So who was then?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question about a Catholic litany
- Thread starter Speedpass
- Start date
- Status
Shame. You disappoint me.
After Pentecost and when the Apostles set out to set out to establish Churches and baptize and make disciples, FIVE (5) Patriarchates that were eventually established...those being in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Each one of these were established by an Apostle of our Lord.
The Orthodox Church and other historians of Church history believes and teach that The Church in Rome was founded by St. Paul and some will list St. Peter as well. The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. have St. Linus (c. 78), as the first bishop or pope and a martyr. It is however believed that Peter did die in Rome.
In roughly 1054, what is known as the Great Schism, Rome separated itself from the remaining Patriarchates...eventually the Church in Rome became known as the Roman Catholic Church and the other Churches became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I am an Orthodox Christian that is a part of the Church in Antioch, which was founded by both the Apostles Peter and Paul.
In XC
-
Lori stated that it was either straight to heaven or straight to hell. According to RC theology that is wrong. That would omit the hellish stop (however many hundreds or thousands of years that hellish stop would be) at purgatory. It is evident therefore that one does not go straight to heaven. All those with venial sin go straight to purgatory. Why not be honest in your posting.
I took a Roman Catholic RCIA class and I was almost sold on the whole Purgatory theology, but once I entered Orthodox Catechesis and discovered that the idea of a purgatory as the Catholics believed wasn't taught in the Early Church, I had a change of heart...and having to keep up with "venial sins" and "mortal sins" was a little over the top.
In XC
-
I am not much help here because I never watch Star Wars and don't know much of what your talking about.
If you look in books on Cults and World Religions, there are some that consider the RCC as a cult; most put it under the category as a world religion simply because of its size. However, to be fair, it has all the characteristics of a cult following, with the Pope at its head. The main difference between a traditional cult and the RCC is its belief in many of the orthodox doctrines of Christianity such as the trinity, deity of Christ, virgin birth.
But add to that salvation by works, prayer to dead saints, Mariolatry, Purgatory, indulgences, sacrament of extreme unction, confession of sins to a priest, secondary authority other than the Bible, man-made doctrines outside of the Bible, ever-changing doctrine, etc., one can see that the RCC is clearly cultish. These are the marks of a cult.
The Catholic Church never had any kind of origin until the time of Constantine in the fourth century.
Buzzzzt wrong...Constantine endorsed Christianity, to make a long story short...Constatine lived from 227 to 337...the Great Schism is generally accepted to have occurred in 1054...after the split, the Church in Rome became known as the "Roman Catholic Church"...the RCC as we know it today. There was no "Roman Catholic Church" as we know it today prior to 1054...all the Churches that made up the 5 Patriarchates were in communion with the other. They may have referred to themselves as "catholic" small "c" or "orthodox", but there was NO "Roman Catholic Church", during that time.
In XC
-
That is a false statement.
Paul wrote to the church at Rome. Here is what the last verse of his letter said:
Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. <<Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.>>
He wrote from Corinth. In that letter, if you read chapter 16 he mentions dozens of people--prominent people like Aquilla and Priscilla. But he doesn't mention Peter. He doesn't mention Peter because Peter wasn't there. Paul, as we know from his missionary journeys was eventually taken to Rome, and was there executed. The letter to the Corinthians was written about 55 A.D. Paul's death was around 68 A.D., just before he wrote 2 Timothy. 1 and 11 Cor. were written relatively close together. Paul wrote the book of Romans about 58 A.D.
2 Peter was the last epistle written by Peter. It was written after the epistle of Romans, after the death of Paul, but before the destruction of the Temple. That would put 2Peter's writing at 68-69 A.D. It is only tradition that even puts Peter in Rome at all. And if there, he made it there to die, and that is all. He certainly wasn't the Pope by any means. He was one that suffered and wrote about suffering to those undergoing the same (in his first epistle written a couple of years earlier). Peter refers to Paul a couple of times, and in one of his references the reference seems to be to the Book of Romans. It was a writing "hard to understand."
