The RCC born in 313 AD?

Standing Up said:

175. but I was hoping you might look into it. you seem very keen on the truth.

Click to expand...

I did a couple of searches and found some early christians in the year 177 who died because they believed in Jesus, but I did not find any references to the eucharist. Are these the ones you are speaking of? There seems to have been more than one group of martyrs in Lyons.

Albion said:

The meaning of the word, as used by Igantius, is "authentic." Sometimes it is translated as "universal," but if so should not be taken to mean worldwide so much as historic.

Click to expand...

I always understood the latin to translate as Universal, meaning the church is the one church for this universe. lol kinda crude but yeah.

CatholicFlame said:

I did a couple of searches and found some early christians in the year 177 who died because they believed in Jesus, but I did not find any references to the eucharist. Are these the ones you are speaking of? There seems to have been more than one group of martyrs in Lyons.

Click to expand...

search for Blandina, Photinus (sic?)

Standing Up said:

search for Blandina, Photinus (sic?)

Click to expand...

From what I read about St. Blandina and St. Photinus, they were accused of being christian. and it seems, they were also accused of eating human flesh... Sounds like the romans heard about their belief in the real presence and thought something horrible about the faith.

Can you supply a link? What exactly were you trying to prove?

here is what I found:

June 2nd - St. Photinus (Pothinus) and Companions, Martyrs

page 211

page 408

CatholicFlame said:

I always understood the latin to translate as Universal, meaning the church is the one church for this universe. lol kinda crude but yeah.

Click to expand...

Right. It's more like a concept that's universally held or applicable (such as there is a God or slavery is wrong), NOT a reference to the geographical reach of the church or the Chrtistian faith.

Catholic means 'true for all'. It would also imply that all may participate.
I think the contrast would be Judaism and the concept of the Chosen People. Their mandate was to be a separate people and a light on a hill for the world.

The catholic mandate is Phase II of the plan, where God pours out his spirit onto us all.

CatholicFlame said:

From what I read about St. Blandina and St. Photinus, they were accused of being christian. and it seems, they were also accused of eating human flesh... Sounds like the romans heard about their belief in the real presence and thought something horrible about the faith.

Can you supply a link? What exactly were you trying to prove?

here is what I found:

June 2nd - St. Photinus (Pothinus) and Companions, Martyrs

Click to expand...

Eating human flesh (aka, as you define it, real presence) was the accusation made against them. They denied the eucharist is flesh idea and because of their denial, were martyred.

Standing Up said:

Eating human flesh (aka, as you define it, real presence) was the accusation made against them. They denied the eucharist is flesh idea and because of their denial, were martyred.

Click to expand...

So they were proto-Protestant memorialists?

CatholicFlame said:

Well since before Christianity became the religion of the empire, these kind of things were written by a church that was under heavy persecution, does say something. This is the evidence of what the early church believed.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Assuming that they didn't say anyting else on the subject, it is evidence of what those particular individuals believed.

Like a good detective, we look at the evidence we have. Now if you could show me some other evidence of what people in the early church held to be true, I would look at that also.

Click to expand...

That's good to do, but in the absence of it you still haven't enough for a conclusion.

Are these quotes conclusive proof that the early church was indeed indeed Catholic?

Click to expand...

For one thing, it doesn't show "early" let alone "Catholic." There is nothing in them that shows anything about the first century, with the possible exception of Ignatius who affirms a doctrine that can't be identified as the Catholic POV of later times.

IOW, there's not enough here to substantiate your contention.

Personally, I place the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church at the early fifth century when the most distinctive and divisive issue was adopted--Papal Supremacy. Without that, it's hard to see how we could differentiate Roman Catholicism from the other Patriarchates of the time.

LittleLambofJesus said:

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?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50129975&postcount=75

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..................
__________________

Click to expand...

the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded on Earth

ppl sometimes look @ the history of that Church

and say (thus and so or this or that) happened ...

but Jesus promised that His Church would NOT fail

Mt 16:18

anyone who knows much about history knows that the Roman Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church in the world until Luther came along... and that it is STILL the only one becasue: St Mt 16:18

Luther... was nuts... (as it were)... Frankly i think he was possessed

truthHurts77 said:

the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded on Earth

Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic Church thanks you for your loyalty. Of course, the exact same thing is claimed for their churches by Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, and members of many other churches.

but Jesus promised that His Church would NOT fail

Click to expand...

And Christianity has NOT failed, as witness the fact that it's the largest religion in the world.

anyone who knows much about history knows that the Roman Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church in the world until Luther came along... and that it is STILL the only one becasue: St Mt 16:18

Click to expand...

