Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Brakelite]

not keeping up

Very good. We seldom give consideration to the original lives that people lived prior to coming to Christ. We load up excuses for ourselves for not living up to the great light we have been blessed with, and the generations of print material and modern technology available to us to study, investigate, and meditate on and still live worldly selfish lifestyles, while those we criticise before us relied on hand written copies of passages of scripture passed on from the parents and great grandparents etc, worn, hidden, searched for, illegal, yet what they had was powerful enough to change lives over time.
Consider for example the many tribal Germanic nations who carved out a niche for themselves once pagan Rome had vacated what eventually became Europe. Most of those nations converted to Christianity, (sadly we don't have any record of the no doubt heroic evangelists that brought the gospel to these northern pagans in the first 4 centuries after Christ, except for Wulfilas) but most of them accepted an Arian (so we are told by their enemies, who branded them to this day as Barbarian ) view of the Godhead. One must wonder if
A. Arian meant the same to them as it does today...
B. Where did these evangelists come from all having the same "Arian" beliefs? ...
C. What else did they hold on common?

One thing is for sure. Not all those tribes got on. They were enemies before Christ became a part of their lives, and continued to squabble and fight afterwards. Yet despite that, reports from historical contemporaries give them kudos for being tolerant of other faiths while being intolerant politically, having clean tidy towns and cities and not the dens of iniquity as popularly portrayed. They took their religion seriously. They governed themselves with order and discipline. The disdain expressed toward them by their enemies, being the Catholics, was paralleled by the romanticising of Catholic Rome as the flower of Christianity and the only source of truth.
As for the antiquity of the Waldenses....
"These Christians of the Alps and Pyrenees have been called Waldenses from the Italian word for “valleys,” and where they spread over into France, they have been called Vaudois, a French word meaning “inhabitants of the valleys” in a certain province. Many writers constantly call them Vaudois. The enemies of this branch of the Church in the Wilderness have endeavored to confuse their history by tracing to a wrong source the origin of the name, Waldenses. They seek to connect its beginnings with Peter Waldo, an opulent merchant of Lyons, France, who came into notice about 1175. The story of this remarkable man commands a worthy niche in the temple of events. However, there is nothing in the original or the earliest documents of the Waldenses — their histories, poems, and confessions of faith — which can be traced to him or which make any mention of him.These Christians of the Alps and Pyrenees have been called Waldenses from the Italian word for “valleys,” and where they spread over into France, they have been called Vaudois, a French word meaning “inhabitants of the valleys” in a certain province. Many writers constantly call them Vaudois. The enemies of this branch of the Church in the Wilderness have endeavored to confuse their history by tracing to a wrong source the origin of the name, Waldenses. They seek to connect its beginnings with Peter Waldo, an opulent merchant of Lyons, France, who came into notice about 1175. The story of this remarkable man commands a worthy niche in the temple of events. However, there is nothing in the original or the earliest documents of the Waldenses — their histories, poems, and confessions of faith — which can be traced to him or which make any mention of him.

Waldo, being converted in middle life to truths similar to those held by the Vaudois, distributed his fortune to the poor and labored extensively to spread evangelical teachings. He and his followers soon met with cruel opposition. Finally, in desperation they fled for refuge to those Waldenses who had crossed the Alps and had formed a considerable body in eastern France. The great antiquity of the Waldensian vernacular preserved through the centuries witnesses to their line of descent independent of Rome, and to the purity of their original Latin. Alexis Muston says: The patois of the Vaudois valleys has a radical structure far more regular than the Piedmontese idiom. The origin of this patois was anterior to the growth of Italian and French — antecedent even to the Romance language, whose earliest documents exhibit still more analogy with the present language of the Vaudois mountaineers, than with that of the troubadours of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The existence of this patois is of itself a proof of the high antiquity of these mountaineers, and of their constant preservation from foreign intermixture and changes. Their popular idiom is a precious monument.”
Turning back the pages of history six hundred years before Peter Waldo, there is even a more famous name connected with the Waldenses. This leader was Vigilantius (or, Vigilantius Leo). He could be looked upon as a Spaniard, since the people of his regions were one in practically all points with those of northern Spain. Vigilantius took his stand against the new relapses into paganism. From these apostatizing tendencies the Christians of northern Italy, northern Spain, and southern France held aloof. The story of Vigilantius and how he came to identify himself with this region is perhaps for another time. From connections with him, this people were for centuries called Leonists, as well as Waldenses and Vaudois.

 

[Brakelite]

Further to the above...