Paul was in Galatia three times: 51, 54, and 57 A.D. He wrote his epistle to the Galatians about 58 A.D. But look at
Galatians 2:11-12 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
--Not very good actions for a Pope was it?
And he was in Antioch, not in Rome. How long he was in Antioch it does not say. But this is Paul's communication with Peter, not in the Book of Romans, but in the Book of Galatians, where it comes as a rebuke and not as a greeting. Peter's communication or reference to Paul comes in reference to his writings as already being inscripturated as Scripture.
2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--His epistles were already considered to be Scripture, indicating that Paul was already dead by this point.
How long was Peter in Rome? Maybe one year or less, it at all.
The evidence speaks against you.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Even there I would beg to differ slightly with you. Its Seems Roman Catholicism as we have it today apreared in the 1500's. Many Christians don't understand the Edict of Milan by Constantine only gave Christians
religious toleration. It did not Make Christianity (Catholic) the "official roman religion". In fact, The official religion was still pagan. We don't see a switch to Christianity being the "official religion" until Theodocius I. At the time of Constantine Christianity was only seperated down these lines Donatist - Libaeli; and Arian - Nicean. Constantine could care less which became Orthdox save that the dispute were settled and one were. Apart from that Not much more occured. In fact the Next emperor attempted to re-institute pagan requirements of Christian persecution.
I am not interested in you technicalities. Yes I will concede that your relatively new church, started just a couple hundred years prior to the reformation in 1054, and had nothing to do with the beginnings of Christianity.
Over the top or not, I quoted straight from the Catechism which started this debate. Care to argue with the Catechism again?
ummmmm, sometimes half-asleep. :smilewinkgrin:
So in other words, you're not interested in Church History...then please DHK, present to the class one (1), just one Baptist father that knew an Apostle...any Apostle...
IF DHK, the Baptist Church or your particular brand of Baptist Church is the authentic NT Church and was "underground", then why aren't there Baptist Churches all over Eastern Europe? Why are they only mission churches, established by largely American missionaries? Show the class a true "authentic" NT Baptist Church in Eastern Europe that can trace it's beginnings to an Apostle. Do it DHK.
In XC
-
I am sure you know that the Mormons have some of the most detailed and informative genealogical sites on the WEB, and if you want to do any kind of informative research on your own genealogy you will end up on one of their websites somewhere along the line.
That being the case, their claim is that each one of them can claim their heritage right back to Adam. Do you believe them?
If not, I give the same reason for not believing you. It is a matter of credibility.
Well DHK, I don't know much about the Mormon Church and actually I was quite able to trace my own family genealogy all the way back to England without the help of any Mormon genealogy website...but, are you asking if I believe my ancestors are from Adam? YES I do!
Can I trace my ancestors one by one all the way to Adam...LOL...NO...kinda impossible unless there were good record keeping data bases that survived a little know event called the great FLOOD...LOL and you're using this Mormon claim as a litmus test to debunk Church History? You got to be kidding me DHK!...
If That's the case, you're up the creek without a paddle in regard to you tracing your baptist church as the authentic NT church...LOL... But can I trace my Church...The Church at Antioch back to an Apostle? Yep, sure can.
In XC
-
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you can't. Your claims are as faulty as the Mormon's claims. This is what SN has been pointing out all along. Your doctrine is not what the Apostles doctrine is. Your relation to them is as far as part as IFB and RCC is today. You can go back as far as to 1054 and no further. Any further is just bogus.
What planet are you living on...who's spoon feeding you this information?
You said Constantine started the RCC, well DHK IF that's accurate, Constantine lived from 272 to 337...that's way, way, way earlier than 1054...and by your own admission DHK everything further than 1054 is bogus...LOL...really DHK, you're the bogus one...LOL
In XC
-
- Status