Constantine...not Peter

[AwedbyGod]

And I suppose you're going to tell us that the successors of Peter who murdered and committed adultery were men of God. Sorry, but this fools no one except those who don't know what God stands for.

And I suppose you are going to tell us that Luther was a real nice guy too huh?

 

[Lewis]

D46 posted this, just read this stuff it is crazy.

Look what your own Catechism says of Papal Infalliability and tell me the Pope's not infalliable according to church doctrine.

Papal InfallibilityVatican Flag
"Rome has spoken. The case is closed." - St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 131," 4th century A.D.)

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on "Papal Infallibility:"
889. "In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a 'supernatural sense of faith' the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, 'unfailingly adheres to this faith.' [LG 12; cf. DV 10.]"
890. "The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms."
891. "'The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,' above all in an Ecumenical Council. [LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,' [DV 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' [LG 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [Cf. LG 25.]"
2035. "The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. [Cf. LG 25; CDF, declaration, Mysterium Ecclesiae 3.]"
2051. "The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed."

COMMENTS
What is wrong with papal infallibilty? It says right in Scripture that the Holy Spirit guides the Church Christ founded. By not having faith in the Pope to correct, reprove and instruct, you may as well be saying you don't have faith in the Holy Spirit.

Being under the jurisdiction of these is the wrong way to go.

 

[PHIL121]

The true church was founded at Pentacost and it had nothing to do with a Catholic organizatioon.

Actually, I believe the Church was really founded at the Transfiguration, when the Holy Spirit said to the Apostles present "this is my son in whom I am well pleased, FOLLOW HIM"

In any event, The Catholic Church was a necessary evil so that the Church as whole could survive through the Dark Ages. As any power created by man though, it became corrupt, and eventually existed simply to maintain power over people rather than lead them to Christ.

Of course, the Reformation and the 30 Years War tended to change all that, as did the rise of Democracies. And the Catholic Church has somewhat changed with the times. Nevertheless, especially in America, it probably has more 'luke-warm' members than any other.

And then there is all that silly doctrine of theirs :roll:

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I don't even know where to begin with this thread- there are so many errors of fact and editorial statements diguised as historical discourse that, for someone who is as passionate about history as I, it is hard not to just say "nonsense" and be done with it.

Errors on who's side ?

Errors on the part of D46- that's who I was responding to. Since that point, I've heard nothing but 1.unsubstantiated and error-filled proclamations about history and historical figures 2.defense of making such claims 3. attacks on current Catholic doctrine.

Look at the premise of the thread- Constantine as the origin of Catholic doctrine, not Peter. Being as this is a historical claim, I'm waiting for some sort of viable and supported argument to this effect. Perhaps this will occur when all the back-patting has been accomplished and everyone has had a chance to get some anti-Catholic feeling off of their chest?

 

[thessalonian]

Yes, there's alot of nonsense in this thread and it's not from our side. Let me just hit a quick one.

"The position of the Bishop of Rome did exist a bit before the Council of Nicea. But it was a very different position, before Constantine and after Constantine. "

Very odd since there were two anti-popes long before Constantine, Hippolatus and Novation in the third century who claimed to be Bishop of Rome in opposition to the true Bishop of Rome at the time. D46 you quite apparently have been duped and are duping others with your made up history. It's so laughable when you actually read the writings prior to Constantine that you make yourself look foolish and do us a favor by starting a thread like this. An honest seeker will be turned off by your lies. People like Lewis will of course give you kudos and tell you what a brave man you are and how blind we are. :o . If he won't sit down and read the history before Constantine, what good are his accolades. I wouldn't let it go to your head.

 

[thessalonian]

Yes, there's alot of nonsense in this thread and it's not from our side. Let me just hit a quick one.

"The position of the Bishop of Rome did exist a bit before the Council of Nicea. But it was a very different position, before Constantine and after Constantine. "

Very odd since there were two anti-popes long before Constantine, Hippolatus and Novation in the third century who claimed to be Bishop of Rome in opposition to the true Bishop of Rome at the time.



