What is the one true Church?

[Grailhunter]

The Church does not have a fixation on Peter. Scripture and Christ have a fixation on Peter. That is why Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven and no other apostles was. Jesus told Peter and Peter only to strengthen his brothers. Jesus told Peter he will build his church upon him. Peter is most often shown as the leader of the Apostles etc. etc. etc. On the flip side you and your ilk have a lack of focus and deny the importance of Peter even though we KNOW thru historical Christian writings that Peter was always esteemed above the other Apostles. It is you and your ilk that have lost focus on the truth of Scripture and have lost your own Christian history. Your bloviating is truly wrong thinking.

Well Peter was great and a favorite of many, especially those that are not that familiar with the scriptures. We do not see Apostles and disciples travelling to meet him to have him make a decision on things. We do not see him sending edicts to the churches. He was a minimal writer. But he did perform miracles and healings and had some responsibility at the Christian commune.

James was the overseer of Jerusalem and as such was the leader of the twelve Jewish-Apostles. He is the one that the Apostles came to, to make a decision on the most important events in Christianity which changed Christianity forever. He is the one that made the announcement and sent the letter to the Churches by way of what was called "the leading men" which was not Peter.

Paul was the leader of the Gentile-Christians. He was the one that sent most of the letters and epistles to the churches. He is the one that wrote or influenced most the New Testament. Paul performed miracles and healings. It was Paul that Christ took to the third Heaven. It was Paul that Christ assigned the ministry to the Gentiles.

Whatever Christ said....that is how His words manifested.

 

[Grailhunter]

And now your most bizarre statement: All Christian churches have the same authority and responsibility and that is to preach the Gospel.

Are you sure you want to use the word "authority" in that statement? Because that means The Catholic Church has as much authority as your Protestant denomination which means NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY if two competing doctrines have "AUTHORITY"!!!

Churches have authority.....the power of their authority comes from Christ, not a man. Their authority and mission is to preach the Gospel and minister to Christians....not to rule over them. Salvation is through Christ, not the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church has no authority over salvation. Sure they can offer interpretations from their own perspectives....but that is not much more than an option and they do not have the authority to issue doctrines that are physically enforced. Most churches have a Statement of Faith and that is an agreement between the church and the congregation.

 

[Illuminator]

Well Peter was great and a favorite of many, especially those that are not that familiar with the scriptures. We do not see Apostles and disciples travelling to meet him to have him make a decision on things. We do not see him sending edicts to the churches. He was a minimal writer. But he did perform miracles and healings and had some responsibility at the Christian commune.

James was the overseer of Jerusalem and as such was the leader of the twelve Jewish-Apostles. He is the one that the Apostles came to, to make a decision on the most important events in Christianity which changed Christianity forever. He is the one that made the announcement and sent the letter to the Churches by way of what was called "the leading men" which was not Peter.

Paul was the leader of the Gentile-Christians. He was the one that sent most of the letters and epistles to the churches. He is the one that wrote or influenced most the New Testament. Paul performed miracles and healings. It was Paul that Christ took to the third Heaven. It was Paul that Christ assigned the ministry to the Gentiles.

Whatever Christ said....that is how His words manifested.

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
Who told Paul what to do? Did Jesus appear a second time and tell him what to do? You don't answer questions.

Paul went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
Did Peter go to Paul to be confirmed in his calling??? You don't answer questions.

And fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
Was Peter, James, and John commissioned by Paul? You don't answer questions.
He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4). Paul sent himself, according to you.

The Church at Antioch was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28). Paul reported back to himself, according to you.

Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” Who appointed Paul and Barnabas? You don't answer questions.

The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
“being sent on their way by Paul", according to you.

Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
Paul told the Jerusalem Council what to do, according to you.

and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.
Groanhunter arrogantly denies infallible teaching by being a slave to a false definition.

The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4). Paul accepted its authority, denied by Groanhunter.

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible, denied by Grailhunter.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Modernist Protestants frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter. More arrogant anti-biblical denials by Grailhunter, who doesn't answer questions.

 

[Illuminator]

Churches have authority.....the power of their authority comes from Christ, not a man. Their authority and mission is to preach the Gospel and minister to Christians....not to rule over them. Salvation is through Christ, not the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church has no authority over salvation.