A distinction has long been recognized between the northern Italian peninsula and the central part, so that for more than one thousand years the bishoprics in northern Italy were called Italic, while those in central Italy were named Roman. Or, as Frederick Nolan says, in speaking of an early Latin Bible in this territory: “The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it [Italic Bible] derived its name from that diocese which has been termed the Italic, as contradistringuished from the Roman.” The city of Milan in the northern part of the Italian peninsula has always been one of the most famous cities of history. At times it has been a rival to Rome. Several Roman emperors, abandoning the city on the banks of the Tiber, fixed their capital here. It was a famous meeting place for the East and the West. One author states that the religious influence of Milan was regarded with respect, and that its authority was especially felt in Gaul and in Spain. It was the chief center of the Celts who lived on the Italian side of the Alps. Before it could come under the dominant influence of the Roman bishop, the Gothic armies had completed their conquest of Italy as well as France. These newcomers, who had been converted to Christ more than one hundred years previously, held fast to the usages and customs of the primitive church and did no harm to Milan. Since the Goths granted religious freedom to their subjects, Milan profited by it. When from all parts of Europe newly chosen bishops came to Rome to be consecrated, none appeared from the Italic dioceses of Milan and Turin. They did not join in the procession. In fact, for many years after 553 there was a widespread schism in northern Italy and adjacent lands between Rome and the bishops of nine provinces under the leadership of the bishop of Milan who renounced fellowship with Rome to become autonomous. They had been alienated by the famous decree of the “Three Chapters,” passed in 553 by the Council of Constantinople, condemning three great leaders of the Church of the East. The people of this region knew the straight truth. They did not believe in the infallibility of the pope and did not consider that being out of communion with him was to be out of fellowship with the church. They held that their own ordination was as efficacious as the pretended apostolic succession of the bishop of Rome. While the Papacy was bringing much of Europe under her control, the two dioceses of Milan and Turin continued independent. It was unbearable to the Papacy that, in the very land in which was her throne, there should be a Mordecai in the gate. Two powerful forces nullified all her efforts to annex the Milan territory. First, the presence of the Lombard kings, unconquered until about 800, assured religious tolerance there. Moreover, the Lombards, like the Goths before them, rejected so many innovations brought in by Rome that they never admitted the papal bishops of Italy to a seat in their legislative councils. Therefore, they were promptly called Arians, the name given by Rome to her opponents.

For references see...
Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant. Chapter 10
Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches, p. 306.
Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, vol. 1, pt. 2 pp. 931, 932.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 38, par. 5. Newman, A Manual of Church History, vol. 1, p. 404.
Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, b. 2, cent. 5, pt. 1, ch. 1, pars. 4, 5. Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History, p. 575.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You crack me up Jane. A FACT rings with more truth than OPINON????????? Are you stating a fact or your opinion?

Protestantism has come crashing down Jane. Some of your Protestant brothers/sisters now approve of gay marriage, abortion and women as elders. ALL 3 practices are against Scripture. AND, most of your Protestant brothers/sisters don't participate in communion of the bread/wine after He told us to do it in remembrance of Him.

How much further can your Protestant brothers defy Scripture without their being consequences in the end?

Easy question to answer really…..we are no part of Christendom….period. We hold no beliefs in common with anything formulated by the RCC and which was taken along like old baggage by her many ‘daughters’….the numerous branches of Protestantism, when they left ‘home’….to strike out and become “friends with the world” on their own…just like their mother. (James 4:4)

I was raised in the Anglican Church, which is about as close to Catholic as you can get without Mary and a few other trappings…..I do not believe anything taught by the “weeds” as they have nothing in common with the “wheat”.
We have completely separated from that rabble, having obeyed God’s command in Rev 18:4-5….those still clinging to this immoral ‘city’ (that has “a kingdom over the kings of the earth”) will go down with her. Let’s see who is laughing then….?

The foretold apostasy took place exactly as Jesus and the original apostles said it would….how amazing for the disunited mess that is Christendom….to pretend it never happened, whilst wondering why God is absent from their churches.
In the wars of the nations, can Catholic kill Catholic, or Protestant kill Protestant, and still regard them as their “brother or sister”? (1 John 4:20-21)
Take a good look at your own ugly backyard before you throw your garbage in ours.

Christendom, no matter what it calls its many denominations, can’t see the forest for the trees….there are so many “branches” that it does not resemble the original in any way….no doctrine originating from the Roman church has any basis in scripture…..not a single one. God sees only two kinds of religion in this world….true religion and false religion. Jesus will tell us which is which. (1 Cor 10:12)

 

[Brakelite]

the numerous branches of Protestantism, when they left ‘home’….to strike out and become “friends with the world” on their own…just like their mother. (James 4:4)

I think you do the original Protestant reformers a grave disservice in claiming they "struck out to become friends of the world'. I don't know from whence in your watchtower teachings such an idea came, but as the reformers began to study scripture for themselves and discover the numerous errors of the papal church, among them the friendship between the world and Rome, they had only two choices... To continue to attempt to reform the church from within and be driven out or die, which many did, or leave and serve God in light of their new found truth, and still suffer and die for their faith. . Just because they didn't know everything you think they should, remember from where they came and funny be so judgemental.
Where they are now, that is a whole different kettle of fish. And don't attempt to convince us that everything you believe is without error. Oh, and you weren't the first to believe the things you do either. For example, Martin Luther accepted soul sleep.

 

[RedFan]

Constantine had a civil problem, Sylvester had a problem with a heretic. They collaborated to convene a council that would resolve both problems because Constantine knew he had no church authority to do it himself.

