When was the RCC founded?

[David Kent]

Yes. I agree that the Catholic Church started in the 4th century. Quoting 4th century Catholics dies not prove otherwise.

There is the "catholic church" of Ignatius (he was referring to the "Bride", where ever Christians are gathered as a church).

But that isn't what you are talking about. You are talking about the Catholic Church of Augustine.

I actually made the point that the Roman Catholic sect did not exist at that time (it was a unified Catholic Church). Do no, you get no points there.

Which Augustine are you referring to? Augustine of hippo I believe was an evangelical. Augustine of Canterbury was a Roman Catholic sent to England by the Pope to "convert" England. The Saxons who were pagans, readily accepted his teaching, but the Britons rejected it, because they had received the gospel from apostolic times. That didnt suit Augustine as when they rejected his teaching, he murdered them. It is recorded that when the king of Walles refused to convert, he murdered 1000 of his troops. It is also recorded that the Saxons readily accepted his teaching and that he baptised 10,000 in the River Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent. Also that he baptised another 10,000 including the king of Northumberland in the River swale in Yorkshire. That seems a strange coincidence.

 

[JonC]

I really meaning the Roman church since it became pagan at the time of Constantine.

I don't know that the church in Rome became pagan. I suspect that Christians in Rome maintains their faith, some even under Catholicism.

Like Ignatius pointed out, where Christians assemble as a congregation there is the catholic church (the Bride). I think this could even occur under the Catholic Church.

But as an organization Christianity was ultimately rooted out of the Catholic Church. In one way the Catholic Church became increasingly pagan over time. But in another it was born apostate. Christianity was decreed on pagans, so it was a false church....but within this false church there existed true Christians.

 

[JonC]

Which Constantine are you referring to. Constantine of hippo I believe was an evangelical. Constantine of Canterbury was a Roman Catholic sent to England by the Pope to "convert" England. The Saxons who were pagans, readily accepted his teaching, but thevBrit

I'd say it started with Constantine the Great, solidified with Theodosius I.

Anytime a religion is compelled by a government the result will be an amalgamation of that faith and the existing faith it was to replace.

This is why the Catholic Church is, and always has been, Christianity married to paganism.

 

[David Kent]

I'd say it started with Constantine the Great, solidified with Theodosius I.

Anytime a religion is compelled by a government the result will be an amalgamation of that faith and the existing faith it was to replace.

This is why the Catholic Church is, and always has been, Christianity married to paganism.

When the Jews untied with Paganism worshipping the queen of heaven at the time of Jeremiah, were they Jews wedded to paganism, or pagans?

 

[Eric B]

Which Augustine are you referring to? Augustine of hippo I believe was an evangelical. Augustine of Canterbury was a Roman Catholic sent to England by the Pope to "convert" England. The Saxons who were pagans, readily accepted his teaching, but the Britons rejected it, because they had received the gospel from apostolic times. That didnt suit Augustine as when they rejected his teaching, he murdered them. It is recorded that when the king of Walles refused to convert, he murdered 1000 of his troops. It is also recorded that the Saxons readily accepted his teaching and that he baptised 10,000 in the River Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent. Also that he baptised another 10,000 including the king of Northumberland in the River swale in Yorkshire. That seems a strange coincidence.

When people refer to Augustine in the development of church history, it's Augustine of Hippo. He supposedly laid the groundwork for much of the later Church, including the polity, celibate priesthood, further shaped the formal expression of the Trinity, and of course, the electionism later picked up again by the Reformers after the RCC kind of slid away from it.

But then Ignatius as well, planted the seed of later church organization with his extreme focus on the "bishop". If the word count I did on a full text of all his writing is correct (no duplicate texts, etc.) then he mentioned it over 100 times in just his seven short epistles! He clearly was giving them the power over the people, in dealing with persecution and schism.

So the RCC really has no solid founding date. It grew out of the NT church, but gradually changed with the times. It got its frst real boost as a solid institution with Constantine. I'd say as an independent body, I'd agree with the 1054 date, for even though it was the more powerful and popular church, Rome still was one patriarchate out of five that broke away from the others, which then embodied the EOC, so it was more the RCC breaking away from the EOC than the EOC breaking away from the RCC.

