Why are you Catholic?

[FireSword]

A Catholic is in communion with the Pope.  I know that many "high church" Anglicans honour Mary and say the rosary but that does not make them Catholics.

Yes, Anglicans are Protestants as much as Lutherns, Baptists, Methodists etc. They were formed in the Reformation protesting against the Catholic Church.

Anglicans are similar to Catholics because they did not reform so much as others, but simply split with the pope because Henry 8th needed a church to grant him a divorce, so the subsequent monarchs becomes head of state and also becomes head of the Anglican church, thus Catholics are banned from being Monarchs, but the recent Duchess of Cambridge has caused concern, because she is a Catholic. A few things apart from rejecting the pope concerning doctrine have changed though, such as transbutation of the blood and wine of Jesus is rejected by Anglicans. The Anglican position actually makes the greatest sense of scripture, that they feed on the elements as being symbols of faith in Jesus, rather than the elements physically changing into Jesus (Transbutation) and having the appearance of bread and wine.
The Anglican church just like the Catholic church is guided by traddition and is less affected by the power of the people or Gods messangers, because of this top down structure. So this leads to good values being kept but decay enters as the spirit cannot move so much in these inflexible places.

[.:Lily:.]

A Catholic is in communion with the Pope.  I know that many "high church" Anglicans honour Mary and say the rosary but that does not make them Catholics.

Yes, Anglicans are Protestants as much as Lutherns, Baptists, Methodists etc. They were formed in the Reformation protesting against the Catholic Church.

Anglicans are similar to Catholics because they did not reform so much as others, but simply split with the pope because Henry 8th needed a church to grant him a divorce, so the subsequent monarchs becomes head of state and also becomes head of the Anglican church, thus Catholics are banned from being Monarchs, but the recent Duchess of Cambridge has caused concern, because she is a Catholic. A few things apart from rejecting the pope concerning doctrine have changed though, such as transbutation of the blood and wine of Jesus is rejected by Anglicans. The Anglican position actually makes the greatest sense of scripture, that they feed on the elements as being symbols of faith in Jesus, rather than the elements physically changing into Jesus (Transbutation) and having the appearance of bread and wine.
The Anglican church just like the Catholic church is guided by traddition and is less affected by the power of the people or Gods messangers, because of this top down structure. So this leads to good values being kept but decay enters as the spirit cannot move so much in these inflexible places.

All Anglicans are different.

I worshiped in a very reformed Anglican Church and they embrace diversity.

The church was very conservative and evangelical 'low' church. It is considered extremely protestant compared to other low churches. Right they are guided by some traditions. They have strict ugly religious rules to follow. I had so many problems with them. I think they are happy I left lol.  I had to shake the dust off my feet! 

[.:Lily:.]

Do you here yourself talking, and windsome just makes denials. Ive been around a long time and I did not come up with these things on a whim. Of course I am no the only one.  You say you bring all the authority thing up only because you are provoked to. Of course you will be provoked. When the Papacy became  the church of the Land and wanted to be recognised for their authority it all began. they  had to write a forgery to claim Constintine gave them temporal power. Jesus did not establish a religious political order that had to prove anything let alone lie about it. You keep defending what was never of Christ in the first place. Before the reformation the papal order was about rule and defending that rule. Even now it political infuence and they parade like relgious Monarchs

I have never in all the time Ive been on this board or others heard Catholics speak of our spiritual relationship throught the Holy Spirit. Its always succession and the weak arguement  of petrine succession so as to justify  the papcy went all the way back to Peter. And you think such things will not come to scrutiny. Listen I know what i see and I can descern worldly relgion and political ambitions. the whole system has been about power and much intrigue follows it yet you go right on defending this thing like blind men. Or maybe pride drives it.   So if you want to defend this mockery of our faith I cannot say more power to you but only pray Lord Help them see.

You are a liar mclees. I've come to understand that you simply lie for no reason.

1. The Pope did not claim that he inherited his authority from Constantine. That's not what the Donations said and I have presented the text to you several times.

The Pope claims his authority from St. Peter. The Donations of Constantine was forged to suggest to the eastern empire that the Emperor had recognized the superiority of the Pope and the bishops in the Church and the temporal leaders were subject to them and not vice versa.

The Pope's temporal authoirty was the Papal States and he didn't lie to get that temporal authority nor was any forgery either. Pepin of France gave the Pope the land of his own freewill.

I really wonder if you are even really a Christian and not some atheist posing as such given the fact that you lie so often and have done so for the years I've known you.

2. As for your second lie. There are several dozen threads started by the Catholics of this forum that are dedicated completely to our Christian life. Catholica alone posts several dozen homilies/angeli (sermons) a year. Ladonia and Winsome have started topics on prayer and all sorts of things pertinent to the devotional life and dsicipline.

I just don't get why you feel the need to lie.

