Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
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.
It wasn't an answer. It was a statement that I was laughing. And laughing pretty darn hard.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.
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.Not just his, but all baptisms by heretics, including Arius. You need to read the history.
No Polycarp didn't go there to correct her false teachings but rather to mediate between two parties.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.
Discussed above. It requires a full understanding of what Baptism is, and what is required for a baptism to be valid.Rome did win out, until recently, as it recanted regarding LDS. One hopes Rome continues to try to return to the Catholic Church.
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.Cyprian was agreeing with scripture that there is one faith, one baptism, etc. I agree too.
Yes it does mean that Cyprian and Firmilian lost, and lost for a good reason. They were wrong.Even though Cyprian/Firmilian "lost" to Rome, it doesn't mean the veracity of subsequent heresy is correct.
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.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.
Yes. A change. The Church, Christianity, was made legal. No longer subject to emperor's whims and decisions to kill Christians.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?
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?
Believing anything on that website, you'll believe just about anything. This is absolutely bovine excrement.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 victims 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.
.
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.
No Polycarp didn't go there to correct her false teachings but rather to mediate between two parties.
Yes it does mean that Cyprian and Firmilian lost, and lost for a good reason. They were wrong.
Was the RCC born thru the reign of Constantine or not? Thoughts?
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
no "Mary mother of God"
are you saying that Jesus is not God?
you have to be saying one or both of those if you say that Mary is not the Mother of God.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?