Sorry, but there isn't a shred of evidence for that collaboration.

You've asked twice and I already supported my statements with links.

None of these three links offers such support. Your "Anti-Catholic myths" link doesn't mention Pope Sylvester at all. Your popehistory.com link states:

"The pope had two legates named Vincentius and Vitus who represented him at the meeting, and both were treated with honor though they did not preside over the event. The pope later gave his official approval to the decisions of the council after the return of his legates." Nothing on collaboration here. Nothing inconsistent with what the historians (Williams and Hanson, for example) say was Constantine's independent brainchild.

Your historyofchristianitypodcast.com link states:

"The bishop of Rome at the time was Sylvester I (285-335 AD). Sylvester did not attend the council but did send representatives and did approve of the decisions made at the council." Again, nothing on collaboration here, and nothing inconsistent with the Council of Nicaea being Constantine's independent brainchild.

But what this link does tellingly say is: "The Arian controversy was seen as an eastern issue and one that it was not as relevant to the west." EXACTLY RIGHT. And your comment

Constantine had a civil problem, Sylvester had a problem with a heretic. They collaborated to convene a council that would resolve both problems

is undermined by the Eastern center of the Arian controversy. It was Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria who had a heretic problem! That is where Arius spawned his heresy. Alexander (or his deacon Athanasius) is the one who sent the letter to bishops throughout Christendom asking that Arianism be condemned. It was Constantine, upon learning of the heresy, who tried to quell it in his letter to the two combatants. Certainly Constantine's letter to the bishops summoning them to Nicaea doesn't mention Pope Sylvester at all. And of all the many survivng letters among various parties involved in the Arian controversy, Pope Sylvester authored zero. Indeed, none of those letters by these various bishops and prelates appeals to the Roman ecclesiastical authority or trades on his moral suasion, or even hints that the Pope has taken Alexander's side against Arius.

Was Sylvester made aware of the Arian heresy? Of course. Did he participate in organizing the Council that condemned it, or even approve such a convention in advance? Show me ONE document that attests to his doing so. Just ONE.

Are you assuming Constantine never met the pope face to face?

No. I suspect that at some point he did meet Sylvester. But that doesn't make Sylvester the emperor's bosom buddy. Your Catholic Encyclopedia link says "legend brings him into close relationship with the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact." I don't deal in legends. I'll just mention that when the Arian controversy sparked his letter convening a council, Constantine had already moved his seat of government from Rome to Nicomedia, so consulting with the Pope wasn't a matter of a stroll down Capitoline Hill.

 

[Marymog]

Easy question to answer really…..we are no part of Christendom….period. We hold no beliefs in common with anything formulated by the RCC and which was taken along like old baggage by her many ‘daughters’….the numerous branches of Protestantism, when they left ‘home’….to strike out and become “friends with the world” on their own…just like their mother. (James 4:4)

I was raised in the Anglican Church, which is about as close to Catholic as you can get without Mary and a few other trappings…..I do not believe anything taught by the “weeds” as they have nothing in common with the “wheat”.
We have completely separated from that rabble, having obeyed God’s command in Rev 18:4-5….those still clinging to this immoral ‘city’ (that has “a kingdom over the kings of the earth”) will go down with her. Let’s see who is laughing then….?

The foretold apostasy took place exactly as Jesus and the original apostles said it would….how amazing for the disunited mess that is Christendom….to pretend it never happened, whilst wondering why God is absent from their churches.
In the wars of the nations, can Catholic kill Catholic, or Protestant kill Protestant, and still regard them as their “brother or sister”? (1 John 4:20-21)
Take a good look at your own ugly backyard before you throw your garbage in ours.

Christendom, no matter what it calls its many denominations, can’t see the forest for the trees….there are so many “branches” that it does not resemble the original in any way….no doctrine originating from the Roman church has any basis in scripture…..not a single one. God sees only two kinds of religion in this world….true religion and false religion. Jesus will tell us which is which. (1 Cor 10:12)

Jane,

Didn't your men foretell and rabble on about the end of the earth and the 2nd coming happening a couple of times, and it (obviously) didn't happen BOTH TIMES? And you still trust them to give you the Truth??

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Easy question to answer really…..we are no part of Christendom….period.

You didn't answer my question, Jane.

I gave FACTS in my post to brokelite and you said his opinion rings more true than my facts. Sooooooooooo I asked you: A FACT rings with more truth than OPINON?????????

YOU DIDN"T ANSWER THE QUESTION JANE, Do facts ring truer than opinion?

Patient Mary!!

 

[Marymog]

I think you do the original Protestant reformers a grave disservice in claiming they "struck out to become friends of the world'. I don't know from whence in your watchtower teachings such an idea came, but as the reformers began to study scripture for themselves and discover the numerous errors of the papal church, among them the friendship between the world and Rome, they had only two choices... To continue to attempt to reform the church from within and be driven out or die, which many did, or leave and serve God in light of their new found truth, and still suffer and die for their faith. . Just because they didn't know everything you think they should, remember from where they came and funny be so judgemental.
Where they are now, that is a whole different kettle of fish. And don't attempt to convince us that everything you believe is without error. Oh, and you weren't the first to believe the things you do either. For example, Martin Luther accepted soul sleep.

