it that I have to teach Catholics about their own history? But that would sound like I was complaining. But I have to do the same thing with the Protestants. Most Christian denominations....and yes I consider the Catholic Church a denomination....

That's your problem.

were not started by theologians nor are their priests or preachers theologians.....they preach what they like. Educated theologians know that, that is why there are so many denominations and the Catholic Church is no exception. I had to tell the Protestants that it was part of their history that they were the first to require a wedding ceremony to be married....oh shock shock.

The first wedding ceremony occurred in Genesis 1, with God being the facilitator. ....oh shock shock.

I call it the Roman Catholic Church because it was not West African. Its root are from Rome, Italy, it owes it existence to the Roman Empire....

Whose great power and might failed to exterminate the CATHOLIC CHURCH after 3 centuries of persecution.

When the Greek Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church, they still considered themselves Catholic.....the term was used to differentiate the difference between the two churches.

Here ya go....
The Eastern Orthodox Church, also called the Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church is the second-largest Christian church, ...

derailer

Now did the Catholic Church ever refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church? I would say yes. Did other people call the Church out of Rome the Roman Catholic Church....that I can prove.

So what. "Roman Catholic Church" can legitimately refer to the church IN Rome, but illegitimately refer to all Catholics of all rites. The Pope never uses the term, except when addressing the ROMAN Catholics in his diocese when he functions as a local bishop. "Roman Catholic" only appears twice in the catechism. You can prove "Roman" to refer to a document, a people, a city, a rite, a diocese etc. but that's all you can prove.

You confuse centrality with an empire. Rome was the capital city of the known world, and God in his wisdom chose Rome to (eventually) be the center of Christianity to best facilitate the spread of the Gospel.

The notion that pagan Rome and Christian Rome were in bed together stinks of the lies of Dave Hunt. (a closet Hislopite).

Can you provide a transcript or minutes of the meeting.....again believing what you like to believe.

This would be technically incorrect.
First Council of Nicaea, (325), was called by the emperor Constantine I, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. I do not think that Constantine knew enough about Christian theology to make decisions, but was part of the discussions.

And I never said I do not agree with all of the councils decisions.

How about we post the canons of the Council of Nicae and you can pick out the ones you don't like. Better still, how about we post the Nicene Creed, and you can pick out lines you want to argue about.

More accurate to say that Peter may have started a congregation in Rome.....the Catholic Church did not exist back then

That's like saying Peter did not exist.

The Catholic Church was born after 312 AD.

Repeatedly proven false, with copious amounts of evidence.

A lot of people worked at organizing the Catholic Church....but to say that their was one person that caused to happen....it was Constantine.

Apart from the Pope is your fantasy. For the third time, it is IMPOSSIBLE to convene an ecumenical council without the Pope.

As your fantasy.

This is all organized fantasy.
Who made Christianity legal?
Who made it made the Catholic Church the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Who commanded the councils to assemble?
Who funded the Ecumenical Councils?
Who funded the Catholic Church?
Who funded the first Catholic Church buildings.
Who moved against the people that the Church declaimed as heretics
Who defended the Catholic Church....did the Priests fight the Pagan Visigoths and Ostrogoths Maguire horsemen, and Vikings.

If you are going to pick a fantasy religion may I recommend the Lord of the Rings.

Constantine wasn't wrong for protecting the Church, and persecuting anyone for their religion no matter what it was, was made illegal.

You want to dabble in history? Or do you just want to make it up as you go....not the Roman Catholic Church but the Fantasy Catholic Church. First off the Roman Empire did not collapse in the 4th century...now the city of Rome fell to the Pagans in the 5th century. So now that you are dabbling in history.....where were the Catholics when the city of Rome fell? Go look it up. And then tell me when the Roman Empire did "fall."

I did. I suggest you google "fall of the roman empire". Pick any encyclopedia you like.
Again, find primary source evidence of an emperor telling the Pope what to teach on matters of faith and morals, or get off your "Catholic Roman Empire Church" bandwagon.