It is also very odd that Clement of Rome, considered the third pope by reputable historians, gave orders to the Christians at Corinth to reinstate the leaders they had ousted in his letter to them at a time when John the Apostle was still living in Ephuses 200 miles away. (rome was 600 miles away). This letter was given very high regard in the early Church. 30 of the first 33 Bishops of Rome were martyd.

D46 you quite apparently have been duped and are duping others with your made up history. It's so laughable when you actually read the writings prior to Constantine that you make yourself look foolish and do us a favor by starting a thread like this. An honest seeker will be turned off by your lies. People like Lewis will of course give you kudos and tell you what a brave man you are and how blind we are. :o . If he won't sit down and read the history before Constantine directly from the writers who were living at the time, rather than by the historical revisionists that you have bought in to, what good are his accolades. I wouldn't let it go to your head.

 

[thessalonian]

By the way D46, I do wonder why you, lewis, and others are continuously allowed to plagerize information and make it look like your own posts. I don't think either of you is capable of much original material.

blessings

 

[Lewis]

By the way D46, I do wonder why you, lewis, and others are continuously allowed to plagerize information and make it look like your own posts. I don't think either of you is capable of much original material.

Let me tell you something man, we are not plagerizing like this stuff is our own, we put it here simply to get a point across, and why would you worry who it is from anyway, what is it to you ? And you said none of us is capable of original material. Again what is that to you ? If someone else has information on a subject, and it is what I am trying to say, I will use it. I think the thing is, that you can't handel the truth, about the Cult called the Catholic Church. So you have to pick at very little things.

 

[Vic C.]

By the way D46, I do wonder why you, lewis, and others are continuously allowed to plagerize information and make it look like your own posts. I don't think either of you is capable of much original material.

blessings

I have read several times the word "source(s)". Please site your sources for two reasons... it allows us to check the validity of the source(s) and it gives credit to the source materal. Plus, it's one of the rules...

Rule 11 - Respect copyrighted material:
When you copy/paste material please supply a link(s) to your source(s). It is a good idea to do that for two reasons.

A- it gives everyone the chance to check you sources...

B- it gives the credit to the originator of the information and avoids copyright infringement problems.

ok, that was three reasons. 8-)

Also, lets try and discuss and debate this without provoking slander.

Thanks,
Vic

 

[Lewis]

I have read several times the word "source(s)". Please site your sources for two reasons... it allows us to check the validity of the source(s) and it gives credit to the source materal. Plus, it's one of the rules...

Rule 11 - Respect copyrighted material:
When you copy/paste material please supply a link(s) to your source(s). It is a good idea to do that for two reasons.

A- it gives everyone the chance to check you sources...

B- it gives the credit to the originator of the information and avoids copyright infringement problems.

I have no problem with that.

 

[thessalonian]

I have to tell you. I read the thread starter all the way through and I am really embarrassed for the person who wrote it and the ones who are duped by it. It is really a silly piece of work reading ti from a Catholics point of view. For instance, the author just handwaves about Peter being the leader of the early Church. There is tons of Biblical evidence. Is 22:22, Mat 16:18, John 6 v. 72,John 21, Acts 2:38, Acts 4..... Peter always speaks for the Apostles, he is listed first in lists of the Apostles even though Andrew was called before him, he is mentioned far more than any other apostles, just to name a little of the evicence that the handwaver of the article will of course deny. The whole constantine thing is so stupid. Talk about historical revisionism. Read Igantius of Antioch (who spoke of the Catholic Church), Ireanus, Didache, Justin Martyr, and others before the council of Nicea who spoke of the real prescence in the Eucharist, confession of sin, recognized the primacy of the Roman See, etc. etc. Who cares if Constantine saw a vision or not. It's immaterial. Only those who take a man's word for it will not read the writings of the early writers mentioned above and will be duped in to thinking this sad apologetic piece D46 has posted is anything but nonsense.