Then the Apostles have no authority either. Your "rule over them" portrays popes and bishops as blood thirsty control freaks, a typical mantra of Bible hate cults.

Sure they can offer interpretations from their own perspectives....but that is not much more than an option and they do not have the authority to issue doctrines that are physically enforced.

Another stupid lie. The CC cannot, and does not, and never has, IMPOSED truth. She can only PROPOSE truths to those who are DISPOSED to receive it. "physically enforced doctrines"??? The SDA, JW's and ignorant paranoid fundies say the same thing as you. You cannot name any council that physically enforced doctrines, you're statement is baseless and idiotic, with no historical context. Your lies are rude, insulting and ill-mannered.
"physically enforced doctrines"??? You're too much of a coward to say who you borrowed that whopper from.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Churches have authority.....the power of their authority comes from Christ, not a man. Their authority and mission is to preach the Gospel and minister to Christians....not to rule over them. Salvation is through Christ, not the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church has no authority over salvation. Sure they can offer interpretations from their own perspectives....but that is not much more than an option and they do not have the authority to issue doctrines that are physically enforced. Most churches have a Statement of Faith and that is an agreement between the church and the congregation.

WRONG.
The Authority that Jesus bestowed was upon HIS Church (Matt. 16:18, 18:15-18, Matt. 28:19-20, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).
It was NOT bestowed upon every splinter group and self-proclaimed, man-made "Church" that fancies themselves Authoritative.

In Matt. 18:15-18, Jesus explicitly states if a brother sins against you and refuses to listen even to the Church - that he must be cut off.
Tell me - WHICH man-made sect should he listen to?

You will have to show me where Jesus gives this Authority to every man-made-sect.
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

Did not say he was a lone ranger.....I said, he was the leader of the Gentile ministry and the Bible lists all those that work with him.

In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
Who told Paul what to do? Did Jesus appear a second time and tell him what to do? You don't answer questions.

The account of Jesus's post-resurrection appearance to Paul is given in detail three times in the Book of Acts and is repeatedly alluded to by Paul himself in his letters. I answer questions, if I miss one let me know.

Paul went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
Did Peter go to Paul to be confirmed in his calling??? You don't answer questions.

Confirm his calling?
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. Galatians 1:18
Nothing here about confirming his calling. But if I was Paul I would go see Peter.....cause he is a favorite.

And fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
Was Peter, James, and John commissioned by Paul? You don't answer questions.
He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4). Paul sent himself, according to you.

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:1-9

Nothing here about commissioning. More about agreement.

Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch

From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 27 On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they stayed there a long time with the disciples. Acts 14:26-28
They updated them there. Not like he was reporting to a higher authority. But I do not know what you mean about Paul reporting to himself.

Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” Who appointed Paul and Barnabas? You don't answer questions.

This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:2
And Peter went with them....I guess he was some of the "other believers."

The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
“being sent on their way by Paul", according to you.

I don't add words or meanings to scriptures and here the scriptures do not elaborate.

Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
Paul told the Jerusalem Council what to do, according to you.

No I did not say that. Paul and Peter and the others presented their case and James made the decision.

and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

Yep.

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.
Groanhunter arrogantly denies infallible teaching by being a slave to a false definition.

Infallible teachings in the Bible is one thing....infallible teachings by the Catholic Church is propaganda.

The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4). Paul accepted its authority, denied by Groanhunter.

I did not say that Paul did not accept the authority of James' ruling.
What was it that the Judaizers wanted Gentile converts to do?......In the New Testament, the Judaizers were a group of Jewish Christians who insisted that the Gentile converts should follow the Mosaic Law and that Gentile converts to Christianity must first be circumcised (i.e. become Jewish first through the ritual of a proselyte).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible, denied by Grailhunter.

Nothing here about passing an office.....He is giving Timothy instructions...as it would be appropriate for the leader of the Gentile ministry.
There was apostolic succession within the Bible....but not beyond the Bible. No one outside the Bible called Apostle.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Modernist Protestants frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter. More arrogant anti-biblical denials by Grailhunter, who doesn't answer questions.

Never said that Paul was "on his own" The whole storyline of Acts tell of his disciple and those that worked with him. And the rest of what you said is false, except that Christ setup the church.

