Going solely by your inconstancy and silliness on his thread, I am not really terribly inclined to go "one on one" with you, so let's just keep going the way we're going and we'll see what happens.
I would like to see a seperate debate sub-board on all the Congregation/Denomination boards.
From what I know, the EOC has one on their "Ancient Way" board:
http://www.christianforums.com/f827/ St. Justin Martyr's Corner: Debate an Orthodox Christian A place where members can debate with Orthodox Christians
There is actually a poll thread to have one set up in OBOB
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rich Man of Luke 16 symbolizes House of Judah, the Jews? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why Jerusalem is Mystically Called Sodom and Egypt
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ....... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ..... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Going solely by your inconstancy and silliness on his thread, I am not really terribly inclined to go "one on one" with you, so let's just keep going the way we're going and we'll see what happens.
...and have we forgotten the debate we had on the very topic Athanasius has suggested as a replacement for his original subject? I'm referring to the *Protestant beliefs in the Early Church* theme that consumed literally hundreds of posts here and reached conclusions. So why would we want to redo that subject yet again?
I have to go worship some relics cause thats what we Catholics do with them. Later I am gonna go worship cathel our founder in the Catholic Chruch, he was a roman. Here is my divine worship to the relics as all catholic do.
We worship with the worship of Latria thou o great and mighty bone of Ignatius. O Thou Bone thy calcium is rich I worship thee with all my heart and soul. I bow down to thee in worship for thy Marrow which thou dist give me so healthfully and save me from my sins O relics.
O Adorable relic how I want a relationship with you far beyond anything else in my life. Oh piece of bone, cloth, or other I full give myself to your divine boneyness to save me from sins.
Amen!
Now who wants to worship Cathel and Mary with me cause you know in Catholic theology thats just what we do!
If you wanted to you could present a realistic and honest presentation on the Church and reverence of relics. Instead you choose the slander and present a false interpretation of the Catholic faith. It is a shame that you would be so disrespectful.
No where does the Church claim that relics provide some magical powers, but they have been the way through which God's works his miracles and is seen in Old and New Testament 2Kg 13:20-21 and Act 19:11-12.
By the way, the Divinity of Christ wasn't declared dogma until the council of Nicea in 323 AD, there was a bit of confusion over who Jesus was. The Arian heresy was very common and is still present in some of today's religions. Should we therefore also consider them the true Church and not the Catholic Church? They can at least show early Church writings that they existed prior to 313 in their beliefs?
By the way, the Divinity of Christ wasn't declared dogma until the council of Nicea in 323 AD, there was a bit of confusion over who Jesus was. The Arian heresy was very common and is still present in some of today's religions. Should we therefore also consider them the true Church and not the Catholic Church? They can at least show early Church writings that they existed prior to 313 in their beliefs?
So, two things.
It was a council that clarified things?
Have you traced Arius' idea back further to its source?
__________________ For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
Have you traced Arius' idea back further to its source?
I did and it is very similiar to all the new churches that have been popping up since the Protestant Reformation, a man declares what he believes to be the truth over what the Church teaches.
Beginnings
The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The Trinitarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was criticised for his slow reaction against Arius. Like his predecessor Dionysius, he has been charged with vacillation. The question that Arius raised had been left unsettled two generations previously. Therefore Alexander allowed the controversy to continue until he felt that it had become dangerous to the peace of the Church. Then he called a council of bishops and sought their advice. Once they decided against Arius, Alexander delayed no longer. He deposed Arius from his office, and excommunicated both him and his supporters.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Lord, You invite all who are burdened to come to You. Allow your healing hand to heal me. Touch my soul with Your compassion for others. Touch my heart with Your courage and infinite love for all. Touch my mind with Your wisdom, that my mouth may always proclaim Your praise. Teach me to reach out to You in my need, and help me to lead others to You by my example. Most loving Heart of Jesus, bring me health in body and spirit that I may serve You with all my strength. Touch gently this life which You have created, now and forever. Amen. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I did and it is very similiar to all the new churches that have been popping up since the Protestant Reformation, a man declares what he believes to be the truth over what the Church teaches.
Yeah, I would go even further back and say it began at the Great Schism when some chap in Rome declared what he believed to be the truth (via the filoque) over what the Church taught.
Yeah, I would go even further back and say it began at the Great Schism when some chap in Rome declared what he believed to be the truth (via the filoque) over what the Church taught.
So...should we consider that to be the date of the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than 313AD or any other?
So...should we consider that to be the date of the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than 313AD or any other?
Hey Albion,
The 313 date is merely the date of the edict of Milan which stopped Christian persecutions and made Christianity a preferred religion. The Roman Church until then was like any other independent Christian church. After 313 the Roman Church grew in prestige positionally given its location in the capital of the empire. During and after the Theodosian dynasty the emperorship began to decline and the power of the bishop of Rome began to increase. The Roman Catholic Church was progressively formed from this increase in power so the date is more towards the late 4th century early 5th century.
An argument can be made that the culmination of the wrestle of power by the Bishop of Rome from the Roman emperor occurred when the Roman Bishop Leo I brokered the peace with Attila the Hun in 452 ad effectively bypassing the Roman emperor Valentinian III. I would position the birth of today's Roman Catholic Church around this date.
__________________ “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.- Our Lord and Savior.
The 313 date is merely the date of the edict of Milan which stopped Christian persecutions and made Christianity a preferred religion. The Roman Church until then was like any other independent Christian church. After 313 the Roman Church grew in prestige positionally given its location in the capital of the empire. During and after the Theodosian dynasty the emperorship began to decline and the power of the bishop of Rome began to increase. The Roman Catholic Church was progressively formed from this increase in power so the date is more towards the late 4th century early 5th century.
I agree, except for incidentals, but the thread was begun with the idea that 313 was a critical date.
An argument can be made that the culmination of the wrestle of power by
the Bishop of Rome from the Roman emperor occurred when the Roman Bishop Leo I brokered the peace with Attila the Hun in 452 ad effectively bypassing the Roman emperor Valentinian III. I would position the birth of today's Roman Catholic Church around this date.
IMHO, the first several bishops of Rome to formally assert a worldwide jurisdiction based upon Matthew 16:18 would better represent the start of the Roman Catholic Church, but that would also be after 313 and have nothing in particular to do with Constantine.
Linear Mode