I'm not a liar. I just call it like I see it. Im no wiz kid historian like you but I do not think you see what I see. The Donation fraud was used to make claims of authroity that obviously was about disputes over certain lands The question was why were they used in the first place. in the paragraph from the catholic encyclopidea it states all that was suposedly given the popes. Now whether or not the donation was fabricated we see by history the papcy did rule like Monarchs with all the wealth and grand costume having much power. So if the donation was a forgery they must have got all this power fom somewhere. and don't tell me God gave it them. There is something dead wrong in all this no matter how you slice the pie.

Here is from the catholic Encyclopidea and comentery from wicki. Please tell me what i lied about and tell me how you still justfy that any of this is of Christs church

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, manuscript Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris". It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled "Confessio") the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the "Donatio") Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world. The Lateran basilica at Rome, built by Constantine, shall surpass all churches as their head, similarly the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul shall be endowed with rich possessions. The chief Roman ecclesiastics (clerici cardinales), among whom senators may also be received, shall obtain the same honours and distinctions as the senators. Like the emperor the Roman Church shall have as functionaries cubicularii, ostiarii, and excubitores. The pope shall enjoy the same honorary rights as the emperor, among them the right to wear an imperial crown, a purple cloak and tunic, and in general all imperial insignia or signs of distinction; but as Sylvester refused to put on his head a golden crown, the emperor invested him with the high white cap (phrygium). Constantine, the document continues, rendered to the pope the service of a strator, i.e. he led the horse upon which the pope rode. Moreover, the emperor makes a present to the pope and his successors of the Lateran palace, of Rome and the provinces, districts, and towns of Italy and all the Western regions (tam palatium nostrum, ut prelatum est, quamque Romæ urbis et omnes Italiæ seu occidentalium regionum provincias loca et civitates). The document goes on to say that for himself the emperor has established in the East a new capital which bears his name, and thither he removes his government, since it is inconvenient that a secular emperor have power where God has established the residence of the head of the Christian religion. The document concludes with maledictions against all who dare to violate these donations and with the assurance that the emperor has signed them with his own hand and placed them on the tomb of St. Peter.

From Wicki
The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy.[1] Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439–1440,[2] although the document's authenticity had been repeatedly contested since 1001.[1]
Origin
It has been suggested that an early draft of the Donation of Constantine was made shortly after the middle of the 8th century, in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with Pepin the Short, the Frankish Mayor of the Palace.[16][17] In 754, Pope Stephen II crossed the Alps to anoint Pepin king, thereby enabling the Carolingian family to supplant the old Merovingian royal line. In return for Stephen's support, Pepin gave the Pope the lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from the Byzantine Empire.[18] These lands would become the Papal States and would be the basis of the Papacy's temporal power for the next eleven centuries.
More recently, an attempt was made at dating the forgery to the 9th century, and placing its composition at Corbie Abbey, in northern France.[19]

You are a liar.

1. The second ginat paragrpah you cite says that the Pope got his temporal power (the Papal States) from Pepin not by tricking him with the forged Donations of Constantine but as reward for helping his dynasty come to power in France.

2. The document wasn't made to amass great wealth by the Pope that is also a lie. Your source even confirms that it was a Roman priest who discovered the illegitimacy of the document and brought it to light.

3. You are reading the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia wrong. It is does not say that the Pope used the document to amass wealth buth that the document itself says the emperor gave him wealth and privledge. Obviously since the document is false the part about the emperor giving the Roman church wealth and honor equal to him is also false. If not it is not really a forgery. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The Emperor Constantine did not endow the Roman Church with wealth and privilege. He endowed Byzantium with wealth and privilege hence the city was renamed Constantinople (i.e. the City of Constantine).

That is why you are a liar. You openly claim to be ignorant of Christian in yet you adamantly spread false claims about such. It is lying, dishonest and sinful.

A liar knows he is a liar and I don; think you know what you are talking about. What ae you trying to justify?  That they lagitamately had the power

And what does christ have to do with temporal powers. ? What does Christ have do with Monarchs sitting on thrones.

Who gave the popes the power that they used. How did they come to sit on thrones in a place they call vatican, and the question you did not truly answer who wrote the donations and why were they used. If there was no question of their power and use of it, why were they used at all.

Amen brother.

I wonder why some get angry when you mention the Pope. That is the Holy Spirit telling them it is wrong.

We don't get angry when someone mentions the Pope, butwhen they make accusations that have no basis in fact.

Well I hope you're right but what I read from others calling Mcless a liar and names is uncalled for. Do not you think so?


I have a question:

What makes a person a Catholic lol?

My sister in law is an Anglican pastor but she is more into Catholicism. I do not think she is Anglo-Catholic because she does not believe in purgatory.

but she prays the rosary and believes in the real presence all other high church (catholic) stuff. A-Z

Will you still consider her a protestant? I wonder how Catholics view Anglicans.

A Catholic is in communion with the Pope.  I know that many "high church" Anglicans honour Mary and say the rosary but that does not make them Catholics.

Yes, Anglicans are Protestants as much as Lutherns, Baptists, Methodists etc. They were formed in the Reformation protesting against the Catholic Church.

Anglo-Catholics = Catholicism without a Pope.    They can't be protestants.

