Truth about the papacy

[mclees8]

The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson The Fallacy of Catholicism's Papacy, Part II JOHN SCHROEDER Contender Ministries Posted: September 5, 2003 As a 4-year-old child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[broach972]

Oh my, I am not sure where to begin.  It is obvious that Mr. Schroeder has never taken a history course.

There is one major flaw in this "Constantine" theory of the origins of the Catholic Church and I am surprised no one has brought it up.  I will give you a hint...think Constantinople.  That should put you on the right track.

[broach972]

Please visit John's website, "Escaped Catholics Saved by Grace".

Maybe I should start a website titled "Escaped Protestants Saved by Grace."

[mclees8]

Oh my, I am not sure where to begin.  It is obvious that Mr. Schroeder has never taken a history course.

There is one major flaw in this "Constantine" theory of the origins of the Catholic Church and I am surprised no one has brought it up.  I will give you a hint...think Constantinople.  That should put you on the right track.

Not quite could please indulge me as to why it refutes Mr Schroeder
Also  have you heard of the "Donations of Constantine." You will find it in your own Catholic encyclopedia. aparently it is not biased.   Check it out, he told the truth

[desertknight]

No Petrine Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before Constantine's reign?

(A.D. 180). "[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2

(AD 195), "Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.

[mclees8]

No Petrine Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before Constantine's reign?

(A.D. 180). "[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2


(AD 195), "Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.

[desertknight]

Well, what it proves mclees is several things.  1.  The primary contention of your OP and your statements on other threads, that the Catholic Church, the Papacy, etc. were invented by the Emperor Constantine is patently false.  Constantine was nowhere on the scene of history yet when these Bishops spoke.  2.  I guess you must belong to some strange new brand of the Christian faith when you contend that St. Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Cyprian, etc., are all...heretics.  Wow!  That does take "hutspa"., but I can refute your claims with an easy chance for you to prove your point.  I have sited source after source from the early Church Fathers on this, can you site any early Church leaders of the Christian faith that refute them as heretics?  Just one?  Surely if what you are saying, that they are all "heritical" in their statments here, there would have been some evidence of that in the cry that would have risen up against them, yes?  Can you site any?

3.  This second part about people being "forced" into conversion by the Church.  Do you actually have any source for this?  You keep repeating it, and I actually will concede that in the year, say 728 AD, that given we were 1,000+ years away from anything like the First Amendment being a "right", there was probably a good deal of "insistence", by local leaders to have people convert, but as I said on the other post, Church law has never, ever, changed on this, as it can't.  Any "forced" conversion is illicit and therefore, not valid.  Such a person cannot receive the Sacraments or be considered "Christian", as the form and consent of the baptized, is not according to Church doctrine.  There is just no way around it.  Even if people were "converted" that way in some case, that conversion would be invalid under Church law.

[mclees8]

Well, what it proves mclees is several things.  1.  The primary contention of your OP and your statements on other threads, that the Catholic Church, the Papacy, etc. were invented by the Emperor Constantine is patently false.  Constantine was nowhere on the scene of history yet when these Bishops spoke.  2.  I guess you must belong to some strange new brand of the Christian faith when you contend that St. Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Cyprian, etc., are all...heretics.  Wow!  That does take "hutspa"., but I can refute your claims with an easy chance for you to prove your point.  I have sited source after source from the early Church Fathers on this, can you site any early Church leaders of the Christian faith that refute them as heretics?  Just one?  Surely if what you are saying, that they are all "heritical" in their statments
here, there would have been some evidence of that in the cry that would have risen up against them, yes?  Can you site any?

3.  This second part about people being "forced" into conversion by the Church.  Do you actually have any source for this?  You keep repeating it, and I actually will concede that in the year, say 728 AD, that given we were 1,000+ years away from anything like the First Amendment being a "right", there was probably a good deal of "insistence", by local leaders to have people convert, but as I said on the other post, Church law has never, ever, changed on this, as it can't.  Any "forced" conversion is illicit and therefore, not valid.  Such a person cannot receive the Sacraments or be considered "Christian", as the form and consent of the baptized, is not according to Church doctrine.  There is just no way around it.  Even if people were "converted" that way in some case, that conversion would be invalid under Church law.

Mike
First I did not mean to imply  they were heretics. But I'm saying that they are capable of misconceptions of their own. They are only human And I know they were early church fathers. Long before Constantine or the RC papacy. What you want to believe is what the RCC has taught, that these letters are rock solid proof that the papacy was legitimate and they did not. Apostolic succession does not mean that they held fast to the teaching of Christ and the apostles. Using scripture was and is often just a convenience

I never said Constantine invented anything. The papacy was an invention of the bishops of Rome. Actually it was Christianity re- invented. Those letters do not prove anything that makes the papacy legitimate at  least four hundred years later. There was no politically energized religion and not even Peter would put hids blessing on that. Nothing like the papacy was in their minds when those letters were written. There was only a certain need to communicate religious authority. Which the papacy is quick to use. Even this can have some unspoken abuses.   And as far as the papacy goes there was plenty of that. 

I did not say anything about forcing conversion. In fact I think true conversion was left far behind. When they became the politically backed religion of the land it was more about adherence to papal authority. They became a law. The crusaders were often a police action.  In fact many of their crusaders were men who became crusaders to have their sins forgiven by the church. I read that in the catholic encyclopedia.
Any one that did not adhere to papal authority were considered heretics. Oh yes this was forced religion and not anything about Jesus and his gospel. Salvation was adherence to papal rule, and attending mass every morning.

Jesus was not about the world and its politics period  Even to this day The RCC does not understand this. Peter would not have anyone bow to him and kiss his hand. I just wonder what it is you think you are defending.

[desertknight]

First I did not mean to imply  they were heretics. But I'm saying that they are capable of misconceptions of their own. They are only human And I know they were early church fathers. Long before Constantine or the RC papacy. What you want to believe is what the RCC has taught, that these letters are rock solid proof that the papacy was legitimate and they did not. Apostolic succession does not mean that they held fast to the teaching of Christ and the apostles. Using scripture was and is often just a convenience

The quotes from the ECF's I gave certainly did confirm the Apostolic Succession, but that was only incidental to the fact that they confirm, long before the reign of Constantine, that the Bishop of Rome was the "throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source", as St. Cyprian put it.  What exactly do you think the Papacy to be, (?), because what those ECF's describe is the Papacy.  I'm thinking you are ascribing things to the Pope that are not really the case.

I never said Constantine invented anything. The papacy was an invention of the bishops of Rome. Actually it was Christianity re- invented. Those letters do not prove anything that makes the papacy legitimate at  least four hundred years later. There was no politically energized religion and not even Peter would put hids blessing on that. Nothing like the papacy was in their minds when those letters were written. There was only a certain need to communicate religious authority. Which the papacy is quick to use. Even this can have some unspoken abuses.   And as far as the papacy goes there was plenty of that.

Again, what do you think the Papacy is?  How was it invented?  You say, "nothing like the Papacy was in their minds when those letters were written."  How so?  It sure sounds exactly like the Papacy to me..."Throne of Peter",(?), that is the exact description of the Papacy.  The letters are describing exactly what the Papacy is.  As I said before Mike, as a Catholic I can read those writings and they could have been written by any Catholic Bishop today.  The structure, doctrine and practice they describe is the same as the Catholic Church today.  Those letters would seem quite alien and Catholic, to any Protestant today.  They should, because they are to them.
 

I did not say anything about forcing conversion. In fact I think true conversion was left far behind. When they became the politically backed religion of the land it was more about adherence to papal authority. They became a law. The crusaders were often a police action.  In fact many of their crusaders were men who became crusaders to have their sins forgiven by the church. I read that in the catholic encyclopedia.
Any one that did not adhere to papal authority were considered heretics. Oh yes this was forced religion and not anything about Jesus and his gospel. Salvation was adherence to papal rule, and attending mass every morning.