Anyone who knows much about history is laughing out loud right now. Where, for example, do you think the Eastern Orthodox were before 1517, not to mention all the other churches persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church along the way?

Luther... was nuts... (as it were)... Frankly i think he was possessed

Click to expand...

Well, we are deeply impressed at the careful analysis of the man called by Time Magazine the most important figure in the last 500 years of Christian history.

Anyone who knows much about history is laughing out loud right now.

Click to expand...

Correction.
For example, I have not been laughing out loud since reading that, but merely smiling indulgently to myself.

SolomonVII said:

Correction.
For example, I have not been laughing out loud since reading that, but merely smiling indulgently to myself.

Click to expand...

Very well, but you know that physicians say that if you suppress a belly laugh, it could hurt you.

Standing Up said:

Eating human flesh (aka, as you define it, real presence) was the accusation made against them. They denied the eucharist is flesh idea and because of their denial, were martyred.

Click to expand...

You completely twisted what happened. Here is the scenario:

1) Romans accused the saints of eating human flesh, and the romans were sickened by the thought. I am correct in this.

2) The christians denied that they were eating human flesh, as so far they were accused.

3) therefore, they were killed for it.

now you are claiming something like this:

1)the romans acused them of beleiving in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

2) the christians denied it

3) therefore, they were killed for it

The first explanation makes much more sense. why? first of all because according to every other church writing at the time, christians believed in the real presence. Do I have to pour out tons of writings of the early church fathers?? I will if you need me to. The whole early church believed. I will prove it to you, while you will come up with not even one early church father who did not believe.

secondly, you think they were killed because they believed in the real presence? re-read your source again. Be honest with yourself, for the sake of honesty! The romans were disgusted. why? because they heard about what we believed about the eucharist and then apprehended the saints, accusing them of eating human flesh. Put yourself into the minds of unbelieving romans. they werent theologians, they were angry that it was heard that we christians were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of someone.

I cant believe the dishonesty some people will go to to try to prove their points. You should be ashamed of yourself for twisting the truth as you are attempting to do. I am going to prove this to you and then you can be quiet.

truthHurts77 said:

the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded on Earth

ppl sometimes look @ the history of that Church

and say (thus and so or this or that) happened ...

but Jesus promised that His Church would NOT fail

Mt 16:18

anyone who knows much about history knows that the Roman Catholic Church was the ONLY Christian Church in the world until Luther came along... and that it is STILL the only one becasue: St Mt 16:18

Luther... was nuts... (as it were)... Frankly i think he was possessed

Click to expand...

FYI, when you attack a person's character, rather than the content, you've pretty much undermined your whole arguement (such as it was). IOW, have you got anything else?

Standing Up said:

IOW, have you got anything else?

Click to expand...

Do you think the martyrs were proto-Protestant memorialists?

CatholicFlame said:

You completely twisted what happened. Here is the scenario:

1) Romans accused the saints of eating human flesh, and the romans were sickened by the thought. I am correct in this.

2) The christians denied that they were eating human flesh, as so far they were accused.

3) therefore, they were killed for it.

now you are claiming something like this:

1)the romans acused them of beleiving in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

2) the christians denied it

3) therefore, they were killed for it

The first explanation makes much more sense. why? first of all because according to every other church writing at the time, christians believed in the real presence. Do I have to pour out tons of writings of the early church fathers?? I will if you need me to. The whole early church believed. I will prove it to you, while you will come up with not even one early church father who did not believe.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should define what you're talking about because we agree the eucharist is not flesh/blood. See your #1 of #1 above.

Here is what you said:

"Here is the scenario:

1) Romans accused the saints of eating human flesh, and the romans were sickened by the thought. I am correct in this.

2) The christians denied that they were eating human flesh, as so far they were accused.

3) therefore, they were killed for it."

That is correct. We agree. So, again, the eucharist is NOT flesh.

Standing Up said:

Maybe you should define what you're talking about because we agree the eucharist is not flesh/blood. See your #1 of #1 above.

Here is what you said:

"Here is the scenario:

1) Romans accused the saints of eating human flesh, and the romans were sickened by the thought. I am correct in this.

2) The christians denied that they were eating human flesh, as so far they were accused.

3) therefore, they were killed for it."

That is correct. We agree. So, again, the eucharist is NOT flesh.

Click to expand...

dont you get what I am saying? I said the Romans thought the christians were claiming to eat physical human flesh, you know like eating someones arm. Are you playing some kind of game? Think. you know that I am not saying what you are saying. You are now twisting my words too. isnt that obvious?

Standing Up said:

IOW, have you got anything else?

Click to expand...

here is what martin luther says about the eucharist. Notice he also realizes that NO EARLY CHURCH FATHER denied that the eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ.

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391