Question about a Catholic litany

[Matt Black]

I never quite understood it myself but I think it is based on two related matters, the second of which, as it were, explains or expands on the first:

1. Jesus speaks of behaviour which puts the believer so beyond the pale that s/he he is capable of losing his/her salvation, eg: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12: 31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10); failing to forgive others (Matt 6:14; 18:23-35; Mark 11:26); and not dwelling in Him (Jn 15:6); similarly John writes of a 'sin which leads to death' (I Jn 5:16).

2. It is pretty logical (to me at least) that one can choose voluntarily and knowingly to apostasize, to commit a repudiatory breach of one's relationship with God, that goes far far beyond 'normal' sinning and amounts to an utter rejection of salvation. I can't understand why anyone would want to do that, but it is nevertheless possible.

[cp with just about everyone else whilst I was looking up the references!]

 

[lori4dogs]

The Catholic Church also gets criticized for teaching sin by lists. But look again at the word of God from which the Catholic Church obtains those 'lists'.
Mk 7:20-23
(Jesus said) "But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile."
Gal 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Eph 4:25-31
... putting away falsehood ... Be angry but do not sin ... The thief must no longer steal ... No foul language should come out of your mouths ... All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice.
Eph 5:3-7
Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them.
Eph 5:18
And do not get drunk on wine, in which lies debauchery
Mt 5:28
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mt 5:32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mt 5:34
But I say to you, do not swear at all
Rev 21:8
But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
1 Cor 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit God's kingdom.

 

[lori4dogs]

"This being said, "we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1). Christians should live in the assurance and peace that the Lord has conquered and that He is their hope; being in the Church and united to the Lord in the Eucharist is a source of immense assurance and spiritual peace. There is watchfulness and care in how we live, but certainly no dreadful fear."

AMEN!

 

[DHK]

I note you exhort me to read the Bible yet the fate of the Apostles quoted above is all adduced by you from extra-Scriptural sources (largely Eusebius*). Make up your mind: either Scripture is all-sufficient or it isn't.

The first half of my post was all Scripture and you ignored it. You have no answer for it. There was no one central church. There was no apostolic succession. Even without any extra-Biblical sources we can see that from the Book of Acts and the pastors of the various churches within the epistles. Each pastor was accountable to no one but their own congregation and the Lord. There is no connection between any of the churches. There is no hint of any denomination nor any succession anywhere in the NT.
The additional part of my post was to emphasize the first part, and to show how it would have been absolutely impossible for apostolic succession to take place. They were martyrs.

And none of the above answered my question: if Constantine founded the RCC, what novel doctrines did he introduce, which bishops did he appoint to the episcopate? And if all was fine and dandy prior to him (fl 312-337), then I trust you'll agree with this statement: "he cannot have God and his father who does not have the Church as his mother" - Cyprian of Carthage, fl. 250.

Constantine was an unsaved politician who made a false profession of faith in order to befriend himself to Christianity in general. He made it "legal" for Christianity to exist as a religion. It made it more tolerable for the Christians. And yet he did more, much more. He paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism. Much of the pagan idols were brought into apostate churches at that time. As an unsaved politician he tried to use Christianity for his own means--uniting an empire. There had to be compromise between paganism and Christianity, and he was the one who began it. Thus began the Roman Catholic Church with all of its idolatry near the beginning of the fourth century.

It is no accident that the Montanist movement began at approximately the same time--a movement to combat the corruption within Christianity. You may claim that it had its own heresies. That is not the point. It was a movement that emphasized purity. It was a movement against the corruption that had now infested Christianity in general.

 

[DHK]

Er..not quite: Catholic hamarteology is actually more nuanced than that. As with their sacramental theology, there have to be two 'legs' to a mortal sin: matter and intent (in law, the similar concepts would be actus reus and mens rea). In the case of a mortal sin, the matter has to be 'grave' ie: serious and has to be done with the intent to breach the relationship with God. Deliberately skipping Mass with no reasonable excuse (eg: you couldn't find a Catholic Church or you were ill) is a grave matter but it is only a mortal sin if done with the motive of giving God the finger.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Only God knows the heart. You don't. Lori doesn't, and neither does the RCC. Only God does. Thus skipping church remains a mortal sin. It always was. Besides, that was only one small example. There are many examples of mortal sins. The fact remains the same. Die with unconfessed mortal sin and it is a sure ticket straight to hell.

 

[DHK]

Often I hear it said that what the Catholic Church teaches about sin is not biblical. Catholic Christianity has always used the Bible as its source for what is sinful. It is also important to say that ALL sin offends God. People object that the long standing teaching of the Church of a distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sin is an artificial distinction. But listen to what the Apostle John, says about it.