 

[Grailhunter]

Then the Apostles have no authority either. Your "rule over them" portrays popes and bishops as blood thirsty control freaks, a typical mantra of Bible hate cults.

There is no Popes until the English language came out. Never said that the Apostles had no authority. You know when you are winning a debate when your opponent keep mis-representing you.

And yes the Church went south....power hungry and murderous.

Another stupid lie. The CC cannot, and does not, and never has, IMPOSED truth.

No it did not impose truth.

The CC cannot, and does not, and never has, IMPOSED truth. She can only PROPOSE truths to those who are DISPOSED to receive it. "physically enforced doctrines"???

We can go over all that were killed because they did not agree with the Catholic Church.....and that is before the Protestants....ever hear of the 30 year war?

You cannot name any council that physically enforced doctrines

That would probably take a book....lots of examples....lots of murders.

Your lies are rude, insulting and ill-mannered.
"physically enforced doctrines"???

How did the Catholic Church enforce its power?
The Pope claimed Papal Supremacy, the authority or power of the Pope over all secular rulers (non religious rulers, including kings and emperors). The Church used the canon laws, threat of excommunication and interdicts to force rulers to obey them.

Again it would take a book....lots of history on this. Anyone that did not agree with Catholic Church was considered a heretic and subject to excommunication, the inquisition or just burnt at the stake. Those that did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity were excommunicated and the Church said they were not going to Heaven. Or in the case of the Cathars....annihilation or the Arians who were excommunicated or exiled. Of course the world is full of false beliefs....and the vast majority being generated by the Catholics....but should we torture them and burn them at the stake? No. Of course the Catholics and Protestants call each other heretics. Look into the story of William Tyndale. The Catholic Church was particularly hard on the Anabaptists that were founded before Martin Luther's reform effort.

 

[Grailhunter]

The Authority that Jesus bestowed was upon HIS Church (Matt. 16:18, 18:15-18, Matt. 28:19-20, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).
It was NOT bestowed upon every splinter group and self-proclaimed, man-made "Church" that fancies themselves Authoritative.

He bestowed it upon His "Church" not the Catholic Church. Where is His Church now? The Coptic Church predates the Catholic Church by around 250 years. "Man-made Church" that is an interesting term. We would not be having this conversation if Christ endorsed any Church by name. Ergo the title of this thread. There is a denomination called the Church of Jesus Christ, actually a few.....are they Christ's Church?

No church or Christian religion is perfect. I suggest looking at the Spirit of the Church....what do they do? What is there worship of God like? What is there fellowship like? What Church is not of Christ?.....the one that has blood on its hands and a multitude of atrocities in it history.

n Matt. 18:15-18, Jesus explicitly states if a brother sins against you and refuses to listen even to the Church - that he must be cut off.
Tell me - WHICH man-made sect should he listen to?

Again another interesting term "man-made sect" And "sins against you" We call them civil law suits now.

 

[Illuminator]

Did not say he was a lone ranger.....I said, blah, blah, blah

The account of Jesus's post-resurrection appearance to Paul blah, blah, blah

Confirm his calling?
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. Galatians 1:18 blah, blah, blah

Nothing here about commissioning blah, blah, blah

blah, blah, blahAnd Peter went with them. blah, blah, blah...I guess he was some of the "other believers." blah, blah, blah

No I did not say that. blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah

Infallible teachings in the Bible is one thing....infallible teachings by the Catholic Church is propaganda.

And the Catholic Church compiled the books of the Bible in 397 A.D. for propaganda purposes. Truly an idiotic statement.

blah, blah, blah Nothing here about passing an office..... blah, blah, blah

There is no Popes until the English language came out. Never said that the Apostles had no authority. You know when you are winning a debate when your opponent keep mis-representing you.

If are saying an acorn is not a tree, I would agree with you. But you are saying an oak tree was never an acorn, which denies development. Your arrogance is astonishing.

And yes the Church went south....power hungry and murderous blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah.

No it did not impose truth.

We can go over all that were killed because they did not agree with the Catholic Church.....and that is before the Protestants....ever hear of the 30 year war?

Go ahead. Go over them all. But you are too much of a coward to cite reliable sources, you only read and accept what agrees with your falsehoods, and there are billions of such sources on the internet.