Hey Brakelite...........Do you realize how your post lacks any logic??

You said, "as the reformers began to study scripture for themselves and discover the numerous errors of the papal church......they had only two choices... To continue to attempt to reform the church from within......or leave and serve God in light of their new found truth,"

Ummmmmm the ones that left The Church, after they 'studied Scripture for themselves', they 'discovered these numerous errors' and started their own denominations....What happened with those reformers brakelite??? They all came up with different truths from Scripture....Didn't they braklite? Just like the men you follow. Some of those reformers agreed with The Church on many things braklite. Soooooooooo who is in error brakelite? I mean after all braklite they all came up with different 'truths' and they can't all be right.

Sooooo Braklite. Your theory is that the reformers discovered errors of The Church and found the Truth. Do you personally or does your church still practice/adhere to/believe in what those reformers taught? If so, which reformer?

You crack me up......

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus was of course right. Yet the church in Rome did fall, and in devastating fashion. So, in order for Jesus words to be fulfilled we need to look elsewhere for His church that didn't fall away. That's not as difficult as you might think. A little honesty and yes, indeed faith in Jesus's words, you'll find His church.

And if YOU understood the Word of God, you would know that Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18).

There is NO other Church to look for . . .

 

[Augustin56]

And if YOU understood the Word of God, you would know that Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18).

There is NO other Church too look for . . .

Excellent point, BreadofLife! And Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. He never said His Church wouldn't be attacked. And the Church had sinners in it from the very beginning! Judas Iscariot, one of the Apostles, betrayed Our Lord. Peter, the one He chose to first lead His Church after He ascended to heaven, denied Him three times The rest, except for John, deserted Him in His hour of need! THAT is the Church Christ founded. And it was the ONLY Church until the Orthodox splintered off in the Great Schism in 1054 A.D. Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, and has continually splintered ever since into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations. That sort of disagreement could not possibly be the grounding for the fullness of truth Christ desired for mankind.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I’m sorry but that is a rather pathetic response....IMO.

The “darkness” was demonstrated by “the church” all through her sad and bloody history. (Isa 1:15)

Jesus said....”If the light that is in you is really darkness, how great that darkness is!” He was so right!

The list of doctrines that were formulated by “the Roman Catholic church” to introduce all manner of false teachings is a heinous departure from scriptural truth, and used as an excuse to silence any critic, permanently. Just like the Pharisees in Jesus day, full of their own importance and promoting their own teachings over the word of God. (Matt 15:7-9)

Who authorised “the church” to take the lives of dissenters? The only scriptural stance to take was excommunication, not murder...and certainly not torture to force confessions.

The definition of “excommunication” according to the dictionary is as follows......
”The meaning of EXCOMMUNICATION is an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership.” (1 Cor 5:11-13)

Who today follow through on that biblical command? Who removes wicked people from their churches so that “a little leaven does not ferment the whole lump”? How many in the church pews are “living in sin” or are living immoral lives.....who are dishonest in their business practices, or who are addicted to drugs or pornography?
The RCC puts them in a box to “confess their sins”, but then absolves them to return to their wicked ways and continue them. It’s a joke if you think they are truly repentant. I have probably spoken to more Catholics than you have in my 50 years of ministry......their faith is based on deliberately groomed ignorance.
The ‘lump’ was already ‘fermented’ long ago, and remains so to this day. Most Catholics are performers, not thinkers. Meaningless rituals and mindlessly repeated words hold no importance with God....he is not that shallow.

The churches know that if they clamped down on wilful sin in their congregations, their churches would be empty, and who then would pay the ministers and priests for their services? Truth is sacrificed for expedience as it always has been. Your pope lives in a gold inlaid palace full of earthly treasures, but devoid of heavenly ones....and this whilst the bulk of membership in your church, Iives in dire poverty......idolizing Mary instead of worshipping the true God.

The two most important celebrations in the church calendar year are Christmas and Easter, neither of which were originally ”Christian” in origin.....the churches, including your own, who originally adopted the trappings of false worship back in the early centuries, know where they came from, and what the Bible says about false worship, (2 Cor 6:14-18) yet they remain to this day as the two biggest money spinners for Christendom as a whole, giving the commercial system a big slice of its yearly mammon. Could Christ be a party to that? Sad if you think so.

“The church” was hijacked as it was the product of the foretold apostasy....NOT the true church which survived in the hearts of individuals who dared to tell the truth, despite the the RCC’s attempts to silence them. These are the true martyrs of history, those who knew that the church was very corrupt and refused to be silenced. What courage it took to speak out even though they knew that “the church” had no tolerance of anyone who dared to question its self-imposed authority. Death was preferable to compromise with the devil, as it was to the first Christians.

Jesus’ words to Peter as you cited in Matt 16:18 were true....but Jesus was the “rock”...the chief cornerstone of the Kingdom of God.....and the apostate Roman church and its off shoots, could never defeat God’s purpose for it...ever.

