The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Erose]

You can always bribe the OP to do that

Mic 3:11
Her heads judge for a bribe, Her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money.
Yet they lean on the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD among us? No harm can come upon us."

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD



After this, Josephus, in the name of Titus, earnestly exhorted John and his adherents to surrender ; but the insolent rebel returned nothing but reproaches and imprecations, declaring his firm persuasion that Jerusalem, as it was GOD'S own city, could never be taken : thus literally fulfilling the declaration of Micah, that the Jews, in their extremity, notwithstanding their crimes, would presumptuously "lean upon the LORD, and say,



.
.

100 blessings???

 

[Albion]

Would it be fair to say that both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic jurisdictions were united until 1054 EVEN THOUGH the relationship was terribly strained?

 

[Standing Up]

Evidence? I don't believe your word, sorry. Got to be dogmatic statement, too, please.

Regarding Mormon baptism, it's really no different from what was always practiced. The Church makes definitive statement when necessary, usually when a practice is called into question. Such is the case.

The two cases, Arianism and Mormonism aren't even similar, though. Arianism held an incorrect understanding of a Christian doctrine. Mormonism believes “God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings”; that “God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal”; that “God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation”; and that “Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity”, which is a total violation of the Christian form.

SU likes making statements he can't support and then post them over and over and over, hoping someone will just accept what he wrote. It is just part of his charm.

My point, like Cyprian's and Firmilian's against Stephen of Rome, is our view that Rome departed from the Catholic Church 256ad over the issue of Rome's allowing heretical baptism as equivalent to the Church's. That Roman Catholicism now baptizes those coming to them from LDS (presumably) is one step back to their rejoining the Catholic Church.


"1. Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God ..."
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

There's much more information at the link over Rome's allowing for demonic baptism. Feel free to try to respond knowledgably.

PS. Firmilian makes the additional point that Rome departed from the faith of the apostles starting from the easter issue.

115-195 departure
256 departure
325 married the state
451 departure
1054 departure
1500-1600 departure

So, we get this from Cyprian (continuation from link above)

2. He [Stephen] forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he [Stephen] judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagions of a profane washing. Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles?

What was the source of Stephen's opinion? Not the Lord. Not scripture. Not even tradition. Only Rome's innovation and adoption of lies.

 

[Tzaousios]

You and your colleague are trying too hard to come up with a snappy answer there, Rev.

I believe in the authority of the word of God. I am under no obligation to jump through hoops just because someone on a discussion board wants me to perform for no good reason.

So what, you sit back and let what Standing Up puts out do the job for you?

 

[Root of Jesse]

They[re both non-Trinitarian, which was the point you were replying to.

In different ways, which is the point I was making.

Very well, then, so why would a Mormon baptism be acceptable?

When we took their words to be the same as ours, it was. But when we found out what was meant by those words, which is different from what we mean, it proved itself not. Which is why we don't accept it.

 

[Albion]

My point, like Cyprian's and Firmilian's against Stephen of Rome, is our view that Rome departed from the Catholic Church 256ad over the issue of Rome's allowing heretical baptism as equivalent to the Church's.

I may have inadvertently omitted this from my sketchy list simply as an oversight.

"1. Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God ..."
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

There's much more information at the link over Rome's allowing for demonic baptism. Feel free to try to respond knowledgably.

PS. Firmilian makes the additional point that Rome departed from the faith of the apostles starting from the easter issue.

But would it be correct to say that either of these points marks the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the other descendants of the Apostolic church?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here's a thought...

Why don't we discuss when the Roman Catholic Church was born (since that's the topic of the thread), rather than the oh-so enlightening 'denomination doesn't mean denomination, church doesn't mean church,' etc.?

Was it:

A. early second century?

B. Time of Constantine?

C. Time of Leo the Great?

D. Time of Charlemagne?

E. Later ninth century?

F. 1054?

G. Another date/time in history?

G. 33AD to be closer to correct.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Albion

Here's a thought...
​

Why don't we discuss when the Roman Catholic Church was born (since that's the topic of the thread), rather than the oh-so enlightening 'denomination doesn't mean denomination, church doesn't mean church,' etc.?