"Not anything about Jesus and His Gospel"?  LoL, Have you ever even attended a Catholic Mass or been inside a Catholic Church?  That comment does not even warrant an answer.  Conversion was hardly left far behind.  The conversion of the barbarian tribes of Europe, transforming Europe into Christian lands, is pretty much the entire history of the Middle Ages.  The Crusader reference I am not sure why you bring that up, as it has nothing to do with conversion of people.  There is no such thing then or now, about salvation being dependent on adherence to the Pope.  Bull-puck.  That indicates a complete misunderstanding on your part as to what the Catholic Church is.  One has to adhere to the doctrines of the Church as they are the Holy Scripture, but our salvation comes from the Grace given as a gift by Our Lord, Jesus Christ and nothing else.  You have some very odd ideas about Catholicism.  As for attending Mass on Sunday, you don't consider worshiping God on His day an obligation of Christians?  That's odd...

Jesus was not about the world and its politics period  Even to this day The RCC does not understand this. Peter would not have anyone bow to him and kiss his hand. I just wonder what it is you think you are defending.

How does the RCC not understand this?  It is not ultimately about this world either, but Our Lord certainly did establish a very visible Church in this world, and gave it real authority and sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within it until the end of time.  This is what Protestants do not understand.  They think it was all somehow, invisible or metaphorical, but Christ first act of his ministry was to go out and pick 12, otherwise, ordinary men and make them his first Bishops and Apostles, investing them with real authority.  They passed this authority on by the "laying on of hands", through the Apostolic Succession, from one generation to the next until today.  You have said "Peter would never have allowed his hand to be kissed.".  Why?  (First, we don't kiss a Bishop's hand, we kiss the ring on it symbolizing their Apostolic Authority.), but you are simply putting your own 21st century ideas on an age and a timeless institution that you do not understand.  In fact, the book of Acts tells us that St. Peter was so revered, that not only did people show him all due honors, they even laid the cots of their dead and dying in the streets in the hopes that if Peter passed by, his mere shadow crossing them would heal them.  Kissing was the common and accepted etiquette of greeting then and now in the Semitic middle-east.  It just isn't what American Protestants find appealing.  Then, as today, the ritual of kissing was based on showing peace and respect for people.  People of the same rank kissed on the lips or cheek, people warranting higher honor, were kissed on the hand or even the chest above their heart.  It is still done.  Holy Scripture is filled with descriptions of the common greeting being a kiss, and placing one's hand over the heart and bowing was done then, as today.  They would not have known what a handshake was.  You have said that Jesus would never had allowed himself such trappings.  Are you sure?  You are sounding like the disciples who were indignant that oil worth 300 denarii was spent to perfume our Lord.  And how did Jesus respond? You are also making an assumption that is erroneous, concerning the Popes, "grandeurous" lifestyle.  The Popes have great digs because they get to live in housing decorated by people like Michelangelo, but they don't own it.  When HH John Paul II died, his will was released, as is common, to the public.  He owned virtually nothing!  A few books and personal items, some civilian cloths for hiking or relaxing in, some personal effects....that's it, nothing more.  Among our clergy, poverty, chastity, and obedience, is the norm.   I know what I am defending.  It is the true faith and the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church.

[mclees8]

First I did not mean to imply  they were heretics. But I'm saying that they are capable of misconceptions of their own. They are only human And I know they were early church fathers. Long before Constantine or the RC papacy. What you want to believe is what the RCC has taught, that these letters are rock solid proof that the papacy was legitimate and they did not. Apostolic succession does not mean that they held fast to the teaching of Christ and the apostles. Using scripture was and is often just a convenience

The quotes from the ECF's I gave certainly did confirm the Apostolic Succession, but that was only incidental to the fact that they confirm, long before the reign of Constantine, that the Bishop of Rome was the "throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source", as St. Cyprian put it.  What exactly do you think the Papacy to be, (?), because what those ECF's describe is the Papacy.  I'm thinking you are ascribing things to the Pope that are not really the case.

I never said Constantine invented anything. The papacy was an invention of the bishops of Rome. Actually it was Christianity re- invented. Those letters do not prove anything that makes the papacy legitimate at  least four hundred years later. There was no politically energized religion and not even Peter would put hids blessing on that. Nothing like the papacy was in their minds when those letters were written. There was only a certain need to communicate religious authority. Which the papacy is quick to use. Even this can have some unspoken abuses.   And as far as the papacy goes there was plenty of that.

Again, what do you think the Papacy is?  How was it invented?  You say, "nothing like the Papacy was in their minds when those letters were written."  How so?  It sure sounds exactly like the Papacy to me..."Throne of Peter",(?), that is the exact description of the Papacy.  The letters are describing exactly what the Papacy is.  As I said before Mike, as a Catholic I can read those writings and they could have been written by any Catholic Bishop today.  The structure, doctrine and practice they describe is the same as the Catholic Church today.  Those letters would seem quite alien and Catholic, to any Protestant today.  They should, because they are to them.
 

I did not say anything about forcing conversion. In fact I think true conversion was left far behind. When they became the politically backed religion of the land it was more about adherence to papal authority. They became a law. The crusaders were often a police action.  In fact many of their crusaders were men who became crusaders to have their sins forgiven by the church. I read that in the catholic encyclopedia.
Any one that did not adhere to papal authority were considered heretics. Oh yes this was forced religion and not anything about Jesus and his gospel. Salvation was adherence to papal rule, and attending mass every morning.

"Not anything about Jesus and His Gospel"?  LoL, Have you ever even attended a Catholic Mass or been inside a Catholic Church?  That comment does not even warrant an answer.  Conversion was hardly left far behind.  The conversion of the barbarian tribes of Europe, transforming Europe into Christian lands, is pretty much the entire history of the Middle Ages.  The Crusader reference I am not sure why you bring that up, as it has nothing to do with conversion of people.  There is no such thing then or now, about salvation being dependent on adherence to the Pope.  Bull-puck.  That indicates a complete misunderstanding on your part as to what the Catholic Church is.  One has to adhere to the doctrines of the Church as they are the Holy Scripture, but our salvation comes from the Grace given as a gift by Our Lord, Jesus Christ and nothing else.  You have some very odd ideas about Catholicism.  As for attending Mass on Sunday, you don't consider worshiping God on His day an obligation of Christians?  That's odd...

Jesus was not about the world and its politics period  Even to this day The RCC does not understand this. Peter would not have anyone bow to him and kiss his hand. I just wonder what it is you think you are defending.

How does the RCC not understand this?  It is not ultimately about this world either, but Our Lord certainly did establish a very visible Church in this world, and gave it real authority and sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within it until the end of time.  This is what Protestants do not understand.  They think it was all somehow, invisible or metaphorical, but Christ first act of his ministry was to go out and pick 12, otherwise, ordinary men and make them his first Bishops and Apostles, investing them with real authority.  They passed this authority on by the "laying on of hands", through the Apostolic Succession, from one generation to the next until today.  You have said "Peter would never have allowed his hand to be kissed.".  Why?  (First, we don't kiss a Bishop's hand, we kiss the ring on it symbolizing their Apostolic Authority.), but you are simply putting your own 21st century ideas on an age and a timeless institution that you do not understand.  In fact, the book of Acts tells us that St. Peter was so revered, that not only did people show him all due honors, they even laid the cots of their dead and dying in the streets in the hopes that if Peter passed by, his mere shadow crossing them would heal them.  Kissing was the common and accepted etiquette of greeting then and now in the Semitic middle-east.  It just isn't what American Protestants find appealing.  Then, as today, the ritual of kissing was based on showing peace and respect for people.  People of the same rank kissed on the lips or cheek, people warranting higher honor, were kissed on the hand or even the chest above their heart.  It is still done.  Holy Scripture is filled with descriptions of the common greeting being a kiss, and placing one's hand over the heart and bowing was done then, as today.  They would not have known what a handshake was.  You have said that Jesus would never had allowed himself such trappings.  Are you sure?  You are sounding like the disciples who were indignant that oil worth 300 denarii was spent to perfume our Lord.  And how did Jesus respond? You are also making an assumption that is erroneous, concerning the Popes, "grandeurous" lifestyle.  The Popes have great digs because they get to live in housing decorated by people like Michelangelo, but they don't own it.  When HH John Paul II died, his will was released, as is common, to the public.  He owned virtually nothing!  A few books and personal items, some civilian cloths for hiking or relaxing in, some personal effects....that's it, nothing more.  Among our clergy, poverty, chastity, and obedience, is the norm.   I know what I am defending.  It is the true faith and the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church.