[mclees8]

this is from wicki

For centuries, its secular activities brought the Papal States into a status as a country bearing some relation with other countries of the world.[1] Some historians identify the crowning of Charlemagne in 800 as the moment in which the Church started having an international importance in a modern sense, although the temporal power can be traced even earlier to either the Donation of Pepin in 754, or the crowning of Pepin by Pope Zachary in 752 which was the first time a secular sovereign was crowned by a pope. In his Pastoral Care, Pope Gregory the Great (died 604) had discussed the extensive range of duties that bishops owed their flock as huius saeculi potentes, "the powers of these ages"; hence some historians prefer to see the origins of secular powers in the age of the Byzantine suzerainty over the bishop of Rome. Yet "Justinian I succeeded in imposing his ecclesiastical policies on the papacy and Pope Gregory the Great maintained an attitude of political loyalty to the empire."[2]

Charlemagne's crowning, however, was perhaps the first moment in which the Church was generally granted a power of control of the imperial dignity, thus demonstrating a sort of power of international veto. Subsequently, the Donation of Constantine was forged to provide a legal basis for the temporal power.[citation needed]

Jesus is not in any of this stuff. Nor was Peter.  What does Love not the world and niether the things of it mean to you. What has the church to with secular government. ?  Are you getting anythting yet

The Church was the last standing institution in the West after the Roman Empire fell. Its inevitable that her position would have rose in those times. Don't blame the Church blame the so called greatest beacon of civilization (Roman Empire) for imploding on itself and leaving its constituents destitute. What was the Church supposed to do sit there and watch masses of people rot and starve to death in the colesium while the celtic, germanic and other tribes slaughtered each other for supremacy?

When the iron of the empire fell the rock of the Church saved Europe from perpetual darkness.

You may not see Christ in it but I bet those people who lived in fear of raids, pestilence and hunger saw the hand of Christ plenty when His Vicar established a stable society. But then again what do you care. Its not like you actually care to understand the history of the time anyway.

Very good points LH.

Protestants seem to have a very poor understanding of history. There is a big gap for them between their myths  that "Constantine inventing the Catholic Church" and "the Reformation restored true Christianity".

For those that are interested here is some history:

Prior to Constantine the Church suffered several persecutions. But in one of the battles for the Imperial throne (of the west of the Empire, the Empire being split at this time). Constantine defeated Maxentius (312 AD) although his army was only one fifth of the size. He attributed this to a vision he had of the Christian God, and his soldiers had a cross on their shields although most of them were pagans. In his gratitude he tolerated Christian worship in his empire – the edict of Milan (313 AD). This gave no preferential treatment of Christians but put them on the same footing as pagans as regards taxes etc .

He then married his sister to Licinius who controlled the East and secured similar toleration for Christians in the East. Constantine was generous to the Christian Church and restored buildings that had been confiscated. Licinius hower continued to persecute Christians and there followed wars between Constantine and Licinius until Constantine defeated him and he was executed in 325 and Constantine was sole Emperor. Soon after this he moved his headquarters from Rome to Constantinople. Constantine remained a pagan until shortly before his death in 337 AD.

After Constantine the empire was at times split and at other times united. After Constantine I, the empire was again split in two with Constantius II in the east and Constantine II in the west.

Constantine II was followed by Constans I and then Constantius II (from the east) became emperor of the west as well.

He was followed by Julian the Apostate (a pagan) and he was followed by Jovian (both sole emperors).

Then in east Valens and Theodosius I; in the west Valentinian II, Gratian and Valentinun II. And Theodosius I

In 379 Theodosius I became Emperor of the East. In 380 he and Gratian (in the west) made Christianity the state religion – some 43 years and many Emperors after Constantine (6 in the east, 8 in the west). But after the death of Valentian in 392 there was an attempt to restore paganism until Theodosius swept in and took power in the west to unite the Empire.

However this did not last long as in 406 the barbarian hoards crossed the Rhine and swept into Gaul and Spain, and three years later Italy was attacked and in 410 Rome itself was sacked by Alaric of the Visigoths. Then there was the Vandal invasion of Africa in 425. The time the state church was very short in the west.

Europe was now in the hands of pagan kings and had to be re-christianised. The only Christian king was in Ireland. Then in 496 the king of the Franks, Clovis became a Christian. The process of re-christianising Europe had begun.

Then came Islam

Muhammad unified the Arabian peninsular (roughly today's Saudi Arabia) before his death in 632. At this time Arabia was surrounded by predominantly Christian lands, particularly the Byzantine imperial holdings of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The Byzantine Empire's great rival Persia, also had significant Christian population.
Then the following fell to Islam – by the sword, not by peaceful conversion:
635 – Damascus (where St. Paul was going when he had his great conversion)
636 – Antioch (where the disciples of Jesus were first called "Christians")
638 – Jerusalem
At a similar time Egypt fell (home of saints such as St. Anthony of Egypt & St. Athenasius)
650 – Cicilia, Caesarea of Cappadocia
Around this time raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily (carrying off thousands of slaves)
668 & 717 – sieges of Constantinople (both failed)
711 – North Africa (the home of St. Augustine of Hippo & St. Cyprian of Carthage)
By 715 Muslims had conquered almost all of Spain and began pressing into France.
732 – stopped at Tours by Charles Martel.
792 – another expedition into France.
827 – Invasion of Sicily & Italy
846 – Reached Rome & exacted tribute from the Pope
848 – another invasion into France
1071 – defeat of Byzantine army at Armenian town of Moniker paving the way for the Muslim occupation of virtually all of Asia Minor, including Ephesus, Colossae, Philippi & the region of Galatia.