Was it:

A. early second century?

B. Time of Constantine?

C. Time of Leo the Great?

D. Time of Charlemagne?

E. Later ninth century?

F. 1054?

G. Another date/time in history?
​

G. 33AD to be closer to correct.

That was the universal Jewish/Gentile Christian church, not the RCC

http://www.christianforums.com/t7330134-101/

Original OP:

http://clf.uua.org/betweensundays/mi...nHeritage.html

.......But the simple, humble Christian church was soon to undergo radical change.
In 313 AD the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, declared himself to be a Christian. Although Constantine originally called for religious freedom, power corrupted that ideal, and soon Christianity became an absolute spiritual monarchy, with the pope as spiritual leader.
The Roman Catholic Church was born. Church organization and government became hierarchical and complex with strict laws and creedal statements which church members were required to believe..................



.

 

[Albion]

That was the universal Jewish/Gentile Christian church, not the RCC

Of course. We're just going to have to overlook the posts meant as distractions.

In 313 AD the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, declared himself to be a Christian. Although Constantine originally called for religious freedom, power corrupted that ideal, and soon Christianity became an absolute spiritual monarchy, with the pope as spiritual leader.

Was this Constantine's doing, do you think, or just some unforeseen evolution? And in either case, but if it did it mark the RCC as being distinct from the rest of Christianity is there a date for that? 313 seems too soon.

 

[Root of Jesse]

My point, like Cyprian's and Firmilian's against Stephen of Rome, is our view that Rome departed from the Catholic Church 256ad over the issue of Rome's allowing heretical baptism as equivalent to the Church's. That Roman Catholicism now baptizes those coming to them from LDS (presumably) is one step back to their rejoining the Catholic Church.


"1. Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God ..."
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

That does not constitute dogmatic infallible teaching. A letter from the Pope to a bishop doesn't make doctrine. Secondly, what this is about is a disagreement over what to do with baptized Christians who fell into heresy and then came back. The point is that there can be only one baptism.

There's much more information at the link over Rome's allowing for demonic baptism. Feel free to try to respond knowledgably.

PS. Firmilian makes the additional point that Rome departed from the faith of the apostles starting from the easter issue.

Firmilian's opinion, if stated correctly. Very possible, too, that he recanted his opinion, cuz he's a saint.

115-195 departure
256 departure
325 married the state
451 departure
1054 departure
1500-1600 departure

Those departures would have been departures by dissenters from the original faith. The True Church cannot depart from the Truth. Regarding 325, there was no marriage. There was an admission of legitimacy, nothing more. State thought church would become state's puppet, which was a danger from then on for quite some time. But then again, look at how religion was the state's puppet in England, Switzerland, and Germany, to name a few, in the 1500-1600's.

So, we get this from Cyprian (continuation from link above)



2. He [Stephen] forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he [Stephen] judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagions of a profane washing. Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles?

What was the source of Stephen's opinion? Not the Lord. Not scripture. Not even tradition. Only Rome's innovation and adoption of lies.

The issue was that there is only one baptism, and if you've been baptized, you cannot be baptized again. But it doesn't speak to the formula for heretical baptism at all. The point was, and is, that, regardless of who baptizes, the form is what matters. An atheist can, could, and will be able to baptize someone as long as the proper form, matter, and intention is there. A Mormon can baptize a Christian with the proper form, matter, and intention, and the baptism is valid. It doesn't matter who does it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That was the universal Jewish/Gentile Christian church, not the RCC

http://www.christianforums.com/t7330134-101/

Original OP:

http://clf.uua.org/betweensundays/mi...nHeritage.html

.......But the simple, humble Christian church was soon to undergo radical change.
In 313 AD the Emperor of Rome, Constantine, declared himself to be a Christian. Although Constantine originally called for religious freedom, power corrupted that ideal, and soon Christianity became an absolute spiritual monarchy, with the pope as spiritual leader.
The Roman Catholic Church was born. Church organization and government became hierarchical and complex with strict laws and creedal statements which church members were required to believe..................



.

That's like saying that water and ice are two different things...

The Catholic Church was born on Pentecost, and to deny it is to deny the truth of the Gospels. IT is also separate from the idea that the Church fell into error. Lots of people thought, all along, that the Church fell into error. They're entitled to their opinions. As are you. But the historical fact cannot be denied, and is intimately tied to the Gospel.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's like saying that water and ice are two different things...

The Catholic Church was born on Pentecost, and to deny it is to deny the truth of the Gospels. IT is also separate from the idea that the Church fell into error.
Lots of people thought, all along, that the Church fell into error. They're entitled to their opinions. As are you. But the historical fact cannot be denied, and is intimately tied to the Gospel.

That isn't a very convincing argument.
Is that the best your Denomination can do?



.

 

[Albion]

That isn't a very convincing argument.
Is that the best your Denomination can do?



.