 

[David Kent]

RECENT VISIT TO THE INQUISITION. 271
Note XXXII.
The Modern Inquisition at Rome.
" I stood myself within its office grim,
Faced the Inquisitor, and talked with him."
—p. 116.
Account of the author's visit to the Inquisition in Rome.
Accompanied by Mr. Wall, a well-known Baptist missionary who
has laboured in Rome since 1870, I visited the Inquisition three years
ago, and had a long interview with two of the chief Inquisitors.
That interview is described on pages 115-118.
In a long and lofty side court, we saw the numerous narrow windows
of the former Inquisition prisons. Part of the building is now used as
a barrack for soldiers ; the rest remains in the hands of the Inquisitors.
We were shown the chamber in which the Inquisitors still sit in council
week by week. The Holy Office is, as in past centuries, in the hands
of the Dominicans, with the Pope at their head.
When I inquired from the Inquisitors whether the Inquisition
possessed branches at the present day in different countries, as in times
past, they told me that the bishops throughout the world were their
coadjutors ; and when I asked whether the bishops were not free agents in such matters, the head Inquisitor answered emphatically, " They do
as we bid them." In reply to my inquiries whether the Inquisition
had changed its principles and objects from what they were in past
centuries, he said, "Rome never changes; what she was in the days of
her youth, she is still; she is infallible, and her laws are inflexible ! "
Coming from such a quarter this testimony is decisive. " Semper
eadem " is the boasted title of the apostate persecuting Papal Church.
Henry Grattan Guiness. The City of the Seven Hills, c1890 The History of Rome, in the form of a poem.

 

[Cathode]

Yes.

I'd say it started with Constantine the Great, solidified with Theodosius I.

Anytime a religion is compelled by a government the result will be an amalgamation of that faith and the existing faith it was to replace.

This is why the Catholic Church is, and always has been, Christianity married to paganism.

If you read Constantine and look at facts at the time, Christianity was very separate from paganism. There was no blending of the two, they were antithetical belief systems. The Catholics were hostile to paganry and so was Constantine.

 

[JonC]

When the Jews untied with Paganism worshipping the queen of heaven at the time of Jeremiah, were they Jews wedded to paganism, or pagans?

Yes. That is why God used the images of adultery.

 

[JonC]

If you read Constantine and look at facts at the time, Christianity was very separate from paganism. There was no blending of the two, they were antithetical belief systems. The Catholics were hostile to paganry and so was Constantine.

At the time of Constantine it was. Constantine himself, not so much.

The Romanization of Christianity was after Constantine. The issue was Rome making Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

Prior to the Hasmonean period the Seleucid Empire mandated pagan worship (leading to the Maccabbee Revolt). There was a movement within the Hebrew religion even before this time to hellenize their faith, but when paganism was mandated the solution for many (especially the priests and Sadducees) was to worship the pagan gods while maintaining true worship to God.

This is what happened when Rome mandated Christianity. Pagan worship continued under the guise of the Christian faith.

The Eucharist became the focal point of worship (as it was with the Roman mystery religions). Rituals and Sacraments were implemented. The priesthood was reinstalled. Biblical churches could not legally exist. Christians could no longer gather in congregations under an "overseer" chosen from that congregation but were forced to accept the pagan priesthood of Rome or face persecution.

The Catholic Church is just as much pagan as it is Christian (probably more pagan than Christian). That does not mean the gospel isn't there. Reformed Churches are just as much Catholic as they are Christian as well.

 

[Cathode]

At the time of Constantine it was. Constantine himself, not so much.

The Romanization of Christianity was after Constantine. The issue was Rome making Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

Right, so now Christianity wasn’t paganised under Constantine as many have been telling me for years. It was some time later, now.
Presumably people have read some of Constantine’s writings and edicts, and seen how untenable that idea ever was.
Constantine removed pagans from sacred sites like Abraham’s Altar, and issued the death penalty for any pagan who tried making sacrifices there. He ordered a Church be on the site to protect it.
Constantine’s mother-in-law was horrified seeing pagan sacrifices and rituals there and informed him of it.

This is what happened when Rome mandated Christianity. Pagan worship continued under the guise of the Christian faith.

The Eucharist became the focal point of worship (as it was with the Roman mystery religions). Rituals and Sacraments were implemented. The priesthood was reinstalled. Biblical churches could not legally exist.

The Eucharist was the Christian focal point long before Constantine or the supposed pagan corruption timeline you suggest after him.

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).


“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D.