 

[Grailhunter]

Roman Catholic Church", a term designating all Catholics, was first used as a slur by the Anglicans. There was no church called "The Roman Catholic Church" in the 3rd century. It was called ,

I agree that the Anglicans probably used it as a insult and for the same reason that the Protestants use it today. But I disagree that it was never used by the Roman Catholic Church. Because if you just said "I am a Catholic" then the question would always be Roman or Orthodox.
The last official magisterial document to use "Roman Catholic Church" was issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

The thing is I know why the Catholic Church wants to distance itself from the the Roman Empire and I know why the Protestants want to point out that the Catholic Church was closely affiliated with the Roman Empire. Again I have to point out that religion and history is not about what you like or dislike. It is fact the Catholic Church was very very closely affiliated with the Roman Empire for the first 575 years of its existence.

Nobody is doing that. What is absurd is trying to make the state and Church a single entity. You will have to find primary source evidence of an emperor telling the Pope what to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Not a single entity but so close it more accurate to say a single entity than to say it was separate. The Catholic Church and the Church of England was the driving force for writing separation of church and state in our constitution.

It was the only way he could stop the Arians from wrecking havoc in his country, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do anything without the Pope.

No one was called Pope in this time period.....because the word did not exist.

Who or what are you trying to blame???

Not trying to blame anyone. I see the merger between the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire as a good thing for Christianity.

The first wedding ceremony occurred in Genesis 1, with God being the facilitator. ....oh shock shock.

Was it called a ceremony?.....the Hebrew language does not have a word for wed or wedding.

Whose great power and might failed to exterminate the CATHOLIC CHURCH after 3 centuries of persecution.

The Roman Catholic Church was never persecuted.

So what. "Roman Catholic Church" can legitimately refer to the church IN Rome, but illegitimately refer to all Catholics of all rites. The Pope never uses the term, except when addressing the ROMAN Catholics in his diocese when he functions as a local bishop. "Roman Catholic" only appears twice in the catechism. You can prove "Roman" to refer to a document, a people, a city, a rite, a diocese etc. but that's all you can prove.

That is all I need. If the Pope knows it is the Roman Catholic Church and so believes it is the Roman Catholic Church and calls it the Roman Catholic Church......That is good enough for me.

How about we post the canons of the Council of Nicae and you can pick out the ones you don't like. Better still, how about we post the Nicene Creed, and you can pick out lines you want to argue about.

You can post all the canons, do not care.
But no canons or Papal Bull occurred before 312 Ad.

That's like saying Peter did not exist.

No it is not.
But no one was calling him Pope.

Apart from the Pope is your fantasy. For the third time, it is IMPOSSIBLE to convene an ecumenical council without the Pope.

And again there was no one called Pope until the 15th century and certainly not before the English language existed.

Are you blaming Constantine for protecting the Church? He wasn't wrong.

Again I know it was a good thing that that Christianity merged with the Roman Empire.

 

[Grailhunter]

I did. I suggest you google "fall of the roman empire". Pick any encyclopedia you like.
Again, find primary source evidence of an emperor telling the Pope what to teach on matters of faith and morals, or get off your "Catholic Roman Empire Church" bandwagon.

So tell us when do you think the Roman Empire ceased to exist.

 

[MatthewG]

The spotless without blemish one.

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Ephesians 1:1-2 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus C | King James Version (KJV) | Down

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus C

bible.com

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭25‬-‭27‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Ephesians 5:26 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word | King James Version (KJV) | Download The Bible App Now

that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word

bible.com

 

[Illuminator]

The spotless without blemish one.

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Ephesians 1:1-2 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus C | King James Version (KJV) | Down​

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus C
bible.com

The notion that Paul was on his own, independent from the institutional church, has always been rejected as unbiblical.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭25‬-‭27‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Everybody knows deacons, priests, bishops, with all the faithful, are not perfect and holy. The Church doesn't get her holiness from them. But from Jesus Christ. "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle" is the church in heaven. The church on earth is the same family, it's not 2 separate families.

Ephesians 5:26 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word | King James Version (KJV) | Download The Bible App Now​

that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
bible.com

The Word says to use water with the right words. It doesn't mean "the word" replaces water. Without wet, physical water it can't be a baptism. A nice experience maybe, but a dry baptism is as silly as it is unbiblical.