I suppose one could say that the Catholic Church was born on Pentecost, but we could also say that the Greek Orthodox Church was born on Pentecost, and a hundred other denominations. IOW, it doesn't address the question of the thread and is more of a refusal to discuss.

 

[Rhamiel]

That isn't a very convincing argument.
Is that the best your Denomination can do?



.

we could look at the other teachings of the Church, such as the liturgical worship, the priestly hierarchy, the devotion to saints, how these things have not changed since ancient times.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That isn't a very convincing argument.
Is that the best your Denomination can do?



.

Which denomination are you talking to? Certainly not the Catholic Church, which is not a denomination.

Is it the best you can do? Say "We disagree" and be done with it?

I'm not saying the Church ever made an error in matters of faith an morals. That's protected by the Holy Spirit. But that is totally separate from the errors of men regarding things men do or have done.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

That isn't a very convincing argument.
​

Is that the best your Denomination can do?
​

Which denomination are you talking to?
Certainly not the Catholic Church, which is not a denomination.

Is it the best you can do? Say "We disagree" and be done with it?

I'm not saying the Church ever made an error in matters of faith an morals. That's protected by the Holy Spirit. But that is totally separate from the errors of men regarding things men do or have done.

Ahhh, my bad.
According to CF, y'all are listed under "Christian Communities", not "denomination". Sorry

http://www.christianforums.com/f942/
Christian Communities

http://www.christianforums.com/f26/
One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues.



.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Ahhh, my bad.
According to CF, y'all are listed under "Christian Communities", not "denomination". Sorry

http://www.christianforums.com/f942/
Christian Communities

http://www.christianforums.com/f26/
One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues.



.

A denomination is human division of something. The Catholic Church is not human, it's divine. Divinity cannot be divided. Humanity is certainly divided. But, like I pointed out in John 17, Jesus prayed for unity among his disciples, the first bishops of the Church. He desired unity, he got what he desired. That mankind hasn't followed perfectly is apparent.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I suppose one could say that the Catholic Church was born on Pentecost, but we could also say that the Greek Orthodox Church was born on Pentecost, and a hundred other denominations. IOW, it doesn't address the question of the thread and is more of a refusal to discuss.

The title of the thread doesn't lend for discussion...It's a yes/no question.

 

[Erose]

My point, like Cyprian's and Firmilian's against Stephen of Rome, is our view that Rome departed from the Catholic Church 256ad over the issue of Rome's allowing heretical baptism as equivalent to the Church's. That Roman Catholicism now baptizes those coming to them from LDS (presumably) is one step back to their rejoining the Catholic Church.


"1. Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God ..."
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

There's much more information at the link over Rome's allowing for demonic baptism. Feel free to try to respond knowledgably.

PS. Firmilian makes the additional point that Rome departed from the faith of the apostles starting from the easter issue.

115-195 departure
256 departure
325 married the state
451 departure
1054 departure
1500-1600 departure

So, we get this from Cyprian (continuation from link above)

2. He [Stephen] forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he [Stephen] judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagions of a profane washing. Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles?

What was the source of Stephen's opinion? Not the Lord. Not scripture. Not even tradition. Only Rome's innovation and adoption of lies.

I think you may want to spend just a little more time studying this point in history, SU.

There are a few questions you need ask yourself:

1) Why would Pope Stephen view the Novatian Baptism as valid?
2) Why would Cyprian care so deeply what Rome thought?
3) why would St. Stephen, and Rome's practice win out in the end, when so many bishops were on Cyprian's side? Remember the practice of Rome, would become universal.
4) why would you think that the Church does not allow debate on certain matters that are not clear?
5) why would you prefer if Cyprian won this debate? If he is right then your baptism, and the baptisms of all Protestants, would not be valid, thus making you outside the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The RCC born in 313 AD?

Originally Posted by Albion

I suppose one could say that the Catholic Church was born on Pentecost, but we could also say that the Greek Orthodox Church was born on Pentecost, and a hundred other denominations. IOW, it doesn't address the question of the thread and is more of a refusal to discuss.
​

The title of the thread doesn't lend for discussion...It's a yes/no question.

That is true, since this topic is concerning ad 313 instead of ad 33

However, there is a discussion thread on ad33 for those interested

http://www.christianforums.com/t7402247-6/
The CC was founded in 33 A.D.

Originally Posted by Athanasias

The Catholic Church(Which consisted of and still does of both east and western rites) was founded in 33 A.D. By Jesus Christ. Yes it did have Popes who were centered in Rome and who had universal jurisdiction and authority over the Church. In fact the late first and early and late second centuries prove it. Now Discuss!
​

.