L see I have come up agains an endless debater. I have seen your kind on another board.
I will be useless to go any further with you not that I couldn't Its just you will never truly see what i see, and i cannot make you see it.

I back off of nothing i have stated. I would say it all over again. I have been in serveral catholic masses, but what he papacy was when it ruled the roman Empire was clearly not about true salvation but a politically forced religion, weahter  you want to belive it or not. Even the inquisition tells you as much but im sure you would till debate.

You saked me what the papacy was. It was was a psuedo authority that changed the whole idea of the chucrh that Jesus founded. It was politcally charged and i will say it a thousand times over Jesus was not about politics.

You say there was humility and i see no humility. On an authority that was worse then the pharasees.

they were about recognition of authority. This is why they  ware the vestments. this is why they love titles and the, but tell you Peter would be no part of this.

You say the the letters prove that Rome was the throne of Peter. this is just a catholic conseption the RCC wants you to believe. when Peter and even paul was there, there was only an establishment of Believers there just as there were in many other cities of Asia at the time. This did not make Rome thethrone of anything. Just because peter was there did not make the throne of the Christin church.

I do not intend to talk to you any more, but will make this one more point. Oh yes The church of Rome is still a politically charged church and  entertains the leaders and kings of the world.

Here is the point you do not address. Jesus was not about politcally charged religion. and you cannot show me anywhere that it has anything to do with Jesus or his Gospel.

Listen to me. if the church was to be a politacaly charged religion ruling the known world
anything that important Jesus would surel would have  made mention of it but he did not. In fact the church exsisted over three hundred years and not even a mention of it not even in any letter of the early bishops.
show me one. I will humble myself to his whole board if you can show me one.


Show me where the church was about political ambition. There is only one document that does make mention of it, and you will find it in Rev. !7. the apostate harlot church.
the one church that fits the bill is the RCC

Jesus did not fall for the temptation of Satan to rule the world. but some how crtain Bishops of Rome fell for it three hundred years latter. think a about it. One day soon antother wiil stand up to rule the world and he will not be about Jesus But much of the church will follow him. Yes even the Vatican because they want world government, and unified world religion. 

I can back it up.   

[mclees8]

First I did not mean to imply  they were heretics. But I'm saying that they are capable of misconceptions of their own. They are only human And I know they were early church fathers. Long before Constantine or the RC papacy. What you want to believe is what the RCC has taught, that these letters are rock solid proof that the papacy was legitimate and they did not. Apostolic succession does not mean that they held fast to the teaching of Christ and the apostles. Using scripture was and is often just a convenience

The quotes from the ECF's I gave certainly did confirm the Apostolic Succession, but that was only incidental to the fact that they confirm, long before the reign of Constantine, that the Bishop of Rome was the "throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source", as St. Cyprian put it.  What exactly do you think the Papacy to be, (?), because what those ECF's describe is the Papacy.  I'm thinking you are ascribing things to the Pope that are not really the case.

I never said Constantine invented anything. The papacy was an invention of the bishops of Rome. Actually it was Christianity re- invented. Those letters do not prove anything that makes the papacy legitimate at  least four hundred years later. There was no politically energized religion and not even Peter would put hids blessing on that. Nothing like the papacy was in their minds when those letters were written. There was only a certain need to communicate religious authority. Which the papacy is quick to use. Even this can have some unspoken abuses.   And as far as the papacy goes there was plenty of that.

Again, what do you think the Papacy is?  How was it invented?  You say, "nothing like the Papacy was in their minds when those letters were written."  How so?  It sure sounds exactly like the Papacy to me..."Throne of Peter",(?), that is the exact description of the Papacy.  The letters are describing exactly what the Papacy is.  As I said before Mike, as a Catholic I can read those writings and they could have been written by any Catholic Bishop today.  The structure, doctrine and practice they describe is the same as the Catholic Church today.  Those letters would seem quite alien and Catholic, to any Protestant today.  They should, because they are to them.
 

I did not say anything about forcing conversion. In fact I think true conversion was left far behind. When they became the politically backed religion of the land it was more about adherence to papal authority. They became a law. The crusaders were often a police action.  In fact many of their crusaders were men who became crusaders to have their sins forgiven by the church. I read that in the catholic encyclopedia.
Any one that did not adhere to papal authority were considered heretics. Oh yes this was forced religion and not anything about Jesus and his gospel. Salvation was adherence to papal rule, and attending mass every morning.

"Not anything about Jesus and His Gospel"?  LoL, Have you ever even attended a Catholic Mass or been inside a Catholic Church?  That comment does not even warrant an answer.  Conversion was hardly left far behind.  The conversion of the barbarian tribes of Europe, transforming Europe into Christian lands, is pretty much the entire history of the Middle Ages.  The Crusader reference I am not sure why you bring that up, as it has nothing to do with conversion of people.  There is no such thing then or now, about salvation being dependent on adherence to the Pope.  Bull-puck.  That indicates a complete misunderstanding on your part as to what the Catholic Church is.  One has to adhere to the doctrines of the Church as they are the Holy Scripture, but our salvation comes from the Grace given as a gift by Our Lord, Jesus Christ and nothing else.  You have some very odd ideas about Catholicism.  As for attending Mass on Sunday, you don't consider worshiping God on His day an obligation of Christians?  That's odd...

Jesus was not about the world and its politics period  Even to this day The RCC does not understand this. Peter would not have anyone bow to him and kiss his hand. I just wonder what it is you think you are defending.

How does the RCC not understand this?  It is not ultimately about this world either, but Our Lord certainly did establish a very visible Church in this world, and gave it real authority and sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within it until the end of time.  This is what Protestants do not understand.  They think it was all somehow, invisible or metaphorical, but Christ first act of his ministry was to go out and pick 12, otherwise, ordinary men and make them his first Bishops and Apostles, investing them with real authority.  They passed this authority on by the "laying on of hands", through the Apostolic Succession, from one generation to the next until today.  You have said "Peter would never have allowed his hand to be kissed.".  Why?  (First, we don't kiss a Bishop's hand, we kiss the ring on it symbolizing their Apostolic Authority.), but you are simply putting your own 21st century ideas on an age and a timeless institution that you do not understand.  In fact, the book of Acts tells us that St. Peter was so revered, that not only did people show him all due honors, they even laid the cots of their dead and dying in the streets in the hopes that if Peter passed by, his mere shadow crossing them would heal them.  Kissing was the common and accepted etiquette of greeting then and now in the Semitic middle-east.  It just isn't what American Protestants find appealing.  Then, as today, the ritual of kissing was based on showing peace and respect for people.  People of the same rank kissed on the lips or cheek, people warranting higher honor, were kissed on the hand or even the chest above their heart.  It is still done.  Holy Scripture is filled with descriptions of the common greeting being a kiss, and placing one's hand over the heart and bowing was done then, as today.  They would not have known what a handshake was.  You have said that Jesus would never had allowed himself such trappings.  Are you sure?  You are sounding like the disciples who were indignant that oil worth 300 denarii was spent to perfume our Lord.  And how did Jesus respond? You are also making an assumption that is erroneous, concerning the Popes, "grandeurous" lifestyle.  The Popes have great digs because they get to live in housing decorated by people like Michelangelo, but they don't own it.  When HH John Paul II died, his will was released, as is common, to the public.  He owned virtually nothing!  A few books and personal items, some civilian cloths for hiking or relaxing in, some personal effects....that's it, nothing more.  Among our clergy, poverty, chastity, and obedience, is the norm.   I know what I am defending.  It is the true faith and the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church.