When we all face the judgment that is coming, it is Jesus himself who will show us who “the wheat and the weeds” really are.

As usual, there are SO MANY things wrong with your ignorant rant that it is difficult to know just where to begin.

First of all - due to your lack of faith – you actually believe that Christ’s Church can fall into darkness, His guarantee ti the contrary, notwithstanding. There have ALWAYS been bad leaders and wolve in His Church and there ALWAYS will be. He warned about that (Matt. 7:15-19).
And, as for “murdering” – there is PLENTY of blood on EVERYONE’S hands . . .

This does NOT detract from the fact that His ONE Church is still His Bride.

Your idiotic objections to the celebration of His birth and resurrection , referring to them as “false worship” are not only bizarre – that are anti-Christ.

And if I hear ONE more know-nothing tell me that we “worship Mary“ - despite the easy access to the Catechism online – my head will explode . . .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Sorry, but there isn't a shred of evidence for that collaboration.


None of these three links offers such support. Your "Anti-Catholic myths" link doesn't mention Pope Sylvester at all. Your popehistory.com link states:

"The pope had two legates named Vincentius and Vitus who represented him at the meeting, and both were treated with honor though they did not preside over the event. The pope later gave his official approval to the decisions of the council after the return of his legates." Nothing on collaboration here. Nothing inconsistent with what the historians (Williams and Hanson, for example) say was Constantine's independent brainchild.

Your historyofchristianitypodcast.com link states:

"The bishop of Rome at the time was Sylvester I (285-335 AD). Sylvester did not attend the council but did send representatives and did approve of the decisions made at the council." Again, nothing on collaboration here, and nothing inconsistent with the Council of Nicaea being Constantine's independent brainchild.

But what this link does tellingly say is: "The Arian controversy was seen as an eastern issue and one that it was not as relevant to the west." EXACTLY RIGHT. And your comment


is undermined by the Eastern center of the Arian controversy. It was Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria who had a heretic problem! That is where Arius spawned his heresy. Alexander (or his deacon Athanasius) is the one who sent the letter to bishops throughout Christendom asking that Arianism be condemned. It was Constantine, upon learning of the heresy, who tried to quell it in his letter to the two combatants. Certainly Constantine's letter to the bishops summoning them to Nicaea doesn't mention Pope Sylvester at all. And of all the many survivng letters among various parties involved in the Arian controversy, Pope Sylvester authored zero. Indeed, none of those letters by these various bishops and prelates appeals to the Roman ecclesiastical authority or trades on his moral suasion, or even hints that the Pope has taken Alexander's side against Arius.

Was Sylvester made aware of the Arian heresy? Of course. Did he participate in organizing the Council that condemned it, or even approve such a convention in advance? Show me ONE document that attests to his doing so. Just ONE.



No. I suspect that at some point he did meet Sylvester. But that doesn't make Sylvester the emperor's bosom buddy. Your Catholic Encyclopedia link says "legend brings him into close relationship with the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact." I don't deal in legends. I'll just mention that when the Arian controversy sparked his letter convening a council, Constantine had already moved his seat of government from Rome to Nicomedia, so consulting with the Pope wasn't a matter of a stroll down Capitoline Hill.

What are you trying to prove? That the Council of Nicaea was illegitimate because the pope wasn't physically present at the council? That's a new rule you invented.
Who signed the final declarations of the Council of Nicaea making it binding on all believers??? THE POPE, THAT'S WHO. Your objection of his absence during the proceedings is pointless complaining.

 

[RedFan]

What are you trying to prove? That the Council of Nicaea was illegitimate because the pope wasn't physically present at the council? That's a new rule you invented.
Who signed the final declarations of the Council of Nicaea making it binding on all believers??? THE POPE, THAT'S WHO. Your objection of his absence during the proceedings is pointless complaining.

The Council of Nicaea, having been subscribed by over three hundred bishops, was ipso facto legitimate, regardless of the Pope's physical absence. I would abhor any other rule. Not sure why you accuse me of inventing it!

Pope Sylvester (if, as you say, he indeed added his signature to those of his legates on some copy or other transported from Nicaea) was one of many signatories. His was after the fact -- which is fine. I am NOT complaining about his absence from Nicaea. The legitimacy of the council's rulings derives from widespread episcopal consensus. Sylvester's imprimatur didn't create that legitimacy.

What am I trying to prove? That in 325 CE, the role you are ascribing to the Roman Pontiff in the largely-autonomous East is vastly overblown. It may be that way today. It wasn't then. The "Catholic" Church as it existed in 325 CE throughout the Latin West and the Greek East was not the "Roman" Catholic Church as you would think of it today. Rome's hegemony 1700 years ago did not extend to Alexandria or Antioch or Jerusalem or environs, where the source of ecclesiastic legitimacy was apostolic succession simpliciter, not derived from the consent of the Roman Pope.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I think you do the original Protestant reformers a grave disservice in claiming they "struck out to become friends of the world'. I don't know from whence in your watchtower teachings such an idea came, but as the reformers began to study scripture for themselves and discover the numerous errors of the papal church, among them the friendship between the world and Rome, they had only two choices... To continue to attempt to reform the church from within and be driven out or die, which many did, or leave and serve God in light of their new found truth, and still suffer and die for their faith. . Just because they didn't know everything you think they should, remember from where they came and funny be so judgemental.