That would probably take a book....lots of examples....lots of murders.

And you haven't read anything else but false histories.

How did the Catholic Church enforce its power?
The Pope claimed Papal Supremacy, the authority or power of the Pope over all secular rulers (non religious rulers, including kings and emperors). The Church used the canon laws, threat of excommunication and interdicts to force rulers to obey them.

Still, no scholarly evidence.

Again it would take a book....lots of history on this. Anyone that did not agree with Catholic Church was considered a heretic and subject to excommunication, the inquisition or just burnt at the stake. Those that did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity were excommunicated and the Church said they were not going to Heaven. Or in the case of the Cathars....annihilation or the Arians who were excommunicated or exiled. Of course the world is full of false beliefs....and the vast majority being generated by the Catholics....but should we torture them and burn them at the stake? No. Of course the Catholics and Protestants call each other heretics. Look into the story of William Tyndale. The Catholic Church was particularly hard on the Anabaptists that were founded before Martin Luther's reform effort.

read the review of this NON-CATHOLIC book.

He bestowed it upon His "Church" not the Catholic Church. Where is His Church now? The Coptic Church predates the Catholic Church by around 250 years.

The Coptic Catholic Church (Arabic: الكنيسة القبطية الكاثوليكية;[3] Latin: Ecclesia Catholica Coptorum) is an Eastern Catholic particular church in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Coptic Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Man-made Church" that is an interesting term. We would not be having this conversation if Christ endorsed any Church by name. Ergo the title of this thread. There is a denomination called the Church of Jesus Christ, actually a few.....are they Christ's Church?

The Catholic Church is not a denomination, and you have failed to identify its origins. KATAHOLOS is too much for you, so you ignore it, like you ignore the infallibility of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah No church or Christian religion is perfect. I suggest looking at the Spirit of the Church....what do they do? What is there worship of God like? What is there fellowship like? What Church is not of Christ?.....the one that has blood on its hands and a multitude of atrocities in it history blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah.

Cults are fixated on sin and evil, exaggerating with a multitude of atrocities. You are no different. Again, you fail to cite reliable sources. We don't deny SOME crazy Catholics did bad things, but that was sin, not church policy. You refuse to tell the difference and still haven't supported your revisionism with any reliable source.

You are going back on ignore due to your invincible bigotry.

 

[Grailhunter]

But you are too much of a coward to cite reliable sources,

Would any reliable source be good enough for you? The Pope has already apologized for a lot of this.....I guess he is not a reliable source. LOL

The Coptic Catholic Church (Arabic: الكنيسة القبطية الكاثوليكية;[3] Latin: Ecclesia Catholica Coptorum) is an Eastern Catholic particular church in full communion with the Catholic Church.

But not before the Catholic Church existed and it has not always been in agreement.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination, and you have failed to identify its origins. KATAHOLOS is too much for you, so you ignore it, like you ignore the infallibility of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Wrong again! We have been talking about the Catholic Church's origins all through this thread. The Catholic Church did not exist before the Ecumenical Councils but it did exist after the Ecumenical Councils. Now when the stationary was produced I am not sure.

Cults are fixated on sin and evil, exaggerating with a multitude of atrocities. You are no different. Again, you fail to cite reliable sources. We don't deny SOME crazy Catholics did bad things, but that was sin, not church policy. You refuse to tell the difference and still haven't supported your revisionism with any reliable source.

You are going back on ignore due to your invincible bigotry.

The Catholic Church was evil and crazy there for a while and please put me on ignore.....please and thank you.

 

[Brakelite]

Concerning authority...
KJV Revelation 13:2
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
So, we have here an organized system, a nation/state, being granted power, a throne, and great authority by the dragon.
This same dragon elsewhere is shown to be waiting to devour the baby Christ the moment He was born.
KJV Revelation 12:4
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Now of course Satan, for whom the dragon is a metaphor, is unable to directly physically attack Jesus or His followers, nor does he have direct influence over politics and religious proceedings, but he most definitely does have agents to do his bidding. In the case of wanting to murder Jesus, his agent was Herod, a king maybe, but subservient to the pagan Roman empire. That same pagan empire, Rome, proceeded to persecute the followers of Jesus, and on a far greater scale than the Jews could possibly imagine doing. Pagan Rome murdered thousands, particularly under the rule of Diocletian, who for 10 years systematically sought to destroy all remnants of Christianity in his territories.
KJV Revelation 2:9-10
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

