When did Roman Catholicism begin?

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
587
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The nature of vice and virtue:

Pride by its nature must always be in rebellion and protest!
Alway says no, I will not serve!
Always associated with presumption and arrogance!

Humility by its nature must obey, and be faithful! Unless you become like little children. Matt 18:3 always associated with faith, hope, and charity!

The truth is filled with virtues and sets us free!
The doctrine of devils is filled with the vices of the devils to ensnare those who refuse to listen to the truth from the bosom of holy mother church!
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
587
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What is the rule of faith for Christians, or the source of truth?

What is the pillar and ground of truth?

How do we know truth?

Where does it say the “Bible alone”?
Or that we are permitted to read it for ourselves and make our own doctrine?

Where does it say all revealed truths are found in scripture?


Christ is the rule of faith or source of truth for Christians!
Jn 14:6 Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life! The church is an extension of Christ 1 Tim 3:15 the church is the pillar and ground of truth!

Must be taught by Christ! Gal 1:2

What God has revealed by scripture and the church, the teaching authority of the apostles has proposed for our belief!

Christians must be instructed or taught!

A Christian must have humility and obedience of faith to be taught by Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life!
Jn 14:6

Verses of scripture signifying that we must be taught.

Lk 1:4
Matt 18:17
Matt 28:19

Christ and His church are one! Acts 9:4
The church is an exodus christ by which Christ perpetuates his mission, ministry, and teaching with His power and authority through all the world and all ages!

The private interpretation of the “Bible alone” does not and cannot and will not lead to a unity of faith! 2 Pet 1:20
eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Jn 1:16-17 fullness of Christ!


The Bible does not say all truths revealed by God are found in the “Bible alone”! Or that the word of God is limited to the “Bible alone”!

Not the “Bible alone” acts 2:42
Not personal interpretation or experiences. 2 Pet 1:20

The authority of the apostles is required to know what is the scriptures and what is not, the church having wrote the New Testament by the authority of Christ the apostles determined what is scripture and the authentic interpretation there of!

Saint Jerome’s work of collecting the Bible and getting it approved did not happen until in 381 it was approved by the Pope, the valid successor of Peter having jurisdiction authority of the keys of the kingdom of heaven!

How did the church for almost four centuries live without the “Bible alone”?
The teaching authority of the apostles that’s how! The Bible’s is the Bible by the authority of the church, Christ’s authority given to His apostles!

Christ founded the church on Peter and the apostles to defend, to protect, and to teach “thee faith”

A fundamentalist is ruled by spiritual pride, self-righteous private judgement from scripture, or the humility to hear the teaching of Christ through the church of His apostles?
Obedience of faith: rom 16:26
We must be taught by Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life. Jn 14:6
Instructed: Lk 1:4 acts 8:31
Teach all nations: Matt 28:19
He who hears you (the apostles) hears me: lk 10:16
Hear the church: Matt 18:17
Church is the pillar and ground of truth: 1 Tim 3:14
Christ and his church are one, the church is an extension of Christ through the whole world and all time: acts 9:4

Not scripture plus private judgement

But guided by the teaching office of Christ and his church!

Without the teaching authority of the apostles you cannot know what is and what is not scripture!

Please explain how the church of Jesus Christ existed before the New Testament, the church taught and believed before the New Testament with the same authority of Christ!

Church of the apostles has the same mission, ministry, power, and authority as Christ! Jn 20:21-23

The church wrote the New Testament, the church gathered the cannon of scripture, the church alone has authority to say what is, and what is not scripture and to give the authoritative interpretation or meaning of scripture!

Not spiritual pride & self-righteous private judgement!

Athanasius Creed!
(From the early church)

Whoever desires to be saved must above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and entire will doubtless perish eternally.