Purgatory is not a second chance. It's easy to throw up straw men about people's beliefs when you want to remain in ignorance. The author has shown he knows little if anything about the Catholic faith. He bears false witness. Now D46 in another thread a couple of days ago has essentially said that is okay as long as you believe the teachings of those you are bearing false witness against are wrong. In other words it's okay to lie about your enimies.


Blessings

 

[Imagican]

Orthodox Christian,

All that I offer is 'common' knowledge to any and all who choose to study what we know of the formation of the early RCC.

And anyone stating that the RCC was created at petecost is simply NOT stating anything close to the truth.

I think that it is obvious to any with the ability to discern truth that the dates and traditions of the festivals created and set in law by Constantine and the RCC are from a previous pagan tradition that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Christ or God.

You know as well as I that the murdering emperor Constantine never even made an effort to live as a Christian nor, as far as we know, did he ever even accept Christ as a 'truth' until upon his death-bed. From all history that we have and it's indication, Constantine was a ruthless, murdering, pagan Emperor throughout his life and only allowed Christianity to be accepted in the Roman Empire for his mothers sake and for the sake of unity in the Roman Empire. If Christianity had not been the religion of his mother and threatening to divide the Roman Empire he would have done nothing different than that which had been done for three centuries.

The obviousness of my previous posts is, as the old adage goes, "the proof is in the pudding". The RCC didn't adopt a new faith in Christ, but created a new hybidized religion that they called Catholicism. They continued with the same persecution of the 'true' Christians that the government of Rome had, previous to the take over.

The RCC murdered, used extorsion and coersion, banished, ex-communicated, torchered, and used any other means at there disposal to completely dominate, change and control what they called Christianity. If the means in which they altered and controlled this new religion aren't obviously un-Christian to you or anyone else, then I suggest that there is a very large misunderstanding involved in the teachings of Christ and how this varied from what the RCC created and the means with which they forced it upon the known world.

I don't believe that what I offer needs any source to prove anything. I think that most know these facts already and the few that don't are free to study on their own to learn the truth. If they are too lazy to do so, then I contend that they will simply remain ignorant through their own lack of concern.

And I offer information. You seem to only be concerned with the ability to provoke. I am not daunted though. The truth is the truth no matter how much one denies it.

We are all aware of the wealth of the RCC to this day. Is this what Christ told us to do with earthly wealth. Store it up and use it for power to influence others and live a life of luxury? And what does the Bible say about calling any religious leader 'father'? How about our commands concerning the worship of idols? What is an idol? Anything made by the hand of man.

And why don't you do our readers a favor and save me the time and explain to those that don't know about the evil deed, exactly what an indulgency is/was and what it meant to the RCC.

 

[stray bullet]

Orthodox Christian,

All that I offer is 'common' knowledge to any and all who choose to study what we know of the formation of the early RCC.

You mean myths and legends created by anti-Catholics that are in direct contradiction to any history you'll find in a secular institution.

I think that it is obvious to any with the ability to discern truth that the dates and traditions of the festivals created and set in law by Constantine and the RCC are from a previous pagan tradition that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Christ or God.

You know as well as I that the murdering emperor Constantine never even made an effort to live as a Christian nor, as far as we know, did he ever even accept Christ as a 'truth' until upon his death-bed. From all history that we have and it's indication, Constantine was a ruthless, murdering, pagan Emperor throughout his life and only allowed Christianity to be accepted in the Roman Empire for his mothers sake and for the sake of unity in the Roman Empire. If Christianity had not been the religion of his mother and threatening to divide the Roman Empire he would have done nothing different than that which had been done for three centuries.

All Constantine did was tolerate Christianity within his empire. He had no influence over the Church.

The obviousness of my previous posts is, as the old adage goes, "the proof is in the pudding". The RCC didn't adopt a new faith in Christ, but created a new hybidized religion that they called Catholicism. They continued with the same persecution of the 'true' Christians that the government of Rome had, previous to the take over

There were no other Christians at that time except the Gnostics.

