What contributions have Catholics made...

[Matt Black]

Zenus...



Utter and complete nonsense.

What became the abomination now called the Catholic Church of Rome had its genesis around the time of Constantine around the 4th century.

Really? Please show the class, then, what heretical doctrines Constantine promulgated that wrought this great transformation, which heretical bishops he appointed, and to which Sees.

 

[BobRyan]

Better yet - show how the 20+ papal lines all converged back into one.

Show how the 3 papal lines that were all defrocked - all debunked - all ended by the Emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire" (who then settup his OWN council of Cardinals to start a new line of Popes) is somehow "the continuation of one unbroken line".

Show Peter - praying to the dead, talking about sinless Mary, preaching purgatory, declaring the Lateran IV "extermination of jews and heretics", preaching about indulgences.

It just is not there for first century Bible author - ECFs!!

(The very ECFs the RCC is most anxious to ignore).

However we CAN show RC historians themselves admitting to the "entrance of paganism" into the church at the time of constantine with all its "ceremonies borrowed from paganism".

How can that be missed?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'd love for you to visit one our local American Baptist Churches and then tell me you equivocate the word Baptist with Biblical. I guess only 'certain' Baptist churches are biblical? Not the ones that deny the existence of hell, promote universalism, question the virgin birth, promote same-sex marriage, etc.?

Hmm... do they call for the "extermination of jews and heretics"?

do they "pray to the dead" and then boldly admit that this was the sort of thing that God in the Old Testament told Israel to abolish?

Do they claim Mary is "sinless like Christ" or "Queen of heaven" or "co-redemptrix with Christ" or "all powerful like Christ" or ...

Do they claim the "power" to "confect God" in the Lord's Supper?

Do they claim that their pastors "retain that power" even after they themselves find a given pastor to be in gross error and remove him from office?

Do they argue that at Mary's Christ all the apostles "came flying" to meet Mary just prior to her death?

Do they burn the bibles of their own churche members with the expressed goal of keeping their supposedly stupid ignorant church members from having access to scripture - so that church members must only rely on 'what they are told' rather than being ABLE to check out what is being taught "sola scriptura"??

I find it odd that you would want to compare their history with that of the RCC.

 

[Matt Black]

However we CAN show RC historians themselves admitting to the "entrance of paganism" into the church at the time of constantine with all its "ceremonies borrowed from paganism".

How can that be missed?

in Christ,

Bob

Which ceremonies? Please be specific.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Er...because it's true.

No, actually, it isn't. The Catholic Church as we know it today didn't even exist when most of the copying was going on.

 

[Matt Black]

The copying continued - of necessity since there was no other method of preserving and disseminating manuscripts - until the invention of printing in the mid-15th century. So, are you saying that the Catholic Church in its present form only existed after then?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Bob Ryan...

"However we CAN show RC historians themselves admitting to the "entrance of paganism" into the church at the time of constantine with all its "ceremonies borrowed from paganism".

How can that be missed?"

I dont know how things that are so ridiculously obvious regarding Catholicsm can be missed.

I guess they just choose to miss it.

 

[Peggy]

I am currently reading "the Story of Christianity" by Justo L. Gonzalez (non-Catholic evangelical) and the idea that Constantine "started the RCC" is simply and utterly false.

Read some history books on the church, guys, before you start throwing around crazy allegations. They just make you look foolish and ignorant.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Peggy, I teach church history and you'd be amazed how much time I spend just having to clear up various misconceptions.

You're right, though. The RCC did not come into existence until long after Constantine.

 

[Johnv]

Peggy, I teach church history...

That just sounds funny! :laugh: :laugh: Kind of like Harold Garvey saying he teaches a class on the history of translations.

 

[BobRyan]

Which ceremonies? Please be specific.

oh well -- ok... as told by RC Historians and commentors themselves...

1. the Christian Church was massively changed at the time of Constantine

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols[/b] He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. [b]He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"[b]This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life.[/b] It carried many advantages, but it also entailed some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest[/b]. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"

So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today. And the author is clearly pointing to the aspect of paganism introduced into the church at that time.

But that RC author does not stop there - he continues...

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First we notice some of the details "borrowed from paganism"

Ibid - Page 42

"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy; the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection, devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."

Prior to this time - the format or liturgy for church was pretty much ad hoc.

pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his discretion.

 

[BobRyan]

But of course - paganism in the Christian church influenced MORE than just ceremony -

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols[/b] He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. [b]He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"[b]This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life.[/b] It carried many advantages, but it also entailed some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39

 

[JohnDeereFan]

That just sounds funny! :laugh: :laugh: Kind of like Harold Garvey saying he teaches a class on the history of translations.

...or saying that JohnV is an adult.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand. (Catholic Digest is the 2nd largest Catholic publication on the planet – though it is not written by the Vatican itself)

Pagan prayer methods.

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129

“The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ…

Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose… Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures”.

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Ans:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosarylike beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. [b]The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints[/B]. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, [b]had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship[/b] with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!

..


Paganism missing a commandment

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129

You ask about the Buddhists having anything like the Ten Commandments to go by. The answer is that have Nine of the Ten. Only the specific seventh day being held holy would be Beyond the reach of ordinary right reason.”

 

[BobRyan]

If the RCC is wrong about its unbiblical claims regarding the eucharist then it is “idolatry” according to the RCC itself!.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

 

[fbcodr]

Hmm... do they call for the "extermination of jews and heretics"?

do they "pray to the dead" and then boldly admit that this was the sort of thing that God in the Old Testament told Israel to abolish?

Do they claim Mary is "sinless like Christ" or "Queen of heaven" or "co-redemptrix with Christ" or "all powerful like Christ" or ...

Do they claim the "power" to "confect God" in the Lord's Supper?

Do they claim that their pastors "retain that power" even after they themselves find a given pastor to be in gross error and remove him from office?

Do they argue that at Mary's Christ all the apostles "came flying" to meet Mary just prior to her death?

Do they burn the bibles of their own churche members with the expressed goal of keeping their supposedly stupid ignorant church members from having access to scripture - so that church members must only rely on 'what they are told' rather than being ABLE to check out what is being taught "sola scriptura"??

I find it odd that you would want to compare their history with that of the RCC.

Do they call their pastors FATHER even after the Word of God specifically commands not to?:applause::thumbsup:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Do they call their pastors FATHER even after the Word of God specifically commands not to?:applause::thumbsup:

lay off the Chick tracks pleeeeeeaseeee!!!!

if according to St. Matthew 23:8-10, Catholics and Orthodox (as I'm Orthodox) are guilty in calling their pastor "father", then everyone is just as guilty for referring to people as "doctor" (latin for 'teacher') or "mister/mistress" (latin for 'master')...

but oh, i forgot...the Holy Scriptures were written in English...lol...

In XC
-

 

[lori4dogs]

No, actually, it isn't. The Catholic Church as we know it today didn't even exist when most of the copying was going on.

JDF: What is your source of information about this 'fact'. Who was copying the bible and where?

When was the NT canon determined and by who?

 

[lori4dogs]

Do they call their pastors FATHER even after the Word of God specifically commands not to?:applause::thumbsup:

Lets see, when you fill out of form (lets say medical) and it ask the name of your mother, you fill in her name, write. When it ask the name of your father, do you scratch that name out and quote a bible verse (very much out of context) and write in the word 'dad'?

How do you feel about calling a minister 'reverend'? I have Methodist pastor as a friend that has told his congregation he prefers to be called Mister before conferring such a title to his office.