L see I have come up agains an endless debater. I have seen your kind on another board.
I will be useless to go any further with you not that I couldn't Its just you will never truly see what i see, and i cannot make you see it.

I back off of nothing i have stated. I would say it all over again. I have been in serveral catholic masses, but what he papacy was when it ruled the roman Empire was clearly not about true salvation but a politically forced religion, weahter  you want to belive it or not. Even the inquisition tells you as much but im sure you would till debate.

You saked me what the papacy was. It was was a psuedo authority that changed the whole idea of the chucrh that Jesus founded. It was politcally charged and i will say it a thousand times over Jesus was not about politics.

You say there was humility and i see no humility. On an authority that was worse then the pharasees.

they were about recognition of authority. This is why they  ware the vestments. this is why they love titles and the, but tell you Peter would be no part of this.

You say the the letters prove that Rome was the throne of Peter. this is just a catholic conseption the RCC wants you to believe. when Peter and even paul was there, there was only an establishment of Believers there just as there were in many other cities of Asia at the time. This did not make Rome thethrone of anything. Just because peter was there did not make the throne of the Christin church.

I do not intend to talk to you any more, but will make this one more point. Oh yes The church of Rome is still a politically charged church and  entertains the leaders and kings of the world.

Here is the point you do not address. Jesus was not about politcally charged religion. and you cannot show me anywhere that it has anything to do with Jesus or his Gospel.

Listen to me. if the church was to be a politacaly charged religion ruling the known world
anything that important Jesus would surel would have  made mention of it but he did not. In fact the church exsisted over three hundred years and not even a mention of it not even in any letter of the early bishops.
show me one. I will humble myself to his whole board if you can show me one.


Show me where the church was about political ambition. There is only one document that does make mention of it, and you will find it in Rev. !7. the apostate harlot church.
the one church that fits the bill is the RCC

Jesus did not fall for the temptation of Satan to rule the world. but some how crtain Bishops of Rome fell for it three hundred years latter. think a about it. One day soon antother wiil stand up to rule the world and he will not be about Jesus But much of the church will follow him. Yes even the Vatican because they want world government, and unified world religion. 

I can back it up.  and sorry my comment was not seperated to the white feild

Sorry for all the type os.  

[desertknight]

Well I'm sorry that you feel you can't "talk to me anymore about it" Mike.  Especially seeing how this is your thread.  I have been nothing but charitable to you and have kept it confined to the facts of the topic.  That you don't take it as so is because you keep insisting on espousing, in a forum dedicated to Catholic/Protestant dialogue, theories which are based on erroneous beliefs you have about the Catholic Church in general and it's role in history, specifically.  You repeatedly use the phrase "politically charged".  Frankly, I have no idea what that means.  That the Church has had to take a role in politics throughout the centuries is true, but their is nothing whatsoever in Scripture that counters this.  Our Faith is not of this world, but we are.  Did not Our Lord tell us to feed the poor, heal the sick, comfort the prisoner, cloth the naked, "do unto the least", fight for justice for the worker?  I hate to be the first one that tells you this, but ALL of those things involves a certain political action.  When we defend the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion, fight for women's rights in the developing countries, fight for the rights of children, work to prevent bloodshed and war, we must become involved in "politics".  This is not only to be "found" in scripture, Our Lord specifically commands us to do this.  When the Church has acted, (as in the case we have been discussing), when civilization in the West collapsed, it preserved the ideals of classical learning, created the University system, developed the laws of scientific enquiry, insisted that rulers obey Christian teachings of charity and justice, arbitrated disputes, etc.  You seriously think we would all have been better off if the pagan barbarians had won out, and they had designed the foundations of the world we have to live in today?  Thanks be that the Church of Christ was there to act, and created what we know as "Christian Civilization."

if the church was to be a politacaly charged religion ruling the known world
anything that important Jesus would surel would have made mention of it but he did not.

1.  The Pope and/or the Church did not rule the Empire, let alone the "known world".  Ever.  You keep asking me to "prove" something that is just in your own head and has no basis in reality.  The Empire was ruled by the Emperors and collapsed almost at the same time as Christianity became the majority religion.  The West was ruled by literally hundreds of Kings, princes, dukes, tribal leaders, etc. , many of whom were as much enemies of the Church as friends of it.  I can't "prove" something that has no basis in fact.  Let me ask you, Mike.  If the Catholic Church "ruled the known world", why is there no mention of this remarkable fact in the Encyclopedia Britannica, or Wiki, or Answers.com, or any other standard reference for Western European history?

There is only one document that does make mention of it, and you will find it in Rev. !7. the apostate harlot church.

2.  There is absolutely not one, single, solitary, piece of scripture that "points" to the "Great Harlot" or the "wh*re of Babylon" as being the Catholic Church.  In fact, there is nothing at all in Revelation, that ever says it is a "church".  You say you can "back it up", than I challenge you to do exactly that.  You can't.   The "wh*re of Babylon" in Rev. is of course pagan Rome, that had just destroyed the Temple in 70AD and was persecuting both Christians and Jews, at the time of St. John's writing of Revelation.  The only references to Rome being "Babylon" by the ECF's is to pagan Rome, you know, the one that was feeding them to the lions.  That is the "beast" that draws the wrath of St. John's words in Revelation. This is the standard theology of Revelation.  The bigoted anti-Catholic interpretations did not come about until over 1,700 years after Our Lords ministry.  If you look to Revelation 18, (I assume you were using Rev. 17 and not "7", as you typo-ed in your post.), it describes the "beast" and "wh*re" in some detail.  It says it is the international center of trade and commerce.  How can that be the Catholic Church?, (Unless your counting our bang-up trade in the little statues of Jesus that people put on their dashboards or postcards of the Holy Father wearing one of his funny hats.)  Jeez, for that matter, how can that be the secular city of Rome?  Rome, the city, hasn't been that for many hundreds of years now.  It might interest you that of the two greatest Protestant reformers, Luther dismissed the Book of Revelation altogether as  "neither apostolic nor prophetic", and originally removed it from the cannon of his, Protestant Bible, and John Calvin believed the Book to be canonical, but never wrote a single piece of commentary on it.  Now I, and my Church, strongly disagrees with them on this, but I point it out to give you an idea of how recent and crack-pot and bigoted, this sort of mangling of the Book of Revelation's true meaning is.

Yes even the Vatican because they want world government, and unified world religion.

3.  Please produce any reliable "proof" you have that the Vatican wants "One World Government".  The Leftist proponents of that particular dream generally view the Holy Catholic Church as public enemy #1, and as to the "one religion" charge, you caught us.  We do want one religion.  So did He...