Protestantism’s history is a very interesting story. No one can deny that their intentions were good at the beginning, in exposing the false teachings and abuses of the RCC. Their initial intention was to reform the Catholic church and rid it of its abuses of power, but that didn’t work…and is ancient history….today is where we find ourselves, and Protestantism sold out to many of the teachings of the RCC.

Claiming to be Bible oriented, it actually took with it the three basic teachings found in all false worship.

1) A multiplicity of gods, which in Christendom’s case created a new kind of god…three personas crammed into one “godhead”…something never mentioned in scripture, but a way to claim that polytheism was actually, monotheism.

2) They also adopted the notion of an immortal soul, which is from Platonic Greek thinking, not from scripture. Jesus taught about resurrection….a return to life, not a continuation of it somewhere else.

3) Belief in a fiery hell of eternal torment for the wicked…..

So the Reformation accomplished only one thing that was positive….it gave the Bible back to the people, but in the process, broke “Christianity” up into innumerable sects….following the teachings of men (and women) all claiming to teach inspired biblical truth…so who has the truth? Does God speak with a forked tongue?

Where they are now, that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Is it? Now is where we are at this moment. All we have is now. Has there been improvement down through history? Or is the whole church system dying through lack of anything to sustain it?…..most importantly, God’s spirit and guidance.
How can God’s spirit penetrate their endless squabbling even over political issues, let alone religious ones?

And don't attempt to convince us that everything you believe is without error.

Our mistakes are human, (the apostles made mistakes too) but we remain focused on the present and the future. We cannot alter the past but we can move on from it if we have learned something.
We are progressive in our understanding, as the first Christians were…and as the day for God’s judgment approaches, we eagerly await the outcome, and a whole new start on planet earth. (2 Peter 3:13)
We are not so focused on heaven that we forget where God planned for us to live forever….in the beginning. (Gen 3:22-24)

Oh, and you weren't the first to believe the things you do either. For example, Martin Luther accepted soul sleep.

So did Jesus….where was Lazarus before Jesus awakened him? Jesus said he was “sleeping”. (John 11:11-14)
The entire OT testified to soul sleep. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17)
The ancient Jews had no belief in an immortal soul that continued to exist after the death of the body….so what else would they have believed except what God told Adam..?

Gen 3:19…
”In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Adam was not given a soul but “became” one when God started him breathing. (Gen 2:7) The soul dies when breathing stops. (Ezekiel 18:4) Therefore, death is no more scary than going to sleep.

There is no activity after death….but you know this…right?

 

[Aunty Jane]

As usual, there are SO MANY things wrong with your ignorant rant that it is difficult to know just where to begin.

First of all - due to your lack of faith – you actually believe that Christ’s Church can fall into darkness, His guarantee ti the contrary, notwithstanding.

Well, that is just the point….when the foretold apostasy took hold, Christ left the building…..when Jesus says at the judgment……”I NEVER knew you”….”never” means “not ever”….he has never set foot in any disgusting sham of imitation “Christianity”….full of man-made traditions and borrowed religious rituals not found in any scripture. (Matt 7:21-23)

There have ALWAYS been bad leaders and wolve in His Church and there ALWAYS will be. He warned about that (Matt. 7:15-19).
And, as for “murdering” – there is PLENTY of blood on EVERYONE’S hands . . .

Are you making excuses now?
Murder is the unlawful taking of human life…..not ever sanctioned by God in the Christian Era……bad leaders were not removed from your church and because of the continuing corruption, it just went from bad to worse. The hapless members of the church were at the mercy of these tyrants for centuries, drunk with their own power over those who were made deliberately ignorant so that they could not ascertain the truth for themselves, but were forced to swallow all the lies that the RCC fed them, under threat of the Inquisition. That indoctrination continues to this day, as does the ignorance and fear that keeps them shackled to a religious system that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Christianity that Christ instituted.

This does NOT detract from the fact that His ONE Church is still His Bride.

Indeed, but it is not your church….how could it be? Everything Christ said not to do, is what Catholicism teaches and practices. The Reformation happened because the corruption had reached a stage where Luther‘s conscience had said “enough!“ He didnt want to start a new religion, but simply wanted to clean up the disgusting state of the church. Did he succeed? NO! But he did start a revolution and broke the power of the hopelessly corrupt Roman church…..but Protestantism only broke the church up into more divided fragments, never able to come to a consensus on “what is truth”.

Your idiotic objections to the celebration of His birth and resurrection , referring to them as “false worship” are not only bizarre – that are anti-Christ.