1 Jn 5:16-17
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly (venial), he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin (mortal), about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

This is not true. The RCC uses Tradition as their authority. They also use Tradition for their interpretation of the Bible, so that their interpretation of the Bible is about as worthless as the Muslim's interpretation of the Bible.
There is not much difference when a Muslim uses the Koran for his standard to interpret the Bible, and the Catholic uses Tradition for his standard to interpret the Bible, is there? Both have another authority other than the Word of God.

As for 1 John 5:16,17 you don't have a clue to its meaning, but make it up as you go along. There is no such thing as venial, and mortal sins in the Bible. You can't read into the Bible that which is not there. See how you make things up as you go along. I see Catholics do that with their doctrine of Purgatory as well. You can't read into the Bible things that are not there.

1 John 5:16-17 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.
17 There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

What are sins unto death? What is spoken of here is physical death, not spiritual death. John is addressing "his brother" which cannot lose his salvation, but can fall into sin. An example is in 1Cor.11:30 where those that abused the Lord's Table: "many of them...slept" (or were dead). God's divine judgment on that sin was death, physical death.
Any brother that breaks the law to the intent that the law demands capital punishment, then why pray for injustice, but rather that justice be satisfied and the law take its course. It is a sin unto death.
It may be by man's law or by God' divine retribution. Whatever the case the sin will result in death. If known ahead of time there is no sense in praying for that person's deliverance. It will result in death. However he will be in heaven. And one can be comforted with that fact.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Constantine was an unsaved politician who made a false profession of faith in order to befriend himself to Christianity in general. He made it "legal" for Christianity to exist as a religion. It made it more tolerable for the Christians. And yet he did more, much more. He paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism. Much of the pagan idols were brought into apostate churches at that time. As an unsaved politician he tried to use Christianity for his own means--uniting an empire. There had to be compromise between paganism and Christianity, and he was the one who began it. Thus began the Roman Catholic Church with all of its idolatry near the beginning of the fourth century.

I disagree DHK on point of History. Constantine was involved in the Edict of Milan which was a document allowing for the tolleration of Christians. At that point Christians were split into two primary Factions Donatist - Liberaeli and later the factions became also Arians - Niceans. I really don't think Constantine cared which group won the Orthodoxy wars just that one group did. Constantine was baptised on his bed by an Arian Priest but waited for that moment because he didn't want another round of discension (as the christians were apt to war with each other) in the Empire. Things used in Christianity were already in common use that we blame on pagans such as incense because of Rev statement about the prayers of the people and Christianity had grown in Rome where people met in the Roman Style Balsilicas and it hid body oder. They had grown in numbers that house styled groups were no longer feasable and they didn't have to hide in the Catacombs any longer. Christians had incorporated hyterae style groupings to take care of each other (this occured as noted by Pliny the Younger almost 200 years earlier). This is how Christians organized their groups. Which if you studied Greek Hyterae it was involved in having a head priest, took care of burying the dead and made provisions for widows. After 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem most of Christianity were primarily gentile greeks and conducted affairs the way they understood. So case in point before Constantine there were "pagan" type additions to the christian movement. Christianity even took Greek philosophical words and context to explain their perspective like Hypostatic. And the same word the Senate used Ecclessia. Christians also used pagan symbols to make their point such as the fish (Ichthus), The cross, the dove and others adapting them to make sence to their mostly illiterate congregations. Theodocius I actually made Christianity the official religion of the Empire not Constantine. So Constantine often gets blamed but by his time Greek thought and symbols were prevelant in communities.

 

[DHK]

The Catholic Church also gets criticized for teaching sin by lists. But look again at the word of God from which the Catholic Church obtains those 'lists'.
Mk 7:20-23
(Jesus said) "But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile."

Yes they do, and you are guilty of these sins just as much as anyone.
And guess what? A priest has no power to forgive them. Only God can. Please don't tell me that you have never had any "evil thoughts."

Gal 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Again, you are just as guilty as everyone else with these sins. They are sins of the flesh. You have been a selfish person. It is natural. You can't excuse yourself from many of the sins listed here. This list is contrasted to the fruit of the spirit in verses 22 and 23 following in the same chapter.

Eph 4:25-31
... putting away falsehood ... Be angry but do not sin ... The thief must no longer steal ... No foul language should come out of your mouths ... All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice.

Again you are guilty with the rest of the world--saved and unsaved alike.
Falsehood--lies? You have never lied? Yes you have. And you have been bitter, angry, and no doubt have shouted at a few people too. You are guilty as charged.