What did Christ teach the apostles in the 40 days from His resurrection to His ascension?
What did he teach the two disciples on the road to Emmaus?
What was revealed to John the Baptist in Lk 3:2 the word of God came unto John, and did it come by the Bible alone?
Where does Christ command the New Testament to be written? The apostles having the authority of Christ chose to write scripture! Other apostles wrote nothing at all!
How does the eunuch know about baptism? Acts 8

Rule of faith cannot be the “Bible Alone” because we did not have a bible until 381 when the church of the apostles by the authority of Christ determined what was and what was not scripture! You only have a bible cos the church wrote one and cannonized it by the authority of Christ thru his apostles!

Could not read
The Bible itself points to authority granted by Christ
The Bible condemns person interpretation of scripture as opposed to the church of the apostles having the authority of Christ to interpret scripture

so how can the rule of faith be the “Bible alone” when it did not even exist until the church approved it in 381 by the authority of Christ in His apostles, what about the millions who could not read most could not read until the 20th century, and books including Bible were rare and very expensive all written by hand (mostly by monks who sacrificed their whole life to copy a bible) until the printing press, even then they were still expensive
What does a blind person do?

the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to the apostles Jn 16:13 they are to teach the nations Matt 28:19 Lk 1:4 acts 8

in acts 8 did the eunuch know about Christ and baptism from the scripture and the Holy Spirit? No God sent him and apostle


Acts 2:42 the held the doctrine of the apostles
Not the doctrine of the “Bible alone”!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
11,313
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
My "take" ...


"Church" means "the gathering." The term refers to the community, communion, fellowship, "oikos" of Christians... it is PEOPLE, people united by the divine gift of faith; it's a corporate reality of faith - people with faith. The Bible speaks of it as such...the Nicene Creed speaks of it as such. But the term ALSO came to mean a local gathering of Christians (and seekers) in a given local and time, the church "at" a given place and at a given time (the church at Ephesus for example); in theology these are often referred to as "congregations" or "parishes" to avoid confusion with "church." Not for centuries was the term used for denominations (legal/economic/political corporations of congregations).


Christianity began more as a movement than anything, and well within Judaism. I think that's how early Christians understood themselves, rather like "fulfilled Jews." Judaism was already a diverse group and had a history of being with little organization (until the Romans legalized it). But the division happened fast! We already see in the New Testament itself (especially in Acts) this separation happening as Christians begin to worship separately and undergo persecution from Jews. Soon, believers became known as Christians, not Jews. Christians, Jews, Romans, the culture - all soon came to understand Christianity as a distinct religion/community.

But for 300 years (a long time!), Christianity was an illegal religion often undergoing persecution - from the Jews, from the Romans, from the general culture. It was often an "underground" religion, meeting in small groups often secretly and in private homes or secret locations. There was no central ANYTHING and it was VERY diverse. Perhaps at no time in the 2000 year history of Christianity was it more diverse than in these early years (well, today might be just as much so!). Theology was pretty much all over the map... even the very esteemed "Fathers" often varied greatly in their beliefs and debated strongly with each other, already there was developing "East vs West" theologies and practices. There were no "church councils" because there was no agency to call such and no ability to standardize any opinions of such. But there DOES seem to be a growing consensus - however informal - and we see this in the rejection of Gnosticism, the growing embrace of 27 Christian Scripture Books, the growing embrace of certain "fathers" as opposed to some others... it was informal, it was unofficial, it was far from perfect, but there was a growing popular consensus WITHOUT any Body or individual or denomination - just Christians in general embracing some things, rejecting some things, and letting many things be said or done without affirmation or condemnation. All very informal, unofficial.... just Christians evolving. NOTE: There was NO denomination during this time, no central anything, no legal/political corporation of congregations. It was a movement, little more than a loose, informal, unofficial entity of thousands of congregations (most tiny and unorganized.) Since Christianity was illegal, it's understandable that Christians avoided headquarters and lists and centrality.