Meanwhile in 1054 there was the Great Schism with the Eastern Church splitting off from the west becoming the (Eastern) Orthodox Church.

As LightHammer has pointed out these were very turbulent times. It's easy to look back and view the past with a modern perspective.  The world is complex now and it was complex then, but in very different ways.

Turbualant times have always existed through out  History. Factions against factions, Nation against nation. Nothing has changed. Brutalty and all the like. When one government goes down another comes up.  Did Jesus say his church was going to be as political heroes or the law of the land? No!He said in the world there will be tribualtion. Until Jesus comes all these things will be because it is the wicked world under sin in which we live in. Every  government whether  it is religious  or not is corrupt because it is of the world. Papal rule was then and still is no different even now, because it has  lost sight of Christ and that our Hope does not lie in governments but every one who comes to Christ shall be saved from this wicked evil. We are looking for Christ to take us out of this world to establish the   New heaven and the  knew earth.

You say the church was the heroes but the church was not established to be a politiacal entity in the first place.

I will say it one more time so you call me a liar one more time. Since when did Jeus establish anything as a temproal power?

Don't try to project your need to be relevant on what I said. I said you were liar when you spread untrues about the Church and her history not when you said Jesus did not establish a temporal government. Your shallow pride need find another foundation to stand apart from twisting my words.

Christ established His Church to serve the world. The Church didn't become the state and never has. The Church reestablished the state and a civil society once it fell. That is all.

I don't care how manytimes you want to make me out a liar. I still call it as i see it. a gift from Tepin or not a forgery was made and a forgery was used. That Jesus is not any part of let a lone any political envolvment at all.

Christ established the church to serve the world? In what context are you making that statement ?

[LightHammer]

this is from wicki

For centuries, its secular activities brought the Papal States into a status as a country bearing some relation with other countries of the world.[1] Some historians identify the crowning of Charlemagne in 800 as the moment in which the Church started having an international importance in a modern sense, although the temporal power can be traced even earlier to either the Donation of Pepin in 754, or the crowning of Pepin by Pope Zachary in 752 which was the first time a secular sovereign was crowned by a pope. In his Pastoral Care, Pope Gregory the Great (died 604) had discussed the extensive range of duties that bishops owed their flock as huius saeculi potentes, "the powers of these ages"; hence some historians prefer to see the origins of secular powers in the age of the Byzantine suzerainty over the bishop of Rome. Yet "Justinian I succeeded in imposing his ecclesiastical policies on the papacy and Pope Gregory the Great maintained an attitude of political loyalty to the empire."[2]

Charlemagne's crowning, however, was perhaps the first moment in which the Church was generally granted a power of control of the imperial dignity, thus demonstrating a sort of power of international veto. Subsequently, the Donation of Constantine was forged to provide a legal basis for the temporal power.[citation needed]

Jesus is not in any of this stuff. Nor was Peter.  What does Love not the world and niether the things of it mean to you. What has the church to with secular government. ?  Are you getting anythting yet

The Church was the last standing institution in the West after the Roman Empire fell. Its inevitable that her position would have rose in those times. Don't blame the Church blame the so called greatest beacon of civilization (Roman Empire) for imploding on itself and leaving its constituents destitute. What was the Church supposed to do sit there and watch masses of people rot and starve to death in the colesium while the celtic, germanic and other tribes slaughtered each other for supremacy?

When the iron of the empire fell the rock of the Church saved Europe from perpetual darkness.

You may not see Christ in it but I bet those people who lived in fear of raids, pestilence and hunger saw the hand of Christ plenty when His Vicar established a stable society. But then again what do you care. Its not like you actually care to understand the history of the time anyway.

Very good points LH.

Protestants seem to have a very poor understanding of history. There is a big gap for them between their myths  that "Constantine inventing the Catholic Church" and "the Reformation restored true Christianity".

For those that are interested here is some history:

Prior to Constantine the Church suffered several persecutions. But in one of the battles for the Imperial throne (of the west of the Empire, the Empire being split at this time). Constantine defeated Maxentius (312 AD) although his army was only one fifth of the size. He attributed this to a vision he had of the Christian God, and his soldiers had a cross on their shields although most of them were pagans. In his gratitude he tolerated Christian worship in his empire – the edict of Milan (313 AD). This gave no preferential treatment of Christians but put them on the same footing as pagans as regards taxes etc .