John 17:21-23  "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

[Amo]

"The Catholic Church demanded assistance in her ambitious aim to make
her power and authority absolute over all; and for Constantine's purposes
it was essential that the church should be a unit. These two considerations
combined to produce results both immediate and remote, that proved a
curse to the time then present and to ages to follow. The immediate result
was that Constantine had no sooner compassed the destruction of Licinius
in A.D. 323, than he issued an edict against the Novatians, Valentinians,
Marcionites, Paulians, Cataphrygians, and "all who devised and supported
heresies by means of private assemblies,

[Amo]

But above all things else that Gratian did, that which redounded most to the glory of the Catholic Church was his choice of Theodosius as associate emperor. Valens was killed in a battle with the Goths, A.D. 378. A stronger hand than that of a youth of nineteen was required to hold the reins of government in the East.
In the establishment of the Catholic Church, the place of Theodosius is
second only to that of Constantine. About the beginning of the year 380 he
was baptized by the Catholic bishop of Thessalonica, and immediately
afterward he issued the following edict: —

"It is our pleasure that the nations which are governed by our
clemency and moderation, should steadfastly adhere to the religion
which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which faithful
tradition has preserved, and which is now professed by the pontiff
Damasus, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic
holiness. According to the discipline of the apostles, and the
doctrine of the gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost: under an equal majesty, and a pious
Trinity. We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the
title of Catholic Christians; and as we judge that all others are
extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of
"heretics,

[Amo]

In the supremacy of the papacy, Justinian holds the same place as does
Constantine and Theodosius in the establishment of the Catholic Church.
"Among the titles of greatness, the name 'Pious' was most pleasing to his
ears; to promote the temporal and spiritual interests of the church was the
serious business of his life; and the duty of father of his country was often
sacrificed to that of defender of the faith.

[Amo]

THE CODE OF OUR LORD
THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR JUSTINIAN.
SECOND EDITION.

BOOK 1.


TITLE 1.
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE
CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE
SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.

   1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.
   We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.
   (1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.
    Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.
   2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Praetorian Prefect.
   Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted to Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.
   (1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one [pg. 10] who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word These things, indeed do not require further proof, and should be respected.
   (2) Let those who do not accept those doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic Churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.
   Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the ides of January, under the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.
    3. The Emperor Martian to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect.
   No one, whether he belongs to the clergy, the army, or to any other condition of men, shall, with a view to causing a tumult and giving occasion to treachery, attempt to discuss the Christian religion publicly in the presence of an assembled and listening crowd; for he commits an injury against the most reverend Synod who publicly contradicts what has once been decided and properly established; as those matters relative to the Christian faith have been settled by the priests who met at Chalcedony by Our order, and are known to be in conformity with the apostolic explanations and conclusions of the three hundred and eight Holy Fathers assembled in Nicea, and the hundred and fifty who met in this Imperial City; for the violators of this law shall not go unpunished, because they not only oppose the true faith, but they also profane its venerated mysteries by engaging in contests of this kind with Jews and Pagans. Therefore, if any person who has ventured to publicly discuss religious matters is a member of the clergy, he shall be removed from his order; if he is a member of the army, he shall be degraded; and any others who are guilty of this offence, who are freemen, shall be banished from this most Sacred City, and shall be subjected to the punishment prescribed by law according to the power of the court; and if they are slaves, they shall undergo severest penalty.
   Given at Constantinople, on the eighth of the Ides of February, under the consulship of Patricius.
   4. John, Bishop of the City of Rome, to his most Illustrious and Merciful Son Justinian.
   Among the conspicuous reasons for praising your wisdom and gentleness, Most Christian of Emperors, and one which radiates light [pg. 11]as a star, is the fact that through love of the Faith, and actuated by zeal for charity, you, learned in ecclesiastical discipline, have preserved reverence for the See of Rome, and have subjected all things to its authority, and have given it unity. The following precept was communicated to its founder, that is to say, the first of the Apostles, by the mouth of the Lord, namely: "Feed my lambs."
   This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of the Emperors assert, and the words of your most reverend piety testify. It is therefore claimed that what the Scriptures state, namely, "By Me Kings reign, and the Powers dispense justice;" will be accomplished in you. For there is nothing which shines with a more brilliant lustre than genuine faith when displayed by a prince, since there is nothing which prevents destruction as true religion does, for as both of them have reference to the Author of Life and Light, they disperse darkness and prevent apostasy. Wherefore, Most Glorious of Princes, the Divine Power is implored by the prayers of all to preserve your piety in this ardor for the Faith, in this devotion of your mind, and in this zeal for true religion, without failure, during your entire existence. For we believe that this is for the benefit of the Holy Churches, as it was written, "The king rules with his lips," and again, "The heart of the King is in the hand of God, and it will incline to whatever side God wishes"; that is to say, that He may confirm your empire, and maintain your kingdoms for the peace of the Church and the unity of religion; guard their authority, and preserve him in that sublime tranquillity which is so grateful to him; and no small change is granted by the Divine Power through whose agency a divided church is not afflicted by any griefs or subject to any reproaches. For it is written, "A just king, who is upon his throne, has no reason to apprehend any misfortune."
   We have received with all due respect the evidences of your serenity, through Hypatius and Demetrius, most holy men, my brothers and fellow-bishops, from whose statements we have learned that you have promulgated an Edict addressed to your faithful people, and dictated by your love of the Faith, for the purpose of overthrowing the designs of heretics, which is in accordance with the evangelical tenets, and which we have confirmed by our authority with the consent of our brethren and fellow bishops, for the reason that it is in conformity with the apostolic doctrine.


   The following is the text of the letter of the Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome:

   With honor to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, which is, and always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they [pg. 12] exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and according to the doctrines of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.

[desertknight]

Thank you for posting those Amo.  Although the Gibbon's ones were somewhat harsh on Christians , (even in his day he was accused of neo-paganism in his favoritism), your posts demonstrate clearly that...1.  The existing structure of the Catholic Church pre-existed Constantine as paragraph 1 of your first post confirms.  2.  That the Imperial government and the Catholic Church were two separate, although intertwined entities, as paragraph 1 of your second post confirms.  Gibbons compares the two and the importance to the Roman civil state of making Christianity the state religion.  3.  In all your posts there is confirmation that any force used to maintain the Roman state as "Christian" was carried out by the civil state and not the Church.

This last post above is the most telling.  In paragraph one, which is numbered "1", the Emperor clearly indicates that the Papacy has existed since Peter.  He goes on to point out that the decree is his, and is separate from the Church, identifying by name the civil authorities who undersign it.  Again, not one Bishop, or Presbyter's name is signed to it.  Ever hear of Pope Damascus?  I haven't either, (I had to look him up).  This clearly supports the fact that Damascus, although Pontiff, was not in any way, the "ruler" of the state or the "known world".  Further down Theodosius speaks of his predecessor, Justinian, and states that the Pope at that time was HH John.  Never heard of that Pope John?  Me either, (I had to look him up as well.).  Again, this clearly confirms that no "Pope John", had any authority to "rule" the civil government or the Roman state.  How do we know?  Just look at  the names on the decree.  No Pope, No Bishop, not even a single Presbyter or Deacon has signed it.  In fact, Theodosius only says that "they will be remembered in Our, (his), prayers."

Careful reading of any text is always important no matter how harsh one thinks it.

[mclees8]

Well I'm sorry that you feel you can't "talk to me anymore about it" Mike.  Especially seeing how this is your thread.  I have been nothing but charitable to you and have kept it confined to the facts of the topic.  That you don't take it as so is because you keep insisting on espousing, in a forum dedicated to Catholic/Protestant dialogue, theories which are based on erroneous beliefs you have about the Catholic Church in general and it's role in history, specifically.  You repeatedly use the phrase "politically charged".  Frankly, I have no idea what that means.  That the Church has had to take a role in politics throughout the centuries is true, but their is nothing whatsoever in Scripture that counters this.  Our Faith is not of this world, but we are.  Did not Our Lord tell us to feed the poor, heal the sick, comfort the prisoner, cloth the naked, "do unto the least", fight for justice for the worker?  I hate to be the first one that tells you this, but ALL of those things involves a certain political action.  When we defend the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion, fight for women's rights in the developing countries, fight for the rights of children, work to prevent bloodshed and war, we must become involved in "politics".  This is not only to be "found" in scripture, Our Lord specifically commands us to do this.  When the Church has acted, (as in the case we have been discussing), when civilization in the West collapsed, it preserved the ideals of classical learning, created the University system, developed the laws of scientific enquiry, insisted that rulers obey Christian teachings of charity and justice, arbitrated disputes, etc.  You seriously think we would all have been better off if the pagan barbarians had won out, and they had designed the foundations of the world we have to live in today?  Thanks be that the Church of Christ was there to act, and created what we know as "Christian Civilization."

if the church was to be a politacaly charged religion ruling the known world
anything that important Jesus would surel would have made mention of it but he did not.