O you are funny…..your church knows full well where those celebrations come from….renaming pagan festivals and retaining all the trappings of the originals, but calling them “Christian” doesn’t fool God for a moment.
Paul’s words should ring loud in your collective ears….
2 Cor 6:14-18….
“What Relation Can There Be between Righteousness and Iniquity? Do not associate with unbelievers. For what basis can there be for a partnership between righteousness and lawlessness? What do light and darkness have in common? Can Christ ever be in accord with Beliar? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? Can there be an agreement between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God, and for this we have God’s word:“I will live in them and walk among them.I will be their God,and they shall be my people. Therefore, come out from their midstand separate yourselves from them,says the Lord.Do not touch anything unclean,and I will welcome you. I will be a father to you,and you shall be my sons and daughters,says the Lord Almighty.” (New Catholic Bible)

The RCC has borrowed all its festive celebrations from pagan sources….let me inform you, in case this has never been brought to your attention…

1) No one knows the date of Jesus’ birth for the simple reason that the Jews did not celebrate birthdays because of its spiritistic origins. It was astrologers who cast horoscopes based on the date of a child’s birth to predict its future. That was forbidden in God’s law. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)
So Christ would not have celebrated his own birthday as it would have been a violation of his Father’s law.
The date of “Christmas” as well as all the traditions that accompany it, were part of pagan celebrations.

2) The Catholic Encyclopedia makes the following admission: “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their list of feasts.” When apostate Christians began to fall away to pagan practices, Tertullian complained: “By us, who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia [and other pagan feasts] are now frequented, gifts are carried to and fro, . . . and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar.” (Gal 4:10; Col 2:8)

In an effort to gain pagan converts the Roman Catholic clergy in the fourth century after the death of Christ took in this pagan “Saturnalia” on December 25 and sponsored it as the “mass of Christ” or “Christ-mass.” Christmas, therefore, is nothing more than a carbon copy of the pagan Saturnalia. This is generally admitted by historical and religious scholars. Is the God of truth a party to this disgusting adoption?

3) Easter is equally pagan in origin and the fact that they didn’t even change the name of the fertility goddess in whose honor the original festival was held, with her symbols, rabbits and eggs, featuring prominently in the celebration, is proof enough of its origins. You can’t seriously read the scripture quoted above and still defiantly carry on as if it doesn’t matter. To engage in such things is to rule yourselves out of admission to God’s spiritually clean family of “sons and daughters”.

And if I hear ONE more know-nothing tell me that we “worship Mary“ - despite the easy access to the Catechism online – my head will explode . . .

I guess you can protest all you like…..but the evidence speaks for itself….it’s not what you say….it’s what you do that counts…..we will be judged by our actions, not just our words, which ring pretty hollow when you see Catholic idolatry in action.


What do you call this?
If God’s command in Ex20:4-5 is to be obeyed, rather than blatantly disobeyed, then what is the excuse?

What did God tell his people?
“You shall not make idols or any image of things that are in the heavens above or that are upon the earth or that are in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow before them nor shall you serve them. I, the Lord, am your God, a jealous God, who punishes the sins of fathers upon their sons until the third and fourth generations of those who hate me”. (New Catholic Bible)

The command was not to “MAKE” an image of anything that exists, and not to “BOW BEFORE THEM”
And here is the leader of your church doing exactly what God told his people NOT to do.

Please stop excusing this pretend Christianity….

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

The Council of Nicaea, having been subscribed by over three hundred bishops, was ipso facto legitimate, regardless of the Pope's physical absence. I would abhor any other rule. Not sure why you accuse me of inventing it!

Pope Sylvester (if, as you say, he indeed added his signature to those of his legates on some copy or other transported from Nicaea) was one of many signatories. His was after the fact -- which is fine. I am NOT complaining about his absence from Nicaea. The legitimacy of the council's rulings derives from widespread episcopal consensus. Sylvester's imprimatur didn't create that legitimacy.

I never said it did. Nicaea affirmed the Church had always been trinitarian based on scripture and tradition. Arius lost because the tradition of Arianism was non-existent. No pope invented the Trinity, it's a divinely revealed truth and a banned topic.

What am I trying to prove? That in 325 CE, the role you are ascribing to the Roman Pontiff in the largely-autonomous East is vastly overblown. It may be that way today. It wasn't then. The "Catholic" Church as it existed in 325 CE throughout the Latin West and the Greek East was not the "Roman" Catholic Church as you would think of it today. Rome's hegemony 1700 years ago did not extend to Alexandria or Antioch or Jerusalem or environs, where the source of ecclesiastic legitimacy was apostolic succession simpliciter, not derived from the consent of the Roman Pope.

Your jumping back and forth in three different eras. "the largely-autonomous East" were in heresy most of the time, with Rome settling disputes. Again, the Pope gets his authority from the prerogatives Jesus gave to Peter.

 

[RedFan]

"the largely-autonomous East" were in heresy most of the time, with Rome settling disputes. .

How can you seriously say "most of the time" here? There were many East-centered or East-originating heresies in the first three centuries of Christianity, and most of them were put down by Eastern bishoprics, not by Rome. I'm having trouble thinking of a single second-or third-century Eastern heresy that was kiboshed by Rome.