Christians could no longer gather in congregations under an "overseer" chosen from that congregation but were forced to accept the pagan priesthood of Rome or face persecution.

Christian congregations electing their own overseerers/ Bishops is unbiblical, they were always Apostolically appointed through the laying on of hands by those that were approved and appointed.

The Catholic Church is just as much pagan as it is Christian (probably more pagan than Christian). That does not mean the gospel isn't there. Reformed Churches are just as much Catholic as they are Christian as well.

You haven’t proven pagan practices in the Catholic Church, the Church under persecution celebrated the Eucharist long before Constantine and view it as Catholics view it today, as the Body and Blood of Jesus, to be eaten and to drink unto Salvation.
Jesus established The Eucharist and Priesthood with the Apostles, not pagans.

 

[JonC]

Right, so now Christianity wasn’t paganised under Constantine as many have been telling me for years. It was some time later, now.
Presumably people have read some of Constantine’s writings and edicts, and seen how untenable that idea ever was.
Constantine removed pagans from sacred sites like Abraham’s Altar, and issued the death penalty for any pagan who tried making sacrifices there. He ordered a Church be on the site to protect it.
Constantine’s mother-in-law was horrified seeing pagan sacrifices and rituals there and informed him of it.



The Eucharist was the Christian focal point long before Constantine or the supposed pagan corruption timeline you suggest after him.

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).


“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D.



Christian congregations electing their own overseerers/ Bishops is unbiblical, they were always Apostolically appointed through the laying on of hands by those that were approved and appointed.



You haven’t proven pagan practices in the Catholic Church, the Church under persecution celebrated the Eucharist long before Constantine and view it as Catholics view it today, as the Body and Blood of Jesus, to be eaten and to drink unto Salvation.
Jesus established The Eucharist and Priesthood with the Apostles, not pagans.

Right. Christianity was not paganized by an individual.

Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This did not instantly make Christians pagans. But it did make pagans "Christian".

If you are familiar with religion and history this should be fairly clear. Everytime a religion is compelled it results in a dilution of that faith.

The result is with the Roman Empire forcing Christianity on its citizens was the Catholic Church. The "Church" became a political power.

The Catholic Church reinterpreted Scripture. Scripture itself no longer became the rule of faith as it was replaced by the Catholic Church.

This resulted in a pagan view of Communion (the Eucharist), a pagan adaptation of a priesthood (Catholic priests as mediators), and the introduction of ritual and sacrament.

But yes, you are correct that one person did not somehow wave a pagan wand and change Christianity. It occurred as it has every time in history.

Catholicism is an amalgamation of Christianity and paganism. Paul's instruction that the congregation choose an "overseer" amongst themselves is ignored because the Catholic Church says so. The priesthood of believers is ignored because the Catholic Church says so. The bread and wine becomes literal flesh and blood rather than the covenantal testimony as Christ presented the elements because the Catholic Church says do. Mary was sinless because the Catholic Church says so.

That does not mean that one cannot be Catholic and a Christian.

 

[Cathode]

This resulted in a pagan view of Communion (the Eucharist), a pagan adaptation of a priesthood (Catholic priests as mediators), and the introduction of ritual and sacrament.

Why can I quote Church Fathers long before Constantine who call the Eucharist a sacrament, your saying the Eucharist was a paganisation some time after Constantine, does not fit.

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those who deny this gift of God are perishing” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

But yes, you are correct that one person did not somehow wave a pagan wand and change Christianity. It occurred as it has every time in history.

You seem to be waving an unhistorical wand creating fictional illusions. The Eucharist is the heart of Christianity now and back to the times of the Early Fathers pre Constantine.

I could go back in time and believe exactly as they believe.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Right. Christianity was not paganized by an individual.

Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This did not instantly make Christians pagans. But it did make pagans "Christian".

If you are familiar with religion and history this should be fairly clear. Everytime a religion is compelled it results in a dilution of that faith.

The result is with the Roman Empire forcing Christianity on its citizens was the Catholic Church. The "Church" became a political power.

The Catholic Church reinterpreted Scripture. Scripture itself no longer became the rule of faith as it was replaced by the Catholic Church.

This resulted in a pagan view of Communion (the Eucharist), a pagan adaptation of a priesthood (Catholic priests as mediators), and the introduction of ritual and sacrament.

But yes, you are correct that one person did not somehow wave a pagan wand and change Christianity. It occurred as it has every time in history.