1.  The Pope and/or the Church did not rule the Empire, let alone the "known world".  Ever.  You keep asking me to "prove" something that is just in your own head and has no basis in reality.  The Empire was ruled by the Emperors and collapsed almost at the same time as Christianity became the majority religion.  The West was ruled by literally hundreds of Kings, princes, dukes, tribal leaders, etc. , many of whom were as much enemies of the Church as friends of it.  I can't "prove" something that has no basis in fact.  Let me ask you, Mike.  If the Catholic Church "ruled the known world", why is there no mention of this remarkable fact in the Encyclopedia Britannica, or Wiki, or Answers.com, or any other standard reference for Western European history?

There is only one document that does make mention of it, and you will find it in Rev. !7. the apostate harlot church.

2.  There is absolutely not one, single, solitary, piece of scripture that "points" to the "Great Harlot" or the "wh*re of Babylon" as being the Catholic Church.  In fact, there is nothing at all in Revelation, that ever says it is a "church".  You say you can "back it up", than I challenge you to do exactly that.  You can't.   The "wh*re of Babylon" in Rev. is of course pagan Rome, that had just destroyed the Temple in 70AD and was persecuting both Christians and Jews, at the time of St. John's writing of Revelation.  The only references to Rome being "Babylon" by the ECF's is to pagan Rome, you know, the one that was feeding them to the lions.  That is the "beast" that draws the wrath of St. John's words in Revelation. This is the standard theology of Revelation.  The bigoted anti-Catholic interpretations did not come about until over 1,700 years after Our Lords ministry.  If you look to Revelation 18, (I assume you were using Rev. 17 and not "7", as you typo-ed in your post.), it describes the "beast" and "wh*re" in some detail.  It says it is the international center of trade and commerce.  How can that be the Catholic Church?, (Unless your counting our bang-up trade in the little statues of Jesus that people put on their dashboards or postcards of the Holy Father wearing one of his funny hats.)  Jeez, for that matter, how can that be the secular city of Rome?  Rome, the city, hasn't been that for many hundreds of years now.  It might interest you that of the two greatest Protestant reformers, Luther dismissed the Book of Revelation altogether as  "neither apostolic nor prophetic", and originally removed it from the cannon of his, Protestant Bible, and John Calvin believed the Book to be canonical, but never wrote a single piece of commentary on it.  Now I, and my Church, strongly disagrees with them on this, but I point it out to give you an idea of how recent and crack-pot and bigoted, this sort of mangling of the Book of Revelation's true meaning is.

Yes even the Vatican because they want world government, and unified world religion.

3.  Please produce any reliable "proof" you have that the Vatican wants "One World Government".  The Leftist proponents of that particular dream generally view the Holy Catholic Church as public enemy #1, and as to the "one religion" charge, you caught us.  We do want one religion.  So did He...

John 17:21-23  "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."


Mike
Let me correct you about John  He was not speaking about the Pagan Rome of his day. The Lord gave Him Revelation. Which is prophetic. He was speaking of an apostate  church that did  not exist yet. It was two hundred years or more before any church that fit that bill came to reality..

How do we know he was taking about a church that was Christian and not to Pagan  Rome .
First Clue It speaks about a whore, a harlot.. That is one who claims to be faithful to her husband but is not . Metaphorically  the bible speaks about the church as his bride and Jesus is the groom. Pagan Rome  and please hear me now, cannot be a Harlot because paganism is another religion of superstition that does not and did not even believe in Jesus  Only the bride can be unfaithful and thus be called a whore. The world and its religions outside faith in Christ is not betroved  to him therefore cannot be called a Harlot.

Next clue  The Bible does not address other religions in the New Testament. It only speaks to the church including the book of Revelation. It only speaks of the world as something we are not love or be a part of. In other words we are to be separated as a peculiar people unto Christ. We are not in to the politics or the worlds ways   This is the bride of Christ and when the church looks to men, and the world , and its governments more than Christ it is unfaithful.  Yes Jesus said we are in the world but don't be of it, do not love it or  put your faith  it.
   
You are either of the world or you are of Christ and you cannot be both. The papacy was a man centered invention that claimed to be of Christ while it was heavily involved with the world, its lust for power, position and control. They twisted Gods word to make salvation only through the church which they institutionalized.  How ever Christ church and salvation was a matter of personal faith long be before they institutionalized it and set themselves up as a bogus authority. Rev 17 calls this church a Harlot and it can not speak to any other entity of this world. It was two faced. It called itself the bride of Christ while it really slept with the world.

Next clue Is how it is described in REV 17. Since we know now that only the church can be unfaithful so as to be addressed  as not only a harlot but the Great Harlot,. this church jumped in bed with the power of the Roman government . Therefore it forced itself to be the religion of the land. The only word to described this is a pseudo authority  Even today she sleeps with the world and its politics But let me not get off track. This church wore the colors of the Roman  Empire for she was clothed with Scarlet and purple. And held a golden cup. Full of the abominations of the earth. That is she blended with paganism not to mention her great wealth. Remember we are speaking of a Christian church here and even if there is another religion that can be said to ware such colors only the church of Rome claimed to be Christian. REV 17: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication#
Not only that, it says she is headquartered and seated on seven mountains   You will say there are a lot of places that sit on seven mountains but they do not have anything to with the center of Christianity, Only the Church of Rome is Christian and seated on seven mountains. And REV 17 only addresses Christ church

Your apologist really take us for fools many times, but if the shoe fits only one foot don't try to put on a shoe that cannot  fit.

I really do not want to get into this debate for apologists have been denying that Rev 17 describes the papal church after Constantine for eons.   I have heard every argument under the sun and your argument wont change things either. Rev 17 was wrote for a reason because it vividly describes an entity with a detailed description.  This was so that it could be recognized and no mistake about it. Only one church fits that description and I have heard some of the most ludicrous things from Catholics why it was something else.

Next you skip ahead to REV 18 that describes Babylon  as the center of world trade and commerce . This describes the worlds system which the RCC is very much a part of , but Babylon is far more reaching than just  the Vatican in Rome. Babylon is really three parts, first it is religious, Political and commercial Babylon , these three things comprise the whole world system. It is the world that we all have to live in yet must never put our faith in or to love it. It stands a kingdom that for most all purposes is independent of God . When the church becomes more of the world than Christ it is falling into Babylon. This is modern-day Christianity Protestant and Catholic alike. Babylon is everything that is the world with all its enterprise, lusts for power and materialism.  The Lord says this will all be gone in one hour and the merchants of the world will weep. But the harlot church will be burned as it says in Rev 17.     
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 18And the woman ( the harlot apostate church),which thou sawest is that great city, (Vatican city),which reigneth over the kings of the earth. #

Ask your self why does the pope go to the UN and counsel them about their moral responsibility. Why do world leaders visit the pope . The goal is world peace but this is not about Christ . The RCC wants to be recognized as the center of world religion. This is ecumenism and interfaith .  Interfaith is not about evangelism but it is about a common ground relationship with other religions mainly Christianity ,Judaism and Islam for the sake of world peace. But this is not the goal or the hope for Christ true bride. The world and its governments and religions including false Christianity is coming to judgment 

Quote from: Mike
Yes even the Vatican because they want world government, and unified world religion.

3. Please produce any reliable "proof" you have that the Vatican wants "One World Government". The Leftist proponents of that particular dream generally view the Holy Catholic Church as public enemy #1, and as to the "one religion" charge, you caught us. We do want one religion. So did He...