The RCC murdered, used extorsion and coersion, banished, ex-communicated, torchered, and used any other means at there disposal to completely dominate, change and control what they called Christianity. If the means in which they altered and controlled this new religion aren't obviously un-Christian to you or anyone else, then I suggest that there is a very large misunderstanding involved in the teachings of Christ and how this varied from what the RCC created and the means with which they forced it upon the known world.

I don't believe that what I offer needs any source to prove anything. I think that most know these facts already and the few that don't are free to study on their own to learn the truth. If they are too lazy to do so, then I contend that they will simply remain ignorant through their own lack of concern.

What you are doing is continuing the spreading of myths and lies.
You are too lazy and ignorant to learn the REAL history of the Church. You believe what you've been fed.

And I offer information. You seem to only be concerned with the ability to provoke. I am not daunted though. The truth is the truth no matter how much one denies it.

And you've offered none.

We are all aware of the wealth of the RCC to this day. Is this what Christ told us to do with earthly wealth. Store it up and use it for power to influence others and live a life of luxury?

Really, how much wealth does the Church have? Do you have any idea how much priests and Bishops make? Guess what the Pope had when he died?

Socks.

And what does the Bible say about calling any religious leader 'father'? How about our commands concerning the worship of idols? What is an idol? Anything made by the hand of man.

Catholics don't worship idols.
The passage about not calling anyone father was hyperbole against the pharisees.
Do you know if you take it literally, you couldn't even call your own father, father, which destroys the very meaning of father. It no longer would mean male parent, but "God".
Furthermore, if you take the hyperbole literally, you can not call anyone "teacher" or "Mister" either. (Mister is a derivative of "Master").

And why don't you do our readers a favor and save me the time and explain to those that don't know about the evil deed, exactly what an indulgency is/was and what it meant to the RCC.

An indulgence is a form of penance one does after asking God for forgiveness as a way of repairing the soul. An indulgence is not something you can buy for someone else as is the common protestant myth- that was NEVER part of the Church.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Orthodox Christian,

All that I offer is 'common' knowledge to any and all who choose to study what we know of the formation of the early RCC.

And anyone stating that the RCC was created at petecost is simply NOT stating anything close to the truth.

I think that it is obvious to any with the ability to discern truth that the dates and traditions of the festivals created and set in law by Constantine and the RCC are from a previous pagan tradition that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Christ or God.

You know as well as I that the murdering emperor Constantine never even made an effort to live as a Christian nor, as far as we know, did he ever even accept Christ as a 'truth' until upon his death-bed. From all history that we have and it's indication, Constantine was a ruthless, murdering, pagan Emperor throughout his life and only allowed Christianity to be accepted in the Roman Empire for his mothers sake and for the sake of unity in the Roman Empire. If Christianity had not been the religion of his mother and threatening to divide the Roman Empire he would have done nothing different than that which had been done for three centuries.

The obviousness of my previous posts is, as the old adage goes, "the proof is in the pudding". The RCC didn't adopt a new faith in Christ, but created a new hybidized religion that they called Catholicism. They continued with the same persecution of the 'true' Christians that the government of Rome had, previous to the take over.

The RCC murdered, used extorsion and coersion, banished, ex-communicated, torchered, and used any other means at there disposal to completely dominate, change and control what they called Christianity. If the means in which they altered and controlled this new religion aren't obviously un-Christian to you or anyone else, then I suggest that there is a very large misunderstanding involved in the teachings of Christ and how this varied from what the RCC created and the means with which they forced it upon the known world.

I don't believe that what I offer needs any source to prove anything. I think that most know these facts already and the few that don't are free to study on their own to learn the truth. If they are too lazy to do so, then I contend that they will simply remain ignorant through their own lack of concern.

And I offer information. You seem to only be concerned with the ability to provoke. I am not daunted though. The truth is the truth no matter how much one denies it.

