The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Albion]

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.

We could, but of course all Christian denominations have a lot of beliefs and practices in common, and most have not changed much since antiquity. Noting them, however, doesn't do anything to address the question; and we all know that differences of some sort caused the once undivided church to separate into different communions, etc.

 

[Standing Up]

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?

Not just his, but all baptisms by heretics, including Arius. You need to read the history.

2) Why would Cyprian care so deeply what Rome thought?

Rome was the center of things. Polycarp traveled to her some 100 years earlier to correct her false teachings. Marcion flourished under one of your popes who couldn't control the heresies.

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.

Rome did win out, until recently, as it recanted regarding LDS. One hopes Rome continues to try to return to the Catholic Church.

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.

Cyprian was agreeing with scripture that there is one faith, one baptism, etc. I agree too.

Even though Cyprian/Firmilian "lost" to Rome, it doesn't mean the veracity of subsequent heresy is correct.

As to the thread and the Roman Church birth, I think it clear that when she departed the faith once given (Jude), she was born. This happened c115 through 195 (day/date/meaning of Christ's death, burial, resurrection) and into 256 (heretical baptism equal to Christian baptism). She then married the state in 325 as her enforcer to its different doctrines.

 

[Rev Randy]

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.





.

It wasn't an answer. It was a statement that I was laughing. And laughing pretty darn hard.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It wasn't an answer. It was a statement that I was laughing. And laughing pretty darn hard.

Yes, I too got a chuckle from the irony of the post to which I responded and I appreciated your reply to my post. It was, as I have said in other posts too right!

 

[Erose]

Not just his, but all baptisms by heretics, including Arius. You need to read the history.

I have read on this period of history and not just bits and pieces. The group in question at this time, which St. Stephan addressed was the acceptance of Novatians back into the Church. The Novatians were a Trinitarian group, who held the same beliefs about the Trinity as the orthodox Church did. Their deviation from orthodoxy had to do which matters concerning forgiveness and mercy and who deserved it.

Theologically it has always been held that for baptism to be valid it requires:

1) The use of water.
2) The proper formula: I baptize you in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
3) The proper intent of the ceremony.

Item three above is the one that you are questioning here. Intent can mean a few things, ie. a) is there really an intent to have a baptism? For example if there are kids playing around and pretending to baptize each other because they seen it in church the other day, would that really be a grace conferring event? Or if a baptism is being displayed in a movie, is that really a grace conferring event? The Church has always said no to both of these, but neither explains what the Novatians are doing.

b.) intent also refers to under whose name are you baptizing. For example if Jim Bob starts his own cult and wants everybody to be baptized, and he uses the same formula as Christians do, out of spite, but wants the intent of the father referring to himself, the son refers to his little boy Jethro, and the Holy Spirit referring to the spirit that he claims he is the medium for (new age stuff). Well obviously I don't see how anyone would be able to claim that this would be considered a valid baptism, because the intent is not the Christian God.

Concerning Mormons, that is their problem, the intent of who is named in the baptism is not the same as who is named in a Christian baptism. This is why Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans do not accept Mormon Baptism.

Anyway this just doesn't fit the Novatians who did worship the same God as Catholics, and as such St. Stephen rightfully judged their baptism valid.

Rome was the center of things. Polycarp traveled to her some 100 years earlier to correct her false teachings. Marcion flourished under one of your popes who couldn't control the heresies.

No Polycarp didn't go there to correct her false teachings but rather to mediate between two parties.

Rome did win out, until recently, as it recanted regarding LDS. One hopes Rome continues to try to return to the Catholic Church.

Discussed above. It requires a full understanding of what Baptism is, and what is required for a baptism to be valid.

Cyprian was agreeing with scripture that there is one faith, one baptism, etc. I agree too.

I agree that Cyprian, intent was noble, but again Cyprian didn't have a complete understanding of what makes Baptism valid. The validity of the Sacraments has been long understood does not require sanctity of the minister. In other words if someone in mortal sin, performs a baptism with the proper form, matter, and intent, that baptism is valid.

Even though Cyprian/Firmilian "lost" to Rome, it doesn't mean the veracity of subsequent heresy is correct.

Yes it does mean that Cyprian and Firmilian lost, and lost for a good reason. They were wrong.

As to the thread and the Roman Church birth, I think it clear that when she departed the faith once given (Jude), she was born. This happened c115 through 195 (day/date/meaning of Christ's death, burial, resurrection) and into 256 (heretical baptism equal to Christian baptism). She then married the state in 325 as her enforcer to its different doctrines.

This really is an unsubstantiated paragraph. 1st and foremost, the Easter dating, was really a matter of "practice" and not "doctrine". Whether or not Easter is celebrated on the day after Passover or the Sunday after Passover, has nothing to do with doctrine. It is practice.

Concerning the St. Stephen vs. St. Cyprian event, like I said before, you should be happy that St. Cyprian lost, for if he didn't then you wouldn't be a Christian, as you stand today. All Protestants really should praise St. Stephen instead of try to trash the man for holding onto the faith.

 

[Albion]

Getting back on topic...wouldn't ca. 313 AD--however one views Constantine's involvment in church affairs--mark a change in the whole church, not the emergence or separation of just the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Getting back on topic...wouldn't ca. 313 AD--however one views Constantine's involvment in church affairs--mark a change in the whole church, not the emergence or separation of just the Roman Catholic Church?

Yes. A change. The Church, Christianity, was made legal. No longer subject to emperor's whims and decisions to kill Christians.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No Post.......NM

 

[Erose]

Getting back on topic...wouldn't ca. 313 AD--however one views Constantine's involvment in church affairs--mark a change in the whole church, not the emergence or separation of just the Roman Catholic Church?