But who is this entity to whom the dragon, in the person of pagan Rome, gave power, a seat, and great authority?
This must have taken place before 476ad, because by that date Rome as an empire was no more, at least in the area of most concern, where God's people were mostly dwelling, that is in the western half of the former empire which later became known as Europe. So is there an example in history where the emperor gave someone, an institution or a nation, such authority as to rule over others? Prior to 476ad Rome ruled mercilessly over a vast empire from Palestine, to North Africa, to Britain.
Justinian. Who was he?
Justinian, in his famous Codex Justinianeus, also known as the Corpus Juris Civilis (Collection of Civil Law) consolidated and clarified the Roman legal system down to his time. It includes a correspondence between “the Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus", to John, "Patriarch, and the most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome,” informing the pope that all the other churches in the empire have been subjected to him. It even forbids “certain infidels and persons who do not belong to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God . . . like Jews and apostates” to dispute or even discuss any “matters which are properly accepted, glorified, and preached by all priests in accordance with your doctrines.” This is very reminiscent of the current cancel culture now shredding any semblance of freedom of speech in today's society. One wonders, particularly in light of what many understand concerning the power of the church/state union of Revelation in these last days, if the cancel culture authority granted to the Pope by Justinian, is the source of today's disputes over freedom of speech and religion.

So was pagan Rome the source of authority that papal Rome now claims, being "supreme pontiff" over all the earth?

 

[Brakelite]

It has been suggested that the persecutions by Catholics against others was perpetrated by a few crazy individuals, but was not church policy. Shall we take a look and see just a little of that history of what some here are defending as the "one true church"?

Let us look for example at the Holy Office of the Inquisition. An office by the way that still exists today albeit, unsurprisingly, under a different name. The recently retired pope Benedict being the former head of that esteemed office.
The origins of this organism can be clearly traced to 1227-1233 A. D., during the pontificate of Gregory IX. In 1229 the church council of Tolouse condemned the Albigenses in France and gave orders to exterminate them. In 1231 Gregory IX in his bull, Excommunicamus, condemned all heretics and proclaimed specific laws on how to deal with them. Among the provisions were the following:
1. Delivery of heretics to the civil power.
2. Excommunication of all heretics as well as their defenders, followers, friends, and even those who failed to turn them in.
3. Life imprisonment for all impenitent heretics.
4. Heretics were denied the right to appeal their sentence.
5. Those suspected of heresy had no right to be defended by counsel.
6. Children of heretics were disqualified from holding a church office until the second generation.
7. Heretics who had died without being punished were to be exhumed and their bodies burned.
8. The homes of convicted heretics were to be demolished. (See, G. Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy, London, 1968, edited by Thames and Hudson, p. 128; and R. I Moore,
“The Origins of Medieval Heresy”, in History, vol. 55 (1970), pp. 21-36).

In The Decretals of Gregory IX we find the following:
“Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if need be, compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their functions; and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful, so, for the defense of the faith, let them publicly make oath that they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from their territories all heretics marked by the church; so that when any one is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath. And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and leave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged, and preserve them in the purity of the faith.”
(The Decretals of Gregory IX, book 5, title 7, chapter 13).

During the pontificate of Innocent IV (1241-1253), the mechanism of the Inquisition was further developed. In the papal bull Ad Extirpanda (1252), the following provisions were given the force of law:
1. Torture must be applied to heretics so as to secure confessions.
2. Those found guilty must be burned at the stake.
3. A police force must be established to serve the needs of the Inquisition.
4. A proclamation of a crusade against all heretics in Italy. Those participating in this
crusade were to be extended the same privileges and indulgences as those who went on crusades to the Holy Land.
5. The heirs of heretics were to have their goods confiscated as well.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
“In the Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ (1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them’. . . Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of the impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions Commissis nobis’ and Inconsutibilem tunicam. The aforesaid Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or re-enforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas
IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake”. (Joseph Blotzer, article, ‘Inquisition’, vol. VIII, p. 34).