Jesus did not want a world brotherhood of religions
Jesus has his bride and he knows them and will take them to be with Him on that day.

Here is  Pope Paul's 2000 thousand New years address

Pope calls for new int'l order to keep peace
Reuters, Vatican City

The world needs a "new international order" to solve its conflicts and ensure peace, Pope John Paul said in his New Year's Day address yesterday.
"More than ever we need a new international order which draws on the experience and results of the United Nations," the 83-year-old pontiff said at a mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
"An order which is capable of finding adequate solutions to today's problems, based on the dignity of human beings, on integrating all society, on solidarity between rich and poor countries, on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technological progress," he added.
The leader of the world's one billion Catholics, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, seemed alert and read all of his homily in a clear voice.



John 17:21-23 "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." 
You misappropriated this scripture to say it is about one world religion. Jesus was talking to his disciples which includes all who come to Christ to be one with him. The Vatican wants a unified world religion that excepts other religions in a common brotherhood for the sake of world peace. it's a kind of I'm OK your Ok idea so lets be buddies and not enemies 

You said you don't know what I mean by politically charged. Were they not made the religion of the land and was backed by the power of Rome, even having power over kings? You can deny this if you want. But they were about power.

Knight
You said . "Did not Our Lord tell us to feed the poor, heal the sick, comfort the prisoner, cloth the naked, "do unto the least", fight for justice for the worker? I hate to be the first one that tells you this, but ALL of those things involves a certain political action. When we defend the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion, fight for women's rights in the developing countries, fight for the rights of children, work to prevent bloodshed and war,
actually work in politics.

Mike
Jesus commanded his followers to keep his commandments to Love God with all your heart mind an soul and your neighbor  as yourself. This is a character that is to be Christ's  Jesus was not fighting  things on the political front but changing hearts one soul at a time. Our hope is not to change the world but be a light in it until he returns. The church does not need the worlds political power to be that light.  Popes of Rome were drunken with the idea of being the throne of  Christianity having the power of Rome behind them. 

we must become involved in "politics" No we must not become evolved with Politics. Politics is necessary in the world but it has nothing to with Christ and his salvation  We are not winning the world for Christ through the world's politics the church is not making the world a better place for it is under the curse of sin and Satan. All this must come to judgment  and it will while Christ true bride will b e with Christ   

. You forget that the church was not even remotely evolved in the Political seen for three hundred years since its birth yet they were to live by these things even then long before the RCC. Setting amoral standard and caring for our brothers in need, was a hallmark of our faith. Back long before the RCC and its political position .

[mclees8]

Well I'm sorry that you feel you can't "talk to me anymore about it" Mike.  Especially seeing how this is your thread.  I have been nothing but charitable to you and have kept it confined to the facts of the topic.  That you don't take it as so is because you keep insisting on espousing, in a forum dedicated to Catholic/Protestant dialogue, theories which are based on erroneous beliefs you have about the Catholic Church in general and it's role in history, specifically.  You repeatedly use the phrase "politically charged".  Frankly, I have no idea what that means.  That the Church has had to take a role in politics throughout the centuries is true, but their is nothing whatsoever in Scripture that counters this.  Our Faith is not of this world, but we are.  Did not Our Lord tell us to feed the poor, heal the sick, comfort the prisoner, cloth the naked, "do unto the least", fight for justice for the worker?  I hate to be the first one that tells you this, but ALL of those things involves a certain political action.  When we defend the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion, fight for women's rights in the developing countries, fight for the rights of children, work to prevent bloodshed and war, we must become involved in "politics".  This is not only to be "found" in scripture, Our Lord specifically commands us to do this.  When the Church has acted, (as in the case we have been discussing), when civilization in the West collapsed, it preserved the ideals of classical learning, created the University system, developed the laws of scientific enquiry, insisted that rulers obey Christian teachings of charity and justice, arbitrated disputes, etc.  You seriously think we would all have been better off if the pagan barbarians had won out, and they had designed the foundations of the world we have to live in today?  Thanks be that the Church of Christ was there to act, and created what we know as "Christian Civilization."

if the church was to be a politacaly charged religion ruling the known world
anything that important Jesus would surel would have made mention of it but he did not.

1.  The Pope and/or the Church did not rule the Empire, let alone the "known world".  Ever.  You keep asking me to "prove" something that is just in your own head and has no basis in reality.  The Empire was ruled by the Emperors and collapsed almost at the same time as Christianity became the majority religion.  The West was ruled by literally hundreds of Kings, princes, dukes, tribal leaders, etc. , many of whom were as much enemies of the Church as friends of it.  I can't "prove" something that has no basis in fact.  Let me ask you, Mike.  If the Catholic Church "ruled the known world", why is there no mention of this remarkable fact in the Encyclopedia Britannica, or Wiki, or Answers.com, or any other standard reference for Western European history?

There is only one document that does make mention of it, and you will find it in Rev. !7. the apostate harlot church.

2.  There is absolutely not one, single, solitary, piece of scripture that "points" to the "Great Harlot" or the "wh*re of Babylon" as being the Catholic Church.  In fact, there is nothing at all in Revelation, that ever says it is a "church".  You say you can "back it up", than I challenge you to do exactly that.  You can't.   The "wh*re of Babylon" in Rev. is of course pagan Rome, that had just destroyed the Temple in 70AD and was persecuting both Christians and Jews, at the time of St. John's writing of Revelation.  The only references to Rome being "Babylon" by the ECF's is to pagan Rome, you know, the one that was feeding them to the lions.  That is the "beast" that draws the wrath of St. John's words in Revelation. This is the standard theology of Revelation.  The bigoted anti-Catholic interpretations did not come about until over 1,700 years after Our Lords ministry.  If you look to Revelation 18, (I assume you were using Rev. 17 and not "7", as you typo-ed in your post.), it describes the "beast" and "wh*re" in some detail.  It says it is the international center of trade and commerce.  How can that be the Catholic Church?, (Unless your counting our bang-up trade in the little statues of Jesus that people put on their dashboards or postcards of the Holy Father wearing one of his funny hats.)  Jeez, for that matter, how can that be the secular city of Rome?  Rome, the city, hasn't been that for many hundreds of years now.  It might interest you that of the two greatest Protestant reformers, Luther dismissed the Book of Revelation altogether as  "neither apostolic nor prophetic", and originally removed it from the cannon of his, Protestant Bible, and John Calvin believed the Book to be canonical, but never wrote a single piece of commentary on it.  Now I, and my Church, strongly disagrees with them on this, but I point it out to give you an idea of how recent and crack-pot and bigoted, this sort of mangling of the Book of Revelation's true meaning is.

Yes even the Vatican because they want world government, and unified world religion.

3.  Please produce any reliable "proof" you have that the Vatican wants "One World Government".  The Leftist proponents of that particular dream generally view the Holy Catholic Church as public enemy #1, and as to the "one religion" charge, you caught us.  We do want one religion.  So did He...

John 17:21-23  "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." [/color

Mike
Let me correct you about John  He was not speaking about the Pagan Rome of his day. The Lord gave Him Revelation. Which is prophetic. He was speaking of an apostate  church that did  not exist yet. It was two hundred years or more before any church that fit that bill came to reality..

How do we know he was taking about a church that was Christian and not to Pagan  Rome .
First Clue It speaks about a whore, a harlot.. That is one who claims to be faithful to her husband but is not . Metaphorically  the bible speaks about the church as his bride and Jesus is the groom. Pagan Rome  and please hear me now, cannot be a Harlot because paganism is another religion of superstition that does not and did not even believe in Jesus  Only the bride can be unfaithful and thus be called a whore. The world and its religions outside faith in Christ is not betroved  to him therefore cannot be called a Harlot.

