The RCC born in 313 AD?

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

 

[Tonks]

That is certainly a fanciful version of history.

 

[simonthezealot]

In a sense for certain...Theologically though it was Leo in the 5th century that gave it a defense using scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

I think it can be said that in the early 4th century, we have the first evidence of a denomination.

Whether that denomination was what we now call The Catholic Church is a different and difficult question (and one primarily for the EO and CC to argue about).

Whether one (anyone) existed prior to that would be a matter of speculation since there is no evidence of such.





.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

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

See what you think of these two links:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea3.asp

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

.

I think it can be said that in the early 4th century, we have the first evidence of a denomination.

Whether that denomination was what we now call The Catholic Church is a different and difficult question (and one primarily for the EO and CC to argue about).

Whether one (anyone) existed prior to that would be a matter of speculation since there is no evidence of such.
.

Thks CJ. Perhaps the Orthodox are correct in some ways saying they are the first original Apostolic Church since they view the pope as simply a "bishop of equals.

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..................

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

If the Catholic Church only began at the time of Constantine then all of the supposed errors of the Catholic Church would only have emerged after A.D 300, or even 337 - when Constantine died. If that is the marker for when the Christian Church fell into error, then how can you trust the very Bible you put their faith in, since the canon of Scripture was not settled upon until about fifty years after the death of Constantine (at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo). In reading the ECF's you will see that Catholic practices and beliefs - such as the Eucharist, confession to a priest, papacy, etc - existed long before Constantine.

Also, if we were to accept this date of 313 AD as fact, then you would be forced to accept that God chose this late "invented" Church as the instrument for canonizing the New Testament, and such an act of God gives ultimate legitimacy to the Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

http://clf.uua.org/betweensundays/middlechildhood/ChristianHeritage.html

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..................

http://clf.uua.org/betweensundays/middlechildhood/ChristianHeritage.htmlhttp://clf.uua.org/betweensundays/middlechildhood/ChristianHeritage.html

Also, if we were to accept this date of 313 AD as fact, then you would be forced to accept that God chose this late "invented" Church as the instrument for canonizing the New Testament, and such an act of God gives ultimate legitimacy to the Church.

That is really between your Denomination and the Orthodox to wrangle over....Peace

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5805969&page=82
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

That is really between your Denomination and the Orthodox to wrangle over........

Not really, because while the EO's may not accept certain papal authorities, they DO accept the fact that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter, and therefore by implication they REJECT the belief that the Church of Rome is a late "invention".

As long as they accept his legitimate apostolic succession then they reject any idea that the See of Rome is a 4th century invention

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thks TEP for your Denomination's input.
Any other Denominations want to give their view? Thks.

 

[tz620q]

Was the RCC born thru the reign of Constantine?__________________

No. History is rarely so simple as the children's lesson cited in the link. It is obvious that a Christian church existed in Rome from shortly after the Apostles and disciples of Christ started moving out from Israel. One can either ignore that church entirely (which leads to all kinds of convoluted logic on how we can claim Roman matyrs in 63 C.E. from a nonexistent church) or try to explain it away as not the progenitor of the RCC. This later claim hinges on a strict understanding of change. It would be like growing a plant in a cellar. It is barely alive until you move it up into the light. There it grows large and looks quite different in form from the previous plant. People see pictures of both plants and deny that they are the same.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

No. History is rarely so simple as the children's lesson cited in the link. It is obvious that a Christian church existed in Rome from shortly after the Apostles and disciples of Christ started moving out from Israel. One can either ignore that church entirely (which leads to all kinds of convoluted logic on how we can claim Roman matyrs in 63 C.E. from a nonexistent church) or try to explain it away as not the progenitor of the RCC. This later claim hinges on a strict understanding of change. It would be like growing a plant in a cellar. It is barely alive until you move it up into the light. There it grows large and looks quite different in form from the previous plant. People see pictures of both plants and deny that they are the same.

 

[namericanboy]

The church was/is the church..It showed up in Corinth, Philadelphia and points north, south, east and west. It was holy and catholic NOT what you know of as YOUR Roman Catholic church...Rome has attached many things over the years that were unheard of in early christianity...

 

[namericanboy]

I'd be disappointed if your didn't agree with him.

 

[tz620q]

The church was/is the church..It showed up in Corinth, Philadelphia and points north, south, east and west. It was holy and catholic NOT what you know of as YOUR Roman Catholic church...Rome has attached many things over the years that were unheard of in early christianity

This was merely an innocent claim about the RCC and was not meant to imply that there were not other churches at that time that were not one, holy, catholic, and apostolic; the four marks of the early church. I would ask this question. Why is it important to the people making the claim that the RCC started in 313A.D.?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'd be disappointed if your didn't agree with him.

Where are all the Orthodox posters?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Church of Rome was "officially" established in 42AD. There were many Christians in Rome before that time but they were not consolidated into one Church "of Rome" until St. Peter arrived.


Forgive me...

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

The Church of Rome was "officially" established in 42AD. There were many Christians in Rome before that time but they were not consolidated into one Church "of Rome" until St. Peter arrived.


Forgive me...

There it is, straight from an EO

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Church of Rome was "officially" established in 42AD. There were many Christians in Rome before that time but they were not consolidated into one Church "of Rome" until St. Peter arrived.

Of course, there's not a shred of anything to support that, but let's just ASSUME it's true. Then what that means is that there was a CONGREGATION in Rome in 42 AD. Several congregations were older. Now, what in the world does that have to do with the Catholic Denomination? Nothing.



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Church of Rome was "officially" established in 42AD. There were many Christians in Rome before that time but they were not consolidated into one Church "of Rome" until St. Peter arrived.


Forgive me...

Ok thks. We do know the Lord personally told Paul about testifying in Rome also, but not much about Peter testifying in Rome.

Acts 23:11 To the yet ensuing night standing by him, the Lord, said "be of courage! for as thou fully-witness the-things concerning Me into Jerusalem, thus thou it is binding also into Rome to testify"

Textus Rec.) Acts 23:11 th de epioush nukti epistaV autw o kurioV eipen qarsei paule wV gar diemarturw ta peri emou eiV ierousalhm outwV se dei kai eiV rwmhn marturhsai