Again, the Pope gets his authority from the prerogatives Jesus gave to Peter

PETER got his authority from the prerogatives Jesus gave to Peter. But when it comes to Peter’s passing on the Keys to the Kingdom to a single successor in Rome, and that successor to the next, and so on in an unbroken line of Roman bishops, the required assumptions are as follows:

1. Jesus intended Peter’s authority to be passed on by Peter to a successor, i.e., it was intended as an assignable authority. (No recorded words of Jesus, apocryphal or not, express such an intention.)

2. The means by which Peter’s authority got assigned – to one man only – was initially by Peter’s own selection of a successor, not by wider apostolic vote (such as the election of Matthias as recounted in Acts 1:24-26).

3. Like Paul before him, Peter went to Rome to end his days in a church he did not found. But because of his preeminence, Peter – not Paul – became Rome’s bishop (unlike in Jerusalem, where James was leader of the church while Peter was active there).

4. Of all the bishops that Peter may have appointed in his travels (e.g., Antioch), the one man that he assigned his “keys” to was the bishop he appointed in Rome, generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James ).

5. Peter’s authority not only could be assigned to another, but the assignee himself could further assign that authority to a person of his choosing, i.e., the “keys” are assignable by any subsequent recipient of those keys.

6. Eventually – likely to fill a gap when, inevitably, no one had been appointed as a successor before the incumbent died – the Bishop of Rome was installed not by his immediate predecessor but by acclamation of the Christian community in Rome, or by consensus or vote of clergy or of other bishops (in Italy, not worldwide) – all with the same validity as if appointed by his immediate predecessor.

Which of these assumptions would you like to try to support first?

 

[RedFan]

On the subject of Rome resolving Eastern disputes, here's the view of Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (1993):

“Three bishops (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) had traditionally exercised a measure of jurisdiction beyond the frontiers of their province, Alexandria controlling upper Egypt and Libya, and Rome the churches of southern Italy. These rights were recognized as a modification of the metropolitan system, though their nature and limits are not defined. A significant canon declared that special honour attaches to the see of Jerusalem, though without prejudice to the metropolitan rights of Caesarea. These pregnant words marked a crucial step towards the fifth-century creation of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, gradually achieved in face of bitter opposition from Caesarea.

“The Nicene canons throw much light, therefore, on the developing organization and ‘power structure’ of the church. By 325 the Greek churches at least were accustomed to an organization based on the secular provincial system, and the unit normally conformed to that of the State. But what court of appeal could stand above a provincial council? Unlike the West, the East had no single see of unquestioned pre-eminence, but only great cities like Alexandria and Antioch and (from 330) Constantinople. The one Greek city with sacred sites of the first importance was Jerusalem, whose bishops showed a strong awareness that they presided over the mother-church of Christendom; but it never became a major centre of power in the Church. Not until the fifth century, in face of passionate opposition from Alexandria, could the see of Constantinople establish in the East a position comparable with that of Rome in the West. But for the Latin bishops the Western prestige of Rome simplified the problem.”

 

[Brakelite]

And if YOU understood the Word of God, you would know that Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18).

There is NO other Church to look for . . .

Indeed. One church... One body... With many members. One of those members was the Papal church in Rome. One branch fell away from the true. Apostatised. Wrote it's own bill of divorce through rejecting her Husband and marrying the kings and queens of this world and trusting in them to sustain her power and authority. One branch broke away from the true faith that was in Rome. Just like one individual can break away through unbelief or habitual sin, so can one branch of God's people. That is not too day that there are not any of God people still in the church. There are, else why would God say, "come out of her My people". The church in Rome BoL was not the only church around, and not the only church that had their roots in apostolic teaching. Jesus indeed said that God's church would be victorious, and that Satan would not prevail over her. Hence the reason why we have genuine Christians all over the world today. They don't all belong to one communion of faith. But every one belongs to Christ, those whose deeds and works reflect trust, obedience, and commitment to the principles of Christ's righteousness as laid out in His word.

 

[Brakelite]

Hey Brakelite...........Do you realize how your post lacks any logic??

You said, "as the reformers began to study scripture for themselves and discover the numerous errors of the papal church......they had only two choices... To continue to attempt to reform the church from within......or leave and serve God in light of their new found truth,"

Ummmmmm the ones that left The Church, after they 'studied Scripture for themselves', they 'discovered these numerous errors' and started their own denominations....What happened with those reformers brakelite??? They all came up with different truths from Scripture....Didn't they braklite? Just like the men you follow. Some of those reformers agreed with The Church on many things braklite. Soooooooooo who is in error brakelite? I mean after all braklite they all came up with different 'truths' and they can't all be right.

Sooooo Braklite. Your theory is that the reformers discovered errors of The Church and found the Truth. Do you personally or does your church still practice/adhere to/believe in what those reformers taught? If so, which reformer?

You crack me up......

I'm not playing these silly word games with you, where you continuously attempt to trick people into corners through lies and obfuscation.