Eph 5:3-7
Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them.

Again you are guilty as charged. The phrase "any impurity" applies to the mind as well as physically. Have you never had an impure thought, suggestive talk, been a greedy person at any time? Yes you have. Every one has. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." And that includes you.

Eph 5:18
And do not get drunk on wine, in which lies debauchery
Mt 5:28
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mt 5:32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mt 5:34
But I say to you, do not swear at all
Rev 21:8
But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

--deceiving, in other translations is simply "lying". We all lie. We are depraved. We are cowardly at times. We are not always faithful.

1 Cor 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit God's kingdom.

Again greed is so common; so is stealing if one thinks about it--cheating on taxes, plagiarism, not adhering to copyright laws, not returning correct change, keeping a pen from an office that isn't yours, etc.

So the Catholic Church obtains these "lists". Of what? Mortal sins?
If they are then you will surely go to hell unless you have a very good memory and are able to recall each and every one and remember to confess them all, even all the evil thoughts. Are you sure you do that with your priest?

 

[DHK]

So Constantine often gets blamed but by his time Greek thought and symbols were prevelant in communities.

Constantine made it all official. In effect he took this mounting corruption in the church, added some more, and then, after adding his stamp of approval on it declared it to be "the state church." It became the official religion of the empire. Thus the beginning of "universal church," the Catholic (universal) Church, the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Constantine made it all official. In effect he took this mounting corruption in the church, added some more, and then, after adding his stamp of approval on it declared it to be "the state church." It became the official religion of the empire. Thus the beginning of "universal church," the Catholic (universal) Church, the Roman Catholic Church.

He never did DHK. His tolleration treaty was just that tolleration. Theodocius made it official. Constantine didn't add anything to the Catholic Church. He just said you guys work out your problems and you better have an answer thus we have Nicea 325 AD. Christianity was not declared a "state religion" at that time. It was added to the many accpetable Roman Religions and in point of fact Maximus wanted to reinstate Christian persecution but was limited. There is a text from a roman officer ridiculing the Roman Christians at that time. But it is clear that Constantine did not add to Christianity. Its just not history. Blame Theodocius.

 

[Zenas]

The first half of my post was all Scripture and you ignored it. You have no answer for it. There was no one central church. There was no apostolic succession. Even without any extra-Biblical sources we can see that from the Book of Acts and the pastors of the various churches within the epistles. Each pastor was accountable to no one but their own congregation and the Lord. There is no connection between any of the churches. There is no hint of any denomination nor any succession anywhere in the NT.

DHK, the scripture you quoted actually demonstrates apostolic succession. Consider 2 Timothy 2:2:

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

This one verse shows four (4) generations of apostolic succession.
1. Paul;
2. Timothy;
3. The "faithful men" who are to be taught by Timothy;
4. The others who will be taught by these faithful men.
This was not a general admonition to carry out the great commission. It was an exhortation to train church leaders--pastors, bishops and elders.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The real issue here is the 800 lbs Gorilla in the room. Christianity Evolved. The apostolic teachings we are certain of are in the NT. Yet it was Orthodox (not EO) Christianity that defined what was to be the NT. Though Christian Churches take on aspects of what they believed the Early Church practiced and believed; the Fact is no one does. You might as well be on a different planet compared to that early world. The Disciples didn't define the Trinity and to be honest I'm not sure they had as clear a consept of the Trinity as we do now. It wasn't important then. Christianity continues to evolve. Baptist today don't look like the Ana baptist did in Germany nor do we look like the Puritans of England though there are correlations and some similar beliefs. EO and Catholic have years of understanding the bible through Greek Philosophy colored glasses with just a hint of Judaism. American Christianity understands the bible through American colored glasses thats why we get non biblical phrases like Soul Liberty (don't think I missed out on that one! The relationship to that and the declaration of independence is clear). Obviously it is Gods will that we should be free to adopt life, liberty and the persuite of happiness in our Gospels. Why there is such a high divorse rate among christians I believe. And in the age that follows this one Christianity will evolve again to accept what ever norms are prevelant in that day. I'm not saying that we don't hold to the Moral values espoused in scripture (when we understand them) nor do I believe that Jesus is not consistent. I believe he is. I believe humanity is changing and in that process the church itself is changing.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

A priest has no power to forgive them. Only God can.

Here's where I agree w/ DHK...although he'll disagree w/ me in regard to confession with a priest...but between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox, we have different thoughts in regard to Sacramental theology.