He then married his sister to Licinius who controlled the East and secured similar toleration for Christians in the East. Constantine was generous to the Christian Church and restored buildings that had been confiscated. Licinius hower continued to persecute Christians and there followed wars between Constantine and Licinius until Constantine defeated him and he was executed in 325 and Constantine was sole Emperor. Soon after this he moved his headquarters from Rome to Constantinople. Constantine remained a pagan until shortly before his death in 337 AD.

After Constantine the empire was at times split and at other times united. After Constantine I, the empire was again split in two with Constantius II in the east and Constantine II in the west.

Constantine II was followed by Constans I and then Constantius II (from the east) became emperor of the west as well.

He was followed by Julian the Apostate (a pagan) and he was followed by Jovian (both sole emperors).

Then in east Valens and Theodosius I; in the west Valentinian II, Gratian and Valentinun II. And Theodosius I

In 379 Theodosius I became Emperor of the East. In 380 he and Gratian (in the west) made Christianity the state religion – some 43 years and many Emperors after Constantine (6 in the east, 8 in the west). But after the death of Valentian in 392 there was an attempt to restore paganism until Theodosius swept in and took power in the west to unite the Empire.

However this did not last long as in 406 the barbarian hoards crossed the Rhine and swept into Gaul and Spain, and three years later Italy was attacked and in 410 Rome itself was sacked by Alaric of the Visigoths. Then there was the Vandal invasion of Africa in 425. The time the state church was very short in the west.

Europe was now in the hands of pagan kings and had to be re-christianised. The only Christian king was in Ireland. Then in 496 the king of the Franks, Clovis became a Christian. The process of re-christianising Europe had begun.

Then came Islam

Muhammad unified the Arabian peninsular (roughly today's Saudi Arabia) before his death in 632. At this time Arabia was surrounded by predominantly Christian lands, particularly the Byzantine imperial holdings of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The Byzantine Empire's great rival Persia, also had significant Christian population.
Then the following fell to Islam – by the sword, not by peaceful conversion:
635 – Damascus (where St. Paul was going when he had his great conversion)
636 – Antioch (where the disciples of Jesus were first called "Christians")
638 – Jerusalem
At a similar time Egypt fell (home of saints such as St. Anthony of Egypt & St. Athenasius)
650 – Cicilia, Caesarea of Cappadocia
Around this time raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily (carrying off thousands of slaves)
668 & 717 – sieges of Constantinople (both failed)
711 – North Africa (the home of St. Augustine of Hippo & St. Cyprian of Carthage)
By 715 Muslims had conquered almost all of Spain and began pressing into France.
732 – stopped at Tours by Charles Martel.
792 – another expedition into France.
827 – Invasion of Sicily & Italy
846 – Reached Rome & exacted tribute from the Pope
848 – another invasion into France
1071 – defeat of Byzantine army at Armenian town of Moniker paving the way for the Muslim occupation of virtually all of Asia Minor, including Ephesus, Colossae, Philippi & the region of Galatia.

Meanwhile in 1054 there was the Great Schism with the Eastern Church splitting off from the west becoming the (Eastern) Orthodox Church.

As LightHammer has pointed out these were very turbulent times. It's easy to look back and view the past with a modern perspective.  The world is complex now and it was complex then, but in very different ways.

Turbualant times have always existed through out  History. Factions against factions, Nation against nation. Nothing has changed. Brutalty and all the like. When one government goes down another comes up.  Did Jesus say his church was going to be as political heroes or the law of the land? No!He said in the world there will be tribualtion. Until Jesus comes all these things will be because it is the wicked world under sin in which we live in. Every  government whether  it is religious  or not is corrupt because it is of the world. Papal rule was then and still is no different even now, because it has  lost sight of Christ and that our Hope does not lie in governments but every one who comes to Christ shall be saved from this wicked evil. We are looking for Christ to take us out of this world to establish the   New heaven and the  knew earth.

You say the church was the heroes but the church was not established to be a politiacal entity in the first place.

I will say it one more time so you call me a liar one more time. Since when did Jeus establish anything as a temproal power?

Don't try to project your need to be relevant on what I said. I said you were liar when you spread untrues about the Church and her history not when you said Jesus did not establish a temporal government. Your shallow pride need find another foundation to stand apart from twisting my words.

Christ established His Church to serve the world. The Church didn't become the state and never has. The Church reestablished the state and a civil society once it fell. That is all.

I don't care how manytimes you want to make me out a liar. I still call it as i see it. a gift from Tepin or not a forgery was made and a forgery was used. That Jesus is not any part of let a lone any political envolvment at all.

Christ established the church to serve the world? In what context are you making that statement ?

1. You're not listening. The forgery had nothing to do with the Pope gaining temporal power! (I used the exclamation point to draw your attention not for any attitude or anything). The Pope's temporal power was the Papal States. He got that temporal power from Pepin of France as gift for helping him become king of France.

The forgery had absolutely zero to with that.