The savagery of Innocent the IV has led the Roman Catholic historian, Peter de Rosa, to state:
“In [Pope] Innocent’s view, it was more wicked for Albigenses to call him the antichrist than for him to prove it by burning them–men, women, and children by the thousands.”
(Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p. 225).
Further, de Rosa makes this telling comment: “Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine.”
(Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, pp. 175-176).

It was during this same period that one of the greatest dogmatic theologians in the history of the Roman Catholic Church added his support to the idea of exterminating heretics. Let’s allow St. Thomas Aquinas to speak for himself:
“With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered, one element on their side, and the other on the part of the church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offense to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by the secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics, immediately they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err; and therefore she does not condemn at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the church by the sentence of excommunication; and further she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.”
(Joseph Rickaby, S. J. (R. C.), Aquinas Ethicus; or, The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas, Vol. I, pp. 332, 333. London: Burns and Oates, 1892).

The fourteenth century inquisitor, Bernard Gui explained the purpose of the Inquisition:
“the objective of the Inquisition is to destroy heresy; it is not possible to destroy heresy unless you eradicate the heretics; and it is impossible to eradicate the heretics unless you also eradicate those who hide them, sympathize with them and protect them.”
(Salim Japas, Herejia, Colon y la Inquisicion (Siloam Springs, Arkansas: Creation Enterprises, 1992), p. 20; ).

Moving on to the fifteenth century, we think of John Wycliffe. The Papacy would have been delighted to burn him at the stake during his life, but divine providence ruled otherwise. Forty years after his death, the Council of Constance (1413) ordered his body exhumed and burned. (see more on this in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 7-8 and The Great Controversy, pp. 95-96).

Notice the words of Pope Martin V (1417-31) to the King of Poland commanding him to exterminate the Hussites:
“Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery, they call the people to liberty, that is to the annihilation of kings and priests. While there is still time, then, turn your forces against Bohemia; burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites.” These words were written by Martin V in 1429.

Continued....

 

[Brakelite]

continuing....

The story of John Hus is very well known. In 1415 he was burned at the stake even though King Sigismund had guaranteed him safe conduct to defend himself at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). The remarkable fact is that Sigismund was encouraged to break his word by the Roman Catholic religious leaders. For a vivid description of the martyrdom of John Hus, read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 19-30.



A year later, in 1416, Jerome was also burned at the stake. For the fascinating story of how Jerome recanted his faith and then recanted his recantation, see, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 31-38. In both of these cases, the trial was held in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Constance. After the trial Hus and Jerome were delivered to the secular power to be exterminated.



Also in the fifteenth century, Pope Innocent VIII proclaimed a Bull against the Waldenses (1487). The original text of this Bull is found in the library of the University of Cambridge and a English translation can be found in John Dowling’s History of Romanism (1871 edition), book 6, chapter 5, section 62, a portion of this bull reads... “Therefore the pope ordered ‘that malicious and abominable sect of malignants,’ if they ‘refuse to abjure, to be crushed like venomous snakes.’”
The ongoing attempts to destroy the Waldenses over many centuries is one of the saddest and despicable genocidal acts in history. For an account of the wars against this people, read J A Wylie's 'The History of the Waldenses'.

let me quote a Catholic church publication to put things in perspective.

“You ask, if he [the Roman Catholic] were lord in the land, and you were in the minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon the circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly even hang you. But be assured of one thing: he would never tolerate you for the sake of the ‘glorious principles of civil and religious liberty’. . .

Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself. We might as rationally maintain that a sane man has a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as this theory of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equalled [sic] by its absurdity. . .

A Catholic temporal government would be guided in its treatment of Protestants and other recusants solely by the rules of expediency, adopting precisely that line of conduct which would tend best to their conversion, and to prevent the dissemination of their errors.” Civil and Religious Liberty, The Rambler, 8 (September, 1851), pp. 174, 178.



The infamous syllabus of errors (infallible) echoes the above sentiments with regards religious liberty. These are relatively recent thoughts. So what happened to infallibility?



“He who publicly avows a heresy and tries to pervert others by word or example, speaking absolutely, can not only be excommunicated but even justly put to death, lest he ruin others by pestilential contagion; for a bad man is worse than a wild beast, and does more harm, as Aristotle says. Hence, as it is not wrong to kill a wild beast which does great harm, so it must be right to deprive of his harmful life a heretic who withdraws from divine truth and plots against the salvation of others.”