The traditional Roman Catholic theology of the priesthood emphasized that at ordination, God gives a new priest the "power" to effect the sacraments. Thus, for instance, in the case of the Eucharist, the priest receives the "power" to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. In the case of confession, the priest is granted the authority to forgive sins. This is based on the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of John: "Whoever's sins you remit, they are remitted to them, and whoever's sins you retain, they are retained" (John 20:23). Certainly, this verse seems to demonstrate the very thing that Roman Catholic theology asserts: that Christ has delegated the authority to forgive sins (first to the apostles, and through them to their successors, priests and bishops).

The Orthodox Church views this matter in a different way. Listen to the exhortations the priest says to the penitent in the Greek text of the confession service. Before the penitent makes his confession:

My brother, inasmuch as you have come to God and to me, be not ashamed, for you speak NOT TO ME, BUT TO GOD, before whom you stand.​

And then after the penitent has made his confession,

My spiritual child, who has confessed to my humble self, I, humble and a sinner, have NOT power on earth to forgive sins, but God alone . . . and then the text goes on to quote John 20:23.​

This shows that the Orthodox Church does not view the priest as the minister of confession. The confession is made TO GOD, and GOD alone grants forgiveness.

In the Orthodox view, it is God who effects all the sacraments through Christ in the Holy Spirit. In fact, Christ exercises his ministry to the Church through the ministry of the priesthood. Thus, Christ rules the church and exercises his teaching ministry through the bishops. He presides at the Eucharist through the celebrant of the Liturgy. He absolves and remits sins through the absolution of the priest. He joins the couple through the blessing of the priest in marriage. In every case, it is not the priest exercising an autonomous power he has received from God, but Christ exercising his ministry through the priest. It is a critical difference. The priest is but the visible icon of Christ who works invisibly in his Church.

In XC
-

 

[saturneptune]

You misunderstand the concept. Look at yourself now, look at me, look at any Christian. Are we forgiven? Yes! Are we saved? Yes! But are we perfect? No! I can only speak for myself but I sin every day. Praise be to Jesus Christ that those sins are forgiven! But I am not a good person, still less a perfect one; I am being "transformed into the image of Christ Jesus" as per Rom 12:1-2, but I'm not there yet. Now, suppose I go under a truck today in that state. Yes, I'm saved and destined for Heaven. But I'm not yet fully in the image of Christ. There's still some unfinished work, not for Christ to do, but for the Holy Spirit to do in me. That's my understanding of what Catholics mean by Purgatory.

Then why don't they say that. I don't know what you just posted (which makes sense) has to do with a stop off at purgatory, since there is no such thing, or praying for someone's destiny after death. Why always the double talk and veiled meanings? If you get hit by a truck, you just entered that step in Romans called glorification. The work is done, and was done at the cross. Here on earth, you are right. We all sin daily, and will never be in the image fully of Christ in a sinful world.

 

[Eric B]

He never did DHK. His tolleration treaty was just that tolleration. Theodocius made it official. Constantine didn't add anything to the Catholic Church. He just said you guys work out your problems and you better have an answer thus we have Nicea 325 AD. Christianity was not declared a "state religion" at that time. It was added to the many accpetable Roman Religions and in point of fact Maximus wanted to reinstate Christian persecution but was limited. There is a text from a roman officer ridiculing the Roman Christians at that time. But it is clear that Constantine did not add to Christianity. Its just not history. Blame Theodocius.

I believe the point there with that is, that Constantine's "toleration" is what allowed the church to further organize itself and gain power, hence by the time of Theodosius, it was ready to become a corrupt power.

It is best described as a "Baptist Purgatory" taking place during the thousand year Millennial Kingdom for previously disobedient believers.

I never did understand why they came down so hard on that doctrine. The board was wracked with all of these endless OSAS and faith/works debates, with Catholics, Church of Christ and to some extent, sabbatarians clearly arguing against the Baptist position of faith alone and eternal security. This new doctrine did not really contradict those views; but offered a possible solution, yet its main fault was basically just being a novelty, and did not really have enough scriptural support. It just sounded like someone's nice idea of how to resolve those endless debates. Yet that was quickly quashed off of the board, with a whole sticky warning about it, while those other three groups were allowed to continue attacking the Baptist view of faith alone and OSAS. (with one of them, the Catholics only having its most blatant apologists eventually banned, even though they're all technically violating the rule against trying to convince others to their view).

 

[DHK]

I never did understand why they came down so hard on that doctrine.

It began to permeate, as if it were, every forum: General Baptist, Baptist theology, All Other Denominations, etc. It was a festering sore. And it had it had a goal--persuading others to come over to its persuasion, which is called proselytizing--against the rules.