The only real change here was the removal of the fear of persecution. There is no evidence that Constantine changed or alter doctrine. It seems that the only time he really got involved in Church politics is the Arian controversy, which he feared could lead to a civil war.

The documents from the councils he participated in shows no doctrinal influence by him, and since these council occurred in the east, it would be hard pressed to find him making the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I suppose there are dark sides in a lot of religions in the past.

The Papal butchers who killed true Christians | News that matters

The truth is that these men covered their identity, to avoid being exposed during their Satanic acts during the Spanish inquisition. When the priests told them to butcher Baptist Christians, the clergy made it impossible for the victim’s to identify the criminals.
Family members of slaughtered followers of Jesus were not able to alarm other Christians about who the butchers were.
Rome and Madrid ruled Spain by fear. If anyone did not do what the Papists had ordered, he would face persecution and possible martyrdom. The dark ages were really dark. Still Rome rejoices in its passed criminal acts.




.

Believing anything on that website, you'll believe just about anything. This is absolutely bovine excrement.

 

[Standing Up]

I have read on this period of history and not just bits and pieces. The group in question at this time, which St. Stephan addressed was the acceptance of Novatians back into the Church. The Novatians were a Trinitarian group, who held the same beliefs about the Trinity as the orthodox Church did. Their deviation from orthodoxy had to do which matters concerning forgiveness and mercy and who deserved it.

Your believing the baptism issue was only over Novatian is to pick up a piece and ignore all the reset of the extant evidence about RC history.

Cyprian (source cited before):
2. He [Stephen] forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he 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.

Firmilian (next letter):
And indeed, as respects what Stephen has said, as though the apostles forbade those who come from heresy to be baptized, and delivered this also to be observed by their successors, you have replied most abundantly, that no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently; when even Marcion the disciple of Cerdo is found to have introduced his sacrilegious tradition against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them. Apelles, also consenting to his blasphemy, added many other new and more important matters hostile to faith and truth. But also the time of Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too, after the apostles, and after a long period, rebelled against the Church of God with their wicked lies.

No Polycarp didn't go there to correct her false teachings but rather to mediate between two parties.

Irenaeus was the mediator between Victor and Polycrates, but points out that Polycarp and Anicetus conflicted, yet lived in peace with each other.

"And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. "
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Irenaeus again:
He [Polycarp] it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html?highlight=polycarp,rome#fnf_ix.iv.iv-p6.1

IOW, Anicetus was unable to steer Rome away from the heretics. Anicetus was unable to proclaim the same faith handed down. It took Polycarp to do so. As mentioned above, however, unfortunately, rather than being grateful toward bishop Polycarp and learning the faith handed down from apostles, Anicetus still went his own way on certain matters.

Yes it does mean that Cyprian and Firmilian lost, and lost for a good reason. They were wrong.

You are saying that Marcion's or Arius' or LDS baptism is able to cause a person to be born-again from above, that they are equivalent to a Christian baptism. You are saying they posses the same faith, the same Father, the same Son, the same Spirit. The Catholic Church disagrees.

So, to the thread, one could say RCC was born in 256ad as it saw heretic baptism as equivalent to Christian baptism.

Or, one could say RCC was born in the period from 115 to 195 as it turned from the faith once handed down as the clash between Polycarp and others shows.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Off topic.......no post



.

 

[Rhamiel]

Hi LLOJ

Was the RCC born thru the reign of Constantine or not? Thoughts?

well this seems like a simple question
the Catholic Church claims to be older then that
If someone wants to claim that the Catholic Church was created in A.D. 313
then they would have to show what doctrines changed
how was it different in A.D. 312 that would necessitate claiming that a new denomination was created in 313

I do not think such a claim can be reasonably made

 

[BobRyan]

A new world of posts!

The Church in Rome was established in the first century AD that's why the bible has a letter to the Romans in it.

The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rhamiel]

The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.



in Christ,

Bob

no "Mary mother of God"
are you saying that Jesus is not God? or are you saying that Mary was not the mother of Jesus?

you have to be saying one or both of those if you say that Mary is not the Mother of God.

no prayers for the dead?
1 Corinthians 15:29 references prayers for the dead
"Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?"
Baptism for the dead does not talk about the sacrament of Baptism, but rather doing penance on behalf of the dead
similar to how Jesus referred to His Passion in terms of it being a "baptism" in Mark 10:38
""You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?""

the Bible, and history, shows entire housholds getting Baptized, no mention of leaving the children out....

are you advocating that the Catholic Church was created in A.D. 313?
you give a lot of claims, but you do not really have a date in your post

 

[MoreCoffee]

Beware the

Zombie thread​

 

[bbbbbbb]

Beware the

Zombie thread​

 

[BobRyan]

no "Mary mother of God"
are you saying that Jesus is not God?

No I am saying that

Mary is not the Mother of God.
Joseph is not the "Father of God"
James is not the "Brother of God"

And that No NT text uses any such language.

you have to be saying one or both of those if you say that Mary is not the Mother of God.

Turns out - that is not true.


Even the RCC in the dark ages had enough sense not to use claims about

Joseph is not the "Father of God"
James is not the "Brother of God"

Because they are not found in the NT and it conveys the totally wrong idea.

Same with "Mary Mother of God and Queen of the Universe... all powerful like Christ, sinless like Christ..."

in Christ,

Bob

 

[pdudgeon]

Perhaps.

But let's get back to the original OP.


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

Since there was no response to this from RCs on another thead I thought I would start a thread on this.
Was the RCC born thru the reign of Constantine or not? Thoughts?

Nope. The Church began with Peter, who has always been listed as the first Pope. to say anything else would be error.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh no!!

The Cranberries - Zombie - YouTube