(Fr. Alexis M. Lepicier, De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis, [printed at the official printing office in Rome in 1910], p. 194.



Or again even more recently perhaps from The Tablet, the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic diocese of Brooklyn, New York:

“Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the State has the right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same which concedes to the spiritual authority the power of capital punishment over the arch-traitor to truth and divine revelation. . . A perfect society has the right to its existence. . . and the power of capital punishment is acknowledged for a perfect society. Now. . . the Roman Catholic Church is a perfect society, and as such has the right and power to take means to safeguard its existence.”

(The Tablet, November 5, 1938).



The above reflects an ongoing policy that had endured for 1000 years. And although the recent apologies by the pope were welcome, albeit rather generalised, history and prophecy mitigate against any deep seated genuine change in Vatican thought. Steeped in over a thousand years of tradition and self assured righteousness, the curia I believe is far too entrenched in their own self deceptive dogmas to change in just one short generation from an attitude of total extermination of all opposition to one of brotherly love and tolerance to other faith practices. And prophecy testifies to the same.


Not church policy to exterminate all who refused to submit to Roman authority? Not church policy to exterminate all who thought differently on spiritual matters to Rome? Not church policy that for over 1000 years the intent to destroy all who worshipped according to conscience rather than papal decree? Not church policy? Just the work of a few crazies??? None of you, not one, deny the theology or the methodology of eradicating heresy, and the murder of those who believe different.

 

[Illuminator]

View attachment 31829
read the review of this NON-CATHOLIC book.

 

[Illuminator]

continuing....blah, blah, blah

As we all know and as many of our well-established textbooks have argued for decades, the Inquisition was one of the most frightening and bloody chapters in Western history; Pope Pius XII was anti-Semitic and rightfully called “Hitler’s Pope,” the Dark Ages were stunting the progress of knowledge to be redeemed only by the secular spirit of the Enlightenment. The religious Crusades were an early example of the rapacious Western thirst for riches and power. But what if these long held beliefs were all wrong?

In this stunning, powerful, and ultimately persuasive book, Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of The Rise of Christianity (HarperSanFrancisco 1997), argues that some of our most firmly held ideas about history, ideas that paint the Catholic Church in the least favorable light are, in fact, fiction. Why have we held these wrongheaded ideas so firmly and for so long? And if our beliefs are wrong, what is the truth?

In each chapter, Stark takes on a well-established anti-Catholic myth, gives a fascinating history of how each myth became conventional wisdom and presents a startling picture of the real truth. For example, instead of the Spanish Inquisition being an anomaly of torture and murder of innocent people persecuted for “imaginary” crimes such as witchcraft and blasphemy, Stark argues that not only did the Spanish Inquisition spill very little blood, but it was a major force in support of moderation and justice.

Stark dispels the myth of Pope Pius XII being apathetic or even helpful to the Nazi movement, such as to merit the title “Hitler’s Pope,” and instead shows that the campaign to link Pope Pius XII to Hitler was initiated by the Soviet Union, presumably in hopes of neutralizing the Vatican in post-World War II affairs. Many praised Pope Pius XIIs vigorous and devoted efforts to saving Jewish lives during the war.

Instead of understanding the Dark Ages as a millennium of ignorance and backwardness inspired by the Catholic Church’s power, Stark argues that the whole notion of the “Dark Ages” was an act of pride perpetuated by anti-religious intellectuals who were determined to claim that theirs was the era of “Enlightenment.”

In the end, readers of Bearing False Witness will have a more accurate history of the Catholic Church and will also understand why it became unfairly maligned for so long. Bearing False Witness is a compelling and sobering account of how egotism and ideology often work together to give us a false truth.