Down in our little corner of the board: "Other Denom," we have our varied differences which leaves room for some lively debates between some various faiths. Even those faiths are limited. (We have our limits). But the M.E. doctrine was promoted by Baptists and was in Baptist forums as well. It became too much of a problem spread by a few.

 

[DHK]

DHK, the scripture you quoted actually demonstrates apostolic succession. Consider 2 Timothy 2:2: This one verse shows four (4) generations of apostolic succession.
1. Paul;
2. Timothy;
3. The "faithful men" who are to be taught by Timothy;
4. The others who will be taught by these faithful men.
This was not a general admonition to carry out the great commission. It was an exhortation to train church leaders--pastors, bishops and elders.

This is exactly what we do in our church. Therefore our church has apostolic succession? NOT! Maybe common sense would be in order here.

Again pay attention to Scripture:
Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

EVERY CHURCH In three missionary journeys Paul started about 100 churches.
So let's figure this out according to your logic.
100 churches means 100 apostles.
From 100 apostles (which we know there were not), we have to go back into history and trace the lineage of each one. Do you think you are up to the challenge?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Lori...

"If I didn't know better, I would think this was pulled right off of a 'Jack Chick Tract'.

Actually, I havent seen a Jack Chick track in several years. I think there are much better tracts than his.

At any rate, someone certainly didn't pay attention in catechism!

I certainly did. I paid attention and believed every word of it.

But then something beautiful happened years later.

After being truly born of the Spirit I started feeding on Gods scriptures. What a contrast between the truth of Gods precious word and the legalistic, false, heretical and counterfeit falsehoods the Catholic churches workers had attempted to indocrinate me with.

Praise God

Be very careful, Lori. The Catholic cult of Rome is no place for a child of the living God.

 

[Eric B]

It began to permeate, as if it were, every forum: General Baptist, Baptist theology, All Other Denominations, etc. It was a festering sore. And it had it had a goal--persuading others to come over to its persuasion, which is called proselytizing--against the rules.

Down in our little corner of the board: "Other Denom," we have our varied differences which leaves room for some lively debates between some various faiths. Even those faiths are limited. (We have our limits). But the M.E. doctrine was promoted by Baptists and was in Baptist forums as well. It became too much of a problem spread by a few.

Oh, I didn't realize it had spread over in that section like that, as I'm not usually over there. I didn't even know they were Baptists!

 

[Matt Black]

The first half of my post was all Scripture and you ignored it. You have no answer for it. There was no one central church. There was no apostolic succession. Even without any extra-Biblical sources we can see that from the Book of Acts and the pastors of the various churches within the epistles. Each pastor was accountable to no one but their own congregation and the Lord. There is no connection between any of the churches. There is no hint of any denomination nor any succession anywhere in the NT.
The additional part of my post was to emphasize the first part, and to show how it would have been absolutely impossible for apostolic succession to take place. They were martyrs.

As Zenas has said, your Scripture quotes actually back up AS, as does II Tim 3:14

Constantine was an unsaved politician who made a false profession of faith in order to befriend himself to Christianity in general.

Probably true.

He made it "legal" for Christianity to exist as a religion. It made it more tolerable for the Christians.

Correct. He didn't make it the 'State Religion' though.

And yet he did more, much more. He paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism. Much of the pagan idols were brought into apostate churches at that time. As an unsaved politician he tried to use Christianity for his own means--uniting an empire. There had to be compromise between paganism and Christianity, and he was the one who began it. Thus began the Roman Catholic Church with all of its idolatry near the beginning of the fourth century.

Evidence? Which new (pagan or otherwise) doctrines did he put forward in his Imperial decrees? Which apostate bishops and church leaders did he appoint? And I reiterate my earlier question: if Big Bad Constantine was when it all went wrong, then you have no problem with the 'Mother Church' quote from Cyprian which I referenced earlier?

It is no accident that the Montanist movement began at approximately the same time--a movement to combat the corruption within Christianity. You may claim that it had its own heresies. That is not the point. It was a movement that emphasized purity. It was a movement against the corruption that had now infested Christianity in general.

Er...no. Either you don't know your history or you meant to type monastic movement. Montanism, which was basically a form of proto-Pentecostalism rather than outright heresy, flourished in the second half of the 2nd century AD ie: way before Constantine. If you meant monasticism however then you do have a point since that was in part a reaction to the Church becoming more wealthy and 'soft' as a result of Constantine's toleration. But monasticism has always been part of the mainstream Church, albeit providing an alternative and quite different angle to that of the rest of the Church, and it remains to this day an integral part of the Catholic, Orthodox and, to an extent, Anglican Churches.