We are all aware of the wealth of the RCC to this day. Is this what Christ told us to do with earthly wealth. Store it up and use it for power to influence others and live a life of luxury? And what does the Bible say about calling any religious leader 'father'? How about our commands concerning the worship of idols? What is an idol? Anything made by the hand of man.

And why don't you do our readers a favor and save me the time and explain to those that don't know about the evil deed, exactly what an indulgency is/was and what it meant to the RCC.

One of the reasons why I asked you for source material is that I recognized elements or fragments of historical fact in what was posted, but I also saw two other things:
1. False assertions
2. False conclusions

False assertions:
1. Common knowledge, so-called: The appeal to 'common knowledge' is as efficacious and authorative today as it was in the day when every man knew for fact that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.
2. No one is claiming that the "RCC" was created at Pentecost. What ancient Christianity claims, West and East, is that they are unbroken traditions and unbroken successions. What the Orthodox Church is, what the Roman Catholic Church is- neither of these is the exact church of Pentecost Sunday. Nor was the Church of Paul's day the Church of Pentecost. The Church had evolved significantly by Paul's day, and much moreso by the end of John's life
3. "Easter"- a pagan festival: Known as Pascha in the East, it was at first calculated against Nisan 14. Later, the West wanted to calculate it against the moon phase (which was the Jewish manner, also, until the Masoretic era). The East agreed, then went back to the old way. We always celebrate Pascha on the frst Sunday after Passover (Nisan 14).
Not very 'pagan.'


False conclusions
1. Constantine: You assert, implicitly, that Constantine's character- or lack thereof, is evidence of the falsness of Catholicism. There are two problems here- the first is that the early Church was One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, including East, West, Coptics, Armenians, Assyrians, Malankar, Ethiopians. This diverse Body cannot be retro-fitted with your charges of medieval misdeeds.
Secondly, Constantine was influential in the formation of the Church only inasmuch as he compelled the Church to deal with its Arian issue. The real stamp of what the Church became under Imperial Byzantium and late Rome was yet to be cast over the ensuing 450 years of Councils and Synods.

2. The proof is in the pudding:
This argument is offered against Christianity at large because of the behavior of certain Christians in history- including our current President, who now says that God told him to attack Iraq. If you wish to proffer the PIITP argument, we shall need to dispense with the truth claims of Christianity altogether.

Oh, please, ask me to prove this, I would love to discuss the Protestants in America and their genocide against the Indigenous peoples.

3. Other people agree with you, therefore you needn't furnish proof
I should think that this error is obvious.
I had no "old wives" on my thesis committee, and I'll accept no urban legends as evidence, either.

Now, please, away with excuses, obfuscations, hubris, qualifications, appeals to the masses and to some mythical pool of 'common knowledge.'

Until these are provided, I dismiss your cartoon essay. Should you provide real evidence and compelling arguments, I shall rejoin and consider them.

 

[thessalonian]

No smiley I know would do justice to your post OC. I'm may have to have my innards sewed back in after reading that.

 

[Vic C.]

No smiley I know would do justice to your post OC. I'm may have to have my innards sewed back in after reading that.

Ooh, James is here for our entertainment? Cool. :-D

Oh, please, ask me to prove this, I would love to discuss the Protestants in America and their genocide against the Indigenous peoples.

Maybe we can discuss the Inquisitions next? Or the Crusades? :wink: Naw, just teasing. I think we should discuss 21st. century church problems. 8-)

 

[D46]

Really, how much wealth does the Church have? Do you have any idea how much priests and Bishops make? Guess what the Pope had when he died?

Socks.

Right...he does look rather poor in this photo doesn't he?

ope John Paul II was a minister of Satan, a false prophet...

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." -2nd Corinthians 11:13-15

Pope John Paul II will be held responsible at the Great White Throne of Judgment someday for misleading hundreds-of-millions of people with damnable heresies, causing them to burn in hell. I say this with great sorrow because God does not want anyone to perish in hell...

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." -2 Peter 3:9

Catholics don't worship idols.