Catholicism is an amalgamation of Christianity and paganism. Paul's instruction that the congregation choose an "overseer" amongst themselves is ignored because the Catholic Church says so. The priesthood of believers is ignored because the Catholic Church says so. The bread and wine becomes literal flesh and blood rather than the covenantal testimony as Christ presented the elements because the Catholic Church says do. Mary was sinless because the Catholic Church says so.

That does not mean that one cannot be Catholic and a Christian.

Please don’t forget the dominant placement of Mary the Mother Of God in this whole amalgamation. I am guessing that the RCC did not really see much need for the Holy Spirit and so shifted much of the responsibility to Mary as a means of Glorifying the Mother of God. And it makes sense. Who doesn’t love a mother figure and want a mother to pray to. Such is the RC playbook.

 

[Salty]

[QUOTE="Cathode, post: 2858739, member: 21017" ... The Eucharist is the heart of Christianity now and back to the times of the Early Fathers pre Constantine.
...[/QUOTE]

I do NOT see the "Eucharist as the heart of Christianity.

Jesus said in John 14: 6 I am the way, the truth and the life, no man commeth unto the Father, but thru me.
Bottom line - When we repent of our sins - accept Christ as our Savior - plus nothing - minus nothing - We are born again, and the Lord promises we will spend eternity in Heaven - all others will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

That is the heart of Christianity-!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Right. Christianity was not paganized by an individual.

Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This did not instantly make Christians pagans. But it did make pagans "Christian".

If you are familiar with religion and history this should be fairly clear. Everytime a religion is compelled it results in a dilution of that faith.

The result is with the Roman Empire forcing Christianity on its citizens was the Catholic Church. The "Church" became a political power.

The Catholic Church reinterpreted Scripture. Scripture itself no longer became the rule of faith as it was replaced by the Catholic Church.

This resulted in a pagan view of Communion (the Eucharist), a pagan adaptation of a priesthood (Catholic priests as mediators), and the introduction of ritual and sacrament.

But yes, you are correct that one person did not somehow wave a pagan wand and change Christianity. It occurred as it has every time in history.

Catholicism is an amalgamation of Christianity and paganism. Paul's instruction that the congregation choose an "overseer" amongst themselves is ignored because the Catholic Church says so. The priesthood of believers is ignored because the Catholic Church says so. The bread and wine becomes literal flesh and blood rather than the covenantal testimony as Christ presented the elements because the Catholic Church says do. Mary was sinless because the Catholic Church says so.

That does not mean that one cannot be Catholic and a Christian.

What kind of Christian is the million dollar question? Does the Catholic make Regeneration a central tenant to walking a Christian life? No it’s jumping the sacraments which is works based not Grace based. Does the RC truly accept you as a fellow Christian… no, their church is the one true religion.

 

[Cathode]

[QUOTE="Cathode, post: 2858739, member: 21017" ... The Eucharist is the heart of Christianity now and back to the times of the Early Fathers pre Constantine.
...

I do NOT see the "Eucharist as the heard of Christianity.

Jesus said in John 14: 6 I am the way, the truth and the life, no man commeth unto the Father, but thru me.
Bottom line - When we repent of our sins - accept Christ as our Savior - plus nothing - minus nothing - We are born again, and the Lord promises we will spend eternity in Heaven - all others will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

That is the heart of Christianity-![/QUOTE]

For us Jesus is the heart of Christianity, the Eucharist is Jesus Himself.

 

[Salty]

For us Jesus is the heart of Christianity, the Eucharist is Jesus Himself.

And that is a major difference!
As the Eucharist does NOT get you any closer to Heaven

 

[Cathode]

And that is a major difference!
As the Eucharist does NOT get you any closer to Heaven

Telling a Catholic that is like saying Jesus does not get you any closer to heaven.

Jesus is the core of our faith.

 

[Cathode]

Please don’t forget the dominant placement of Mary the Mother Of God in this whole amalgamation. I am guessing that the RCC did not really see much need for the Holy Spirit and so shifted much of the responsibility to Mary as a means of Glorifying the Mother of God. And it makes sense. Who doesn’t love a mother figure and want a mother to pray to. Such is the RC playbook.

Do you believe Jesus is God?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you believe Jesus is God?

Yes, through the Holy Ghost. Do you believe Mary is God?