2. In what context does the Church serve the world; in whatever context the world needs and God enables her to.

[mclees8]

this is from wicki

For centuries, its secular activities brought the Papal States into a status as a country bearing some relation with other countries of the world.[1] Some historians identify the crowning of Charlemagne in 800 as the moment in which the Church started having an international importance in a modern sense, although the temporal power can be traced even earlier to either the Donation of Pepin in 754, or the crowning of Pepin by Pope Zachary in 752 which was the first time a secular sovereign was crowned by a pope. In his Pastoral Care, Pope Gregory the Great (died 604) had discussed the extensive range of duties that bishops owed their flock as huius saeculi potentes, "the powers of these ages"; hence some historians prefer to see the origins of secular powers in the age of the Byzantine suzerainty over the bishop of Rome. Yet "Justinian I succeeded in imposing his ecclesiastical policies on the papacy and Pope Gregory the Great maintained an attitude of political loyalty to the empire."[2]

Charlemagne's crowning, however, was perhaps the first moment in which the Church was generally granted a power of control of the imperial dignity, thus demonstrating a sort of power of international veto. Subsequently, the Donation of Constantine was forged to provide a legal basis for the temporal power.[citation needed]

Jesus is not in any of this stuff. Nor was Peter.  What does Love not the world and niether the things of it mean to you. What has the church to with secular government. ?  Are you getting anythting yet

The Church was the last standing institution in the West after the Roman Empire fell. Its inevitable that her position would have rose in those times. Don't blame the Church blame the so called greatest beacon of civilization (Roman Empire) for imploding on itself and leaving its constituents destitute. What was the Church supposed to do sit there and watch masses of people rot and starve to death in the colesium while the celtic, germanic and other tribes slaughtered each other for supremacy?

When the iron of the empire fell the rock of the Church saved Europe from perpetual darkness.

You may not see Christ in it but I bet those people who lived in fear of raids, pestilence and hunger saw the hand of Christ plenty when His Vicar established a stable society. But then again what do you care. Its not like you actually care to understand the history of the time anyway.

Very good points LH.

Protestants seem to have a very poor understanding of history. There is a big gap for them between their myths  that "Constantine inventing the Catholic Church" and "the Reformation restored true Christianity".

For those that are interested here is some history:

Prior to Constantine the Church suffered several persecutions. But in one of the battles for the Imperial throne (of the west of the Empire, the Empire being split at this time). Constantine defeated Maxentius (312 AD) although his army was only one fifth of the size. He attributed this to a vision he had of the Christian God, and his soldiers had a cross on their shields although most of them were pagans. In his gratitude he tolerated Christian worship in his empire – the edict of Milan (313 AD). This gave no preferential treatment of Christians but put them on the same footing as pagans as regards taxes etc .

He then married his sister to Licinius who controlled the East and secured similar toleration for Christians in the East. Constantine was generous to the Christian Church and restored buildings that had been confiscated. Licinius hower continued to persecute Christians and there followed wars between Constantine and Licinius until Constantine defeated him and he was executed in 325 and Constantine was sole Emperor. Soon after this he moved his headquarters from Rome to Constantinople. Constantine remained a pagan until shortly before his death in 337 AD.

After Constantine the empire was at times split and at other times united. After Constantine I, the empire was again split in two with Constantius II in the east and Constantine II in the west.

Constantine II was followed by Constans I and then Constantius II (from the east) became emperor of the west as well.

He was followed by Julian the Apostate (a pagan) and he was followed by Jovian (both sole emperors).

Then in east Valens and Theodosius I; in the west Valentinian II, Gratian and Valentinun II. And Theodosius I

In 379 Theodosius I became Emperor of the East. In 380 he and Gratian (in the west) made Christianity the state religion – some 43 years and many Emperors after Constantine (6 in the east, 8 in the west). But after the death of Valentian in 392 there was an attempt to restore paganism until Theodosius swept in and took power in the west to unite the Empire.

However this did not last long as in 406 the barbarian hoards crossed the Rhine and swept into Gaul and Spain, and three years later Italy was attacked and in 410 Rome itself was sacked by Alaric of the Visigoths. Then there was the Vandal invasion of Africa in 425. The time the state church was very short in the west.

Europe was now in the hands of pagan kings and had to be re-christianised. The only Christian king was in Ireland. Then in 496 the king of the Franks, Clovis became a Christian. The process of re-christianising Europe had begun.

Then came Islam

Muhammad unified the Arabian peninsular (roughly today's Saudi Arabia) before his death in 632. At this time Arabia was surrounded by predominantly Christian lands, particularly the Byzantine imperial holdings of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The Byzantine Empire's great rival Persia, also had significant Christian population.
Then the following fell to Islam – by the sword, not by peaceful conversion:
635 – Damascus (where St. Paul was going when he had his great conversion)
636 – Antioch (where the disciples of Jesus were first called "Christians")
638 – Jerusalem
At a similar time Egypt fell (home of saints such as St. Anthony of Egypt & St. Athenasius)
650 – Cicilia, Caesarea of Cappadocia
Around this time raids on Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete and Sicily (carrying off thousands of slaves)
668 & 717 – sieges of Constantinople (both failed)
711 – North Africa (the home of St. Augustine of Hippo & St. Cyprian of Carthage)
By 715 Muslims had conquered almost all of Spain and began pressing into France.
732 – stopped at Tours by Charles Martel.
792 – another expedition into France.
827 – Invasion of Sicily & Italy
846 – Reached Rome & exacted tribute from the Pope
848 – another invasion into France
1071 – defeat of Byzantine army at Armenian town of Moniker paving the way for the Muslim occupation of virtually all of Asia Minor, including Ephesus, Colossae, Philippi & the region of Galatia.