Wrong...another smokescreen. Do you really think people are foolish enough to believe that when they bow before Mary and the Eucharist? Give me a break!

n indulgence is a form of penance one does after asking God for forgiveness as a way of repairing the soul. An indulgence is not something you can buy for someone else as is the common protestant myth- that was NEVER part of the Church.

Another smokescreen. History proves this statement to be a lie.

You people will go to no lengths to prove what you serve and stand by are truths when in actuallity the Catholic Church was founded on lies and deceit. The Donation of Constantine was proven to be a fallacy conjured up by Rome to further their territories and Pepin was fool himself.

Oh, I almost forgot...October is consecration of the Rosary month. Be sure to break out your beads, guys and your Fatima Magazines and don't forget the Rosary Rally this month.

http://www.fatimarosaryrallies.com/

 

[Vic C.]

Ok, we're doing fine using scripture and photos to prove a point, but we don't need to do this...

You people will go to no lengths to prove what you serve and stand by

Lets address the issue, not the person... or people.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

No smiley I know would do justice to your post OC. I'm may have to have my innards sewed back in after reading that.

Ooh, James is here for our entertainment? Cool. :-D

I am here to learn about many things, including -and perhaps primarily- things about myself.

[quote:e97d8]Oh, please, ask me to prove this, I would love to discuss the Protestants in America and their genocide against the Indigenous peoples.

Maybe we can discuss the Inquisitions next? Or the Crusades? :wink: Naw, just teasing. I think we should discuss 21st. century church problems. 8-)[/quote:e97d8]
I think it important here to stress that I am not on an anti-Protestant hobbyhorse. My comment about the genocide of the Indigenous American people was in response to a series of remarks about the Inquisition and so forth. My remark was simply intended to make the point that every Christian tradition has had shameful moments and ill examples. Thus, beating the drum about the Inquisition is quite pointless and very misleading.

I would love to discuss the Crusades, their necessity, and how they did not go near far enough to combat Muslim aggression. Suffice to say, unchecked Muslim aggression would have placed all Christians under the heavy hand of Islam.

 

[Orthodoxy]

Orthodox Christian,

All that I offer is 'common' knowledge to any and all who choose to study what we know of the formation of the early RCC.

And anyone stating that the RCC was created at petecost is simply NOT stating anything close to the truth.

The fact is many regions from around the middle east attended the pentecost event. The event itself took place around the Jerusalem area I believe. Certainly not "North America". Fact is the Church in Jerusalem and Antioch have not changed. Today one can see these Churches as Orthodox. The Antiochian Church still exists today. So does the Alexandrian Church in Egypt. Why is the "Roman Catholic Church" in Jerusalem? Go home to your own parish then we can talk.

[quote:39629]I think that it is obvious to any with the ability to discern truth that the dates and traditions of the festivals created and set in law by Constantine and the RCC are from a previous pagan tradition that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Christ or God.

God cannot sactify, make holy, chrismate, baptised and resurrect anything on the earth? He cannot make wood that is a fallen nature into that which is sactified and made holy? God can sactify a man but not a tree? God cannot set apart as His what ever He wills? What kind of God is this?

You know as well as I that the murdering emperor Constantine never even made an effort to live as a Christian nor, as far as we know, did he ever even accept Christ as a 'truth' until upon his death-bed. From all history that we have and it's indication, Constantine was a ruthless, murdering, pagan Emperor throughout his life and only allowed Christianity to be accepted in the Roman Empire for his mothers sake and for the sake of unity in the Roman Empire. If Christianity had not been the religion of his mother and threatening to divide the Roman Empire he would have done nothing different than that which had been done for three centuries.

I take it you would have the world return to the good ol days prior to Constantine?

Constantine did not convert because he knew he had to run armies. We all know armies kill and destroy things. Constantine stopped the whole sale slaughter and sale of Christians in the known world at that time. This was not a good thing?

If you could vote today would you return to a day where christians were killed for the sake of killing? Would you vote to return to a time before Constantine?