 

[Illuminator]

read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 19-30.

see, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 31-38. I

Inaccuracies of Anti-Catholic “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs”​

Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on this famous and notorious book (fourth and final edition: 1583):

The Book of Martyrs, by John Foxe, is an account of Christian martyrs throughout Western history from the 1st century through the early 16th centuries, emphasizing the sufferings of English Protestants and proto-Protestants from the 14th century through the reign of Mary I. First published in 1563 by the Protestant John Day, the book was lavishly produced and illustrated with many woodcuts and was the largest publishing project undertaken in Britain up to that time. Commonly known as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, one fuller title of the work is Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church. Widely owned and read by English Puritans, the book helped mold British popular opinion about the nature of Catholicism for several centuries.
[see also the article in The Catholic Encyclopedia]

William Eusebius Andrews (1773-1837) was a Catholic journalist (see his Catholic Encyclopedia bio). He wrote Review of Fox’s Book of Martyrs (three volumes: 1824-1846). These can be read using Google Books (vol. 1 | vol. 2 | vol. 3). These are also able to e read at Internet Archive (vol. 1 | vol. 2).

 

[Illuminator]

IN undertaking to refute and exposing the greatest mass of falsehood and calumny ever issued against the social and religious principles of our Catholic fellow men, we may be condemned for our temerity, but we think we shall stand excused, when the active endeavor's of bigotry, to give circulation to what is called Foxs Book of Martys, are taken into consideration.

With some it has been a matter of surprise that such on exposition has not been undertaken before ; but when the obstacles which have so long existed to prevent Catholic writers from vindicating their religious doctrines and social maxims are known, and the misfortune is that they are not known to the people of this country generally, that surprise will entirely vanish. It is therefore our intention to point out the difficulties which have stood in the way of an appeal to PUBLIC OPINION by the Catholics in their defense and the means by which the public mind has been deluded, as a requisite preliminary to the review of the work before us. To elucidate this subject, however, in as clear a light as possible, it will be necessary that we give a brief outline of the method uniformly pursued by the Catholic church to preserve the truths which have been revealed to her. We are aware that some of our readers may have discarded the necessity of a revealed religion, but we beg of them to be candid in their examination of our pages, before they pass their judgment upon them.

A critical and historical review of Fox's Book of martyrs shewing the inaccuracies, falsehoods ... : William Eusebius Andrews, John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google from the library of Oxford University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

archive.org

 

[Illuminator]

Great Controversy errors​

Samuele Bacchiocchi, a former professor at Andrews University, described himself as a "committed Adventist" with a "deep respect" for Ellen White's writings. Nevertheless, he broke ranks with traditional SDA thinking by proposing a different interpretation of the 1260-day prophecy. In so doing, he has exposed a number of errors in Great Controversy.

Great Controversy Errors

Errors found by Samuele Bacchiocchi in Ellen White's Great Controversy

nonsda.org

 

[BreadOfLife]

He bestowed it upon His "Church" not the Catholic Church. Where is His Church now? The Coptic Church predates the Catholic Church by around 250 years. "Man-made Church" that is an interesting term. We would not be having this conversation if Christ endorsed any Church by name. Ergo the title of this thread. There is a denomination called the Church of Jesus Christ, actually a few.....are they Christ's Church?

You have repeatedly proven that you are NOT a student of history.

First of all - the Coptic Rite is one of the Liturgical Rites of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Secondly – NOTHING predated the Catholic Church by 250 years. We read about the “Catholic Church” in the Letter to the Smyrnaenas, written by FIRST CENTURY Bishop, Ignatius of Antioch. I’ve shown you the following text on numerous occasions – so it puzzles me as to WHY you would make such a stupid claim . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, WHEREVER JESUS CHRIST IS PRESENT, THERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

You’re making up your own “facts” again . . .

No church or Christian religion is perfect. I suggest looking at the Spirit of the Church....what do they do? What is there worship of God like? What is there fellowship like? What Church is not of Christ?.....the one that has blood on its hands and a multitude of atrocities in it history.

That would cancel our Protestantism, then . . .

Again another interesting term "man-made sect" And "sins against you" We call them civil law suits now.

WRONG.

Jesus wasn’t talking about legal matters. He was discussing SIN and WHO has the Authority to rule on SIN.

On the night of His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples – His inner circle:
John 20:21-23
(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained."

The fact that Jesus breathed on the Apostles when entrusted them with this ministry is highly significant because he doesn’t do this anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, there are only two times in ALL of Scripture where God breathes on man:

The first is when he breathed life into Adam.
The second is here in John’s Gospel when he is giving them the power to forgive or retain sins.

This is NOT about legal matters – it’s about SIN.

 

[Mantis]

The true church is those who know Jesus. Not churchianity.