Meanwhile in 1054 there was the Great Schism with the Eastern Church splitting off from the west becoming the (Eastern) Orthodox Church.

As LightHammer has pointed out these were very turbulent times. It's easy to look back and view the past with a modern perspective.  The world is complex now and it was complex then, but in very different ways.

Turbualant times have always existed through out  History. Factions against factions, Nation against nation. Nothing has changed. Brutalty and all the like. When one government goes down another comes up.  Did Jesus say his church was going to be as political heroes or the law of the land? No!He said in the world there will be tribualtion. Until Jesus comes all these things will be because it is the wicked world under sin in which we live in. Every  government whether  it is religious  or not is corrupt because it is of the world. Papal rule was then and still is no different even now, because it has  lost sight of Christ and that our Hope does not lie in governments but every one who comes to Christ shall be saved from this wicked evil. We are looking for Christ to take us out of this world to establish the   New heaven and the  knew earth.

You say the church was the heroes but the church was not established to be a politiacal entity in the first place.

I will say it one more time so you call me a liar one more time. Since when did Jeus establish anything as a temproal power?

Don't try to project your need to be relevant on what I said. I said you were liar when you spread untrues about the Church and her history not when you said Jesus did not establish a temporal government. Your shallow pride need find another foundation to stand apart from twisting my words.

Christ established His Church to serve the world. The Church didn't become the state and never has. The Church reestablished the state and a civil society once it fell. That is all.

I don't care how manytimes you want to make me out a liar. I still call it as i see it. a gift from Tepin or not a forgery was made and a forgery was used. That Jesus is not any part of let a lone any political envolvment at all.

Christ established the church to serve the world? In what context are you making that statement ?

1. You're not listening. The forgery had nothing to do with the Pope gaining temporal power! (I used the exclamation point to draw your attention not for any attitude or anything). The Pope's temporal power was the Papal States. He got that temporal power from Pepin of France as gift for helping him become king of France.

The forgery had absolutely zero to with that.

2. In what context does the Church serve the world; in whatever context the world needs and God enables her to.

OK LH I know that you are so hungup on historical correctness that you can use to confuss the issues. I am going to play along with you for just a moment. First I know that the donations were for establishing the popes rule of the states known as papal states. My question now is why was the papal states important to the pope? There is a hangup about how he rules them, whether it was ecclisastical or by temporal power. At any rate what was the real issue for the papal states? Imean there had to be another reason other than just owning and rulling them. Was it for taxing rights or. A show of sovereignty. what was it?

[mclees8]

What is salvation?  Im going back to the church as it was when it was first born at pentecost and Christains had no rights for 300 years. To those believers what was salvation? What was the gospel message?

[FireSword]

What is salvation?  Im going back to the church as it was when it was first born at pentecost and Christains had no rights for 300 years. To those believers what was salvation? What was the gospel message?

Some said "I am of Peter", and still do today, even though they were baptized in Christ. Apparently though, being baptized in Christ is invalid, according to these Peter fellows, in the context of the reformation.

[winsome]

What is salvation?  Im going back to the church as it was when it was first born at pentecost and Christains had no rights for 300 years. To those believers what was salvation? What was the gospel message?

First Century
Clement of Rome (about 80 AD)
"Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words....Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith?...So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men." (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4).

Second Century
Ignatius of Antioch
"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life." (Letter to the Trallians 9, 110AD)

Irenaeus
" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

Third Cenury
Clement of Alexandria
"When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed." (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).

Origen
"Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James" (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).

[mclees8]

What is salvation?  Im going back to the church as it was when it was first born at pentecost and Christains had no rights for 300 years. To those believers what was salvation? What was the gospel message?

First Century
Clement of Rome (about 80 AD)
"Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words....Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith?...So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men." (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4).

Second Century
Ignatius of Antioch
"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life." (Letter to the Trallians 9, 110AD)

Irenaeus
" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

Third Cenury
Clement of Alexandria
"When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed." (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).

Origen
"Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James" (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).

Ok all of this is very good. So if sin (the nature of sin in us from Adam) separated us from God and Jesus Gods Son who God freely gave us as a ransome for our sin that all who believe in Him shall be saved and this being the gospel message that because of this, man can be restored to right relationship with God. Because of repentance of our sins we now can live a life that is righteous according to God word being impowered by His Holy Spirit.