The obviousness of my previous posts is, as the old adage goes, "the proof is in the pudding". The RCC didn't adopt a new faith in Christ, but created a new hybidized religion that they called Catholicism. They continued with the same persecution of the 'true' Christians that the government of Rome had, previous to the take over.

I agree the Roman "Catholic" Church created in 1054 ad. Another Jesus. Protestant reformation trinitarian faith is based on the Roman Catholic Church's model created in 1054ad. I bet you believe the "filioque" based jesus or don't have a clue what the nature of Jesus Christ is in reality. A dupe. That word is not used to denigrate nor insult, I was a dupe, I was fooled. Stop majoring on the minors with the RCC. The issue is "dual procession of the Holy Spirit vs "Procession from the Father", single source. Your focus is off.

The RCC murdered, used extorsion and coersion, banished, ex-communicated, torchered, and used any other means at there disposal to completely dominate, change and control what they called Christianity. If the means in which they altered and controlled this new religion aren't obviously un-Christian to you or anyone else, then I suggest that there is a very large misunderstanding involved in the teachings of Christ and how this varied from what the RCC created and the means with which they forced it upon the known world.

Yes, mostly after 1054ad during the crusades which nearly eliminated the Orthodox eastern Church. Thanks to the Roman Crusades Constantinople is Istanbul, Turkey and the Largest Orthodox Church in the world is a Muslim mosque. BTW this church existed long before the North American continent was founded by civilized men. Lief Erikson? You guessed it. Orthodox Christian. Western North America? Alaska? Yep, The Orthodox Church missionaries in 1789, three years after the US was formed. The Church migrated to Russia in 1000 ad. and from there into North America. How do you think Christianity entered America? Joseph Smith?

Remeber Kosovo? American bombs leveled Orthodox Churches throughout the region at will under UN guidance. The emperor wears no cloths.

I don't believe that what I offer needs any source to prove anything.

Facts are meaningless? You do not need to support your ideology with any facts? History? nothing? Right the bible yet the bible only records history up to about 60 ad if that.

I think that most know these facts already and the few that don't are free to study on their own to learn the truth.

huh? Yes the facts are known and someone has lied to you. Check your sources. You are a closet Roman Catholic because your "believe" is based soley on the Roman Catholic model of the Holy Trinity. Another Jesus.

If they are too lazy to do so, then I contend that they will simply remain ignorant through their own lack of concern.

You are not calling this kettle black brother I have done my home work. Took me 4 years but what is taught in the protestant faith is nothing more that roman catholic propaganda to keep you from the Holy Orthodox Church. Duped you are. But I assure you that you are not alone.

And I offer information. You seem to only be concerned with the ability to provoke. I am not daunted though. The truth is the truth no matter how much one denies it.

Excuse me? I saw no information but rhetoric regergitated from false teachers and mis information spreaders duped by Rome.

We are all aware of the wealth of the RCC to this day. Is this what Christ told us to do with earthly wealth. Store it up and use it for power to influence others and live a life of luxury? And what does the Bible say about calling any religious leader 'father'? How about our commands concerning the worship of idols? What is an idol? Anything made by the hand of man.

Move to Mount Athos after you convert to the Orthodox faith if this is God's will for your life. I was just at the Western Diocese's of the Orthodox Church in America. We are broke. Jesus was broke. All the monies not used to run the every day works of the Church go to missions and charities. Repent.

And why don't you do our readers a favor and save me the time and explain to those that don't know about the evil deed, exact what an indulgency is/was and what it meant to the RCC.

[/quote:39629]

Indulgence were mostly abused by the western church after they split off in 1054 ad. Orthodox Christian is Orthodox Christian. You are confusing him with a Roman Catholic. He is not. I am Orthodox Christian also and we don't do "indulgences".

However if you commit a sin then a penance of some sort maybe required. Not unlike the "community service" today in our court system.

Idle hands you understand. A good thing, yes?

Would you consider accountability as good if it leads you to the Kingdom on God? You are on the path towards the Kingdom Correct?

Orthodoxy