A radical change happened in the early Fourth Century
when the Empire first legalized Christianity and then made it the State Religion. Suddenly, in one bold swift political move, Christianity was a ROMAN thing, the church a ROMAN and POLITICAL institution, an agency of the Empire (just like the military). IMO, this huge event was a real "mixed blessing" but that's another topic, the reality is: For the Roman Empire anyway (not outside it, we are NOT talking anything universal or impacting all Christian people or Christian congregations!), the church was an political thing, an agency of the Roman Empire, at least sort of under the control of the Emperor. And Rome was OBSESSED with power, control, and lording it over people (Matthew 20:26). And predictably, formed the church in its own image - very much from the top down, like the Roman army, like Roman government, like Roman business. Now, we have a denomination - a political, economic, legal corporation intend on control. We have a body of all congregations within the Empire. Now, we have what might be called "The Church of the Roman Empire" - although it often referred to itself as "catholic" (universal - over the whole Empire) or "orthodox" (true, correct, authentic) but these were adjectives, not proper nouns. This ORGANIZATION was imposed throughout the Empire by the Emperor but it proved unequal - it was more "Roman" in the West than in the East where control and centralization was less embraced and a more collegial, informal and less defining approach was seen (truth: Eastern and Western Christianity never united but continued to grow apart, even under Roman control).


Was this The Roman Catholic Church? Can we say what the Roman Empire first created in 311 was THE Roman Catholic Church? That's very difficult to say.... it included nothing outside the bounds of the Empire.... it was both East and West... not one of the distinctive teachings of the RCC was taught by this Roman agency... there was NOTHING distinctively RCC about this Roman agency. But it can be said that the RCC (and EOC) and actually EVERY Western denomination can be historically TRACED BACK to this Roman denomination (in much the same way as nearly every Western country can be traced back to the Roman Empire, but it's foolish to say the USA was founded in 753 BC because Rome was). Nearly every denomination can trace itself back to this denomination Rome created... but that doesn't make it The Roman Church.

Christianity can be said to have been founded by Jesus and the Apostles.... but not any particular congregation or denomination. Indeed, we see nothing that can even be thought of as an institutional organization of all Christianity - even though Rome tried to do that in 311 (it fell apart soon thereafter) but even then, only for itself.


Now, the LDS and RCC and a few other denominations and cults can claim big, egotistical, self-serving things to try to justify lording it over others as the Gentiles do, to justify the power-grabbing demands of itself, to evade accountability, but sorry - neither history or Scripture supports such. Sorry. That's the reality.

I have nothing per se against denominations, but the claim that Jesus or Peter founded one is, well, absurd... and there's no evidence that any (including The Catholic Church) existed prior to Rome's creation in the early 4th Century. Sorry. Just the reality.





.
 
Last edited:

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,473
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Like, did it begin the split second after the Apostles died? Or did it begin after Christianity was legalized with the edict of Milan in 313? Or sometime later?

In my view of things, it began with the teachings of Saul/Paul of Tarsus. Of course we don't see, at the time of Paul, the church we see today, with all it's pomp and fanfare and architecture and ceremonies and such, but we do see it's roots.

The church was divided from nearly the very beginning, and evidence of this is right in the bible - in Acts, and in some of Paul's writings. The original church, led by James, opposed Paul's teachings. In fact, one such evidence of this is one of Paul's teachings that James addresses in the Epistle of James. Who is the "foolish man" in the epistle of James? Look at what James teaches here, what he is referencing in the OT and who teaches the exact opposite and you have your answer.

In addition to this, one might say the spiritual and even political roots go even further. Paul took refuge from those who were against him by citing his Roman citizenship. He also took refuge in Rome, under it's political system at the time, and went so far as to appeal to Caesar. Several of his epistles were written while he claimed to be "in chains for Christ" (ahem, while also taking refuge from his enemies under said Roman "jailers").

But the Roman church claims authority supposedly given to it by Christ through Peter. As far as I know, Peter wasn't a Roman, like Paul was and the letters attributed to him are of questionable origin. In Acts Peter says "We must obey God not men". However in 1st Peter 2, he says 'obey the king'. If you're reading the two passages side by side, Peter can't decide whether to obey God or men. And of course this is all very interesting - because Peter is the one apostle that claimed he would never deny Christ, and yet does so 3 times. The Roman church is in Peter's name, but relies heavily on it's "authority" from the teachings of Paul. Go figure eh.
 
Top Bottom