So if restoration to a right relationship with God and it had nothing to do with government or changing the world to make it a better place because heaven is our Home and we are searching for that city whos builder and maker is God, what is all this stuff about Popes and papal states and sitting in grandeur and parading as monarchs.

The Early church fathers that have been presented did not have any rights yet preserved a testimony of Christ for three hundred years not haveing  lavished such esteem as the popes you defend. How and when did they get the right to exercise the kind of authority and power that they had in the first place. According to the Donation of Constantine which was a forgery (a lie) Constantine gave it to them. So if that was a lie then how did they sit as power brokers over lands and all that in the first place. Now you say Donations of Pepin but they belessed him as king so it sounds like a favor for a favor.  Of course none of this and please don't give me all the historical correctness stuff because it is not the issue. The issue is Popes papal states and sitting like monarchs, tha tis the issue remembering that the testimony of Christ salvation was the only truth proclaimed to a lost world for three hundred years before all this stuff.

 

[winsome]

What is salvation?  Im going back to the church as it was when it was first born at pentecost and Christains had no rights for 300 years. To those believers what was salvation? What was the gospel message?

First Century
Clement of Rome (about 80 AD)
"Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words....Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith?...So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men." (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4).

Second Century
Ignatius of Antioch
"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life." (Letter to the Trallians 9, 110AD)

Irenaeus
" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

Third Cenury
Clement of Alexandria
"When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed." (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).

Origen
"Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James" (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).

Ok all of this is very good. So if sin (the nature of sin in us from Adam) separated us from God and Jesus Gods Son who God freely gave us as a ransome for our sin that all who believe in Him shall be saved and this being the gospel message that because of this, man can be restored to right relationship with God. Because of repentance of our sins we now can live a life that is righteous according to God word being impowered by His Holy Spirit.

So if restoration to a right relationship with God and it had nothing to do with government or changing the world to make it a better place because heaven is our Home and we are searching for that city whos builder and maker is God, what is all this stuff about Popes and papal states and sitting in grandeur and parading as monarchs.

The Early church fathers that have been presented did have any rights yet preserved a testimony of Christ for three hundred years not haveing  lavished such esteem as the popes you defend. How and when did they get the right to exercise the kind of authority and power that they had in the first place. According to the Donation of Constantine which was a forgery (a lie) Constantine gave it to them. So if that was a lie then how did sit as power brokers over lands and all that in the first place. Now you say Danations of Pepin but they belessed him as king so it sounds like a favor for a favor.  Of course none of this and please don't give me all the historical correctness stuff because it is not the issue. The issue is Popes papal states and sitting like monarchs, tha tis the issue remembering that the testimony of Christ salvation was the only truth proclaimed to a lost world for three hundred years before all this stuff.

 

mclees,

You have an obsession with this.

LightHammer has been although it with you. Read his posts then get a life.

[mclees8]

What is salvation?  Im going back to the church as it was when it was first born at pentecost and Christains had no rights for 300 years. To those believers what was salvation? What was the gospel message?

First Century
Clement of Rome (about 80 AD)
"Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words....Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith?...So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men." (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4).

Second Century
Ignatius of Antioch
"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life." (Letter to the Trallians 9, 110AD)

Irenaeus
" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

Third Cenury
Clement of Alexandria
"When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed." (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).

Origen
"Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James" (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).

Ok all of this is very good. So if sin (the nature of sin in us from Adam) separated us from God and Jesus Gods Son who God freely gave us as a ransome for our sin that all who believe in Him shall be saved and this being the gospel message that because of this, man can be restored to right relationship with God. Because of repentance of our sins we now can live a life that is righteous according to God word being impowered by His Holy Spirit.

So if restoration to a right relationship with God and it had nothing to do with government or changing the world to make it a better place because heaven is our Home and we are searching for that city whos builder and maker is God, what is all this stuff about Popes and papal states and sitting in grandeur and parading as monarchs.

The Early church fathers that have been presented did have any rights yet preserved a testimony of Christ for three hundred years not haveing  lavished such esteem as the popes you defend. How and when did they get the right to exercise the kind of authority and power that they had in the first place. According to the Donation of Constantine which was a forgery (a lie) Constantine gave it to them. So if that was a lie then how did sit as power brokers over lands and all that in the first place. Now you say Danations of Pepin but they belessed him as king so it sounds like a favor for a favor.  Of course none of this and please don't give me all the historical correctness stuff because it is not the issue. The issue is Popes papal states and sitting like monarchs, tha tis the issue remembering that the testimony of Christ salvation was the only truth proclaimed to a lost world for three hundred years before all this stuff.

 

mclees,

You have an obsession with this.

LightHammer has been although it with you. Read his posts then get a life.

You don't know do you and niether does Light Hammer.  I think you skipped one on my questions. What was the real issue of having authority over papal states. Why was that important to the popes? they did a lot of jumping through hoops to maintain that authority so what was the hidden gem in all this. I just want a simple answer and not a lot of historical things. OK  Am I missing something? Please what is it, and what has any of this to do with true salvation which is the bedrock of our faith.