Next clue  The Bible does not address other religions in the New Testament. It only speaks to the church including the book of Revelation. It only speaks of the world as something we are not love or be a part of. In other words we are to be separated as a peculiar people unto Christ. We are not in to the politics or the worlds ways   This is the bride of Christ and when the church looks to men, and the world , and its governments more than Christ it is unfaithful.  Yes Jesus said we are in the world but don't be of it, do not love it or  put your faith  it.
   
You are either of the world or you are of Christ and you cannot be both. The papacy was a man centered invention that claimed to be of Christ while it was heavily involved with the world, its lust for power, position and control. They twisted Gods word to make salvation only through the church which they institutionalized.  How ever Christ church and salvation was a matter of personal faith long be before they institutionalized it and set themselves up as a bogus authority. Rev 17 calls this church a Harlot and it can not speak to any other entity of this world. It was two faced. It called itself the bride of Christ while it really slept with the world.

Next clue Is how it is described in REV 17. Since we know now that only the church can be unfaithful so as to be addressed  as not only a harlot but the Great Harlot,. this church jumped in bed with the power of the Roman government . Therefore it forced itself to be the religion of the land. The only word to described this is a pseudo authority  Even today she sleeps with the world and its politics But let me not get off track. This church wore the colors of the Roman  Empire for she was clothed with Scarlet and purple. And held a golden cup. Full of the abominations of the earth. That is she blended with paganism not to mention her great wealth. Remember we are speaking of a Christian church here and even if there is another religion that can be said to ware such colors only the church of Rome claimed to be Christian. REV 17: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication#
Not only that, it says she is headquartered and seated on seven mountains   You will say there are a lot of places that sit on seven mountains but they do not have anything to with the center of Christianity, Only the Church of Rome is Christian and seated on seven mountains. And REV 17 only addresses Christ church

Your apologist really take us for fools many times, but if the shoe fits only one foot don't try to put on a shoe that cannot  fit.

I really do not want to get into this debate for apologists have been denying that Rev 17 describes the papal church after Constantine for eons.   I have heard every argument under the sun and your argument wont change things either. Rev 17 was wrote for a reason because it vividly describes an entity with a detailed description.  This was so that it could be recognized and no mistake about it. Only one church fits that description and I have heard some of the most ludicrous things from Catholics why it was something else.

Next you skip ahead to REV 18 that describes Babylon  as the center of world trade and commerce . This describes the worlds system which the RCC is very much a part of , but Babylon is far more reaching than just  the Vatican in Rome. Babylon is really three parts, first it is religious, Political and commercial Babylon , these three things comprise the whole world system. It is the world that we all have to live in yet must never put our faith in or to love it. It stands a kingdom that for most all purposes is independent of God . When the church becomes more of the world than Christ it is falling into Babylon. This is modern-day Christianity Protestant and Catholic alike. Babylon is everything that is the world with all its enterprise, lusts for power and materialism.  The Lord says this will all be gone in one hour and the merchants of the world will weep. But the harlot church will be burned as it says in Rev 17.     
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 18And the woman ( the harlot apostate church),which thou sawest is that great city, (Vatican city),which reigneth over the kings of the earth. #

Ask your self why does the pope go to the UN and counsel them about their moral responsibility. Why do world leaders visit the pope . The goal is world peace but this is not about Christ . The RCC wants to be recognized as the center of world religion. This is ecumenism and interfaith .  Interfaith is not about evangelism but it is about a common ground relationship with other religions mainly Christianity ,Judaism and Islam for the sake of world peace. But this is not the goal or the hope for Christ true bride. The world and its governments and religions including false Christianity is coming to judgment 

Quote from: Mike
Yes even the Vatican because they want world government, and unified world religion.

3. Please produce any reliable "proof" you have that the Vatican wants "One World Government". The Leftist proponents of that particular dream generally view the Holy Catholic Church as public enemy #1, and as to the "one religion" charge, you caught us. We do want one religion. So did He...

Jesus did not want a world brotherhood of religions
Jesus has his bride and he knows them and will take them to be with Him on that day.

Here is  Pope Paul's 2000 thousand New years address

Pope calls for new int'l order to keep peace
Reuters, Vatican City

The world needs a "new international order" to solve its conflicts and ensure peace, Pope John Paul said in his New Year's Day address yesterday.
"More than ever we need a new international order which draws on the experience and results of the United Nations," the 83-year-old pontiff said at a mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
"An order which is capable of finding adequate solutions to today's problems, based on the dignity of human beings, on integrating all society, on solidarity between rich and poor countries, on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technological progress," he added.
The leader of the world's one billion Catholics, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, seemed alert and read all of his homily in a clear voice.



John 17:21-23 "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." 
You misappropriated this scripture to say it is about one world religion. Jesus was talking to his disciples which includes all who come to Christ to be one with him. The Vatican wants a unified world religion that excepts other religions in a common brotherhood for the sake of world peace. it's a kind of I'm OK your Ok idea so lets be buddies and not enemies 

You said you don't know what I mean by politically charged. Were they not made the religion of the land and was backed by the power of Rome, even having power over kings? You can deny this if you want. But they were about power.

Knight
You said . "Did not Our Lord tell us to feed the poor, heal the sick, comfort the prisoner, cloth the naked, "do unto the least", fight for justice for the worker? I hate to be the first one that tells you this, but ALL of those things involves a certain political action. When we defend the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion, fight for women's rights in the developing countries, fight for the rights of children, work to prevent bloodshed and war,
actually work in politics.

Mike
Jesus commanded his followers to keep his commandments to Love God with all your heart mind an soul and your neighbor  as yourself. This is a character that is to be Christ's  Jesus was not fighting  things on the political front but changing hearts one soul at a time. Our hope is not to change the world but be a light in it until he returns. The church does not need the worlds political power to be that light.  Popes of Rome were drunken with the idea of being the throne of  Christianity having the power of Rome behind them. 

we must become involved in "politics" No we must not become evolved with Politics. Politics is necessary in the world but it has nothing to with Christ and his salvation  We are not winning the world for Christ through the world's politics the church is not making the world a better place for it is under the curse of sin and Satan. All this must come to judgment  and it will while Christ true bride will b e with Christ   

. You forget that the church was not even remotely evolved in the Political seen for three hundred years since its birth yet they were to live by these things even then long before the RCC. Setting amoral standard and caring for our brothers in need, was a hallmark of our faith. Back long before the RCC and its political position .

[desertknight]

I really feel sorry for you Mike in bearing false witness against your Christian neighbors.  God will have a judgment for you for that.  You keep railing on and on without the slightest proof.  You claim for certain that the "wh*re" is the Catholic Church centered in Rome, but provide not one whit of proof.  St. John's alliteration is clearly one that describes the persecutions that pagan Rome was enacting on the faithful then, and then using that to describe the "end times" in the future.  The "unfaithful" one, is clearly Israel, for example, (Remember the 144,000?), not his brother Christians.  How do we know he is making no reference to the Catholic Church?  In St. John's letters (1 John 3, 2 John 7), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist. There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom.  Any answer to that?  You keep saying that the Catholic Church didn't exist until Constantine, and yet I have been proving otherwise with primary source evidence again, and again, and again,...you simply make no comment on it, as if it doesn't exist.  When I point out that the "wh*re of Babylon" is described as the very center of all trade and commerce in the world, you twist and turn logic, and somehow say that that is the Catholic Church, again, without a scrap of proof, and contrary to all common sense on the matter.  How in all God's creation, could the Catholic Church, in any way, shape , or form, be described in any way, by a sane human being, as "the center of the planet's trade and commerce"   You keep saying the Catholic Church wants "one world government"  and when I say prove it, you cite one letter of HH John Paul calling on the UN to better do it's job in resolving conflict for the good of world peace.  Yup, you caught us there red-handed; working for world peace.  How in the wide world of sports is that working for "one world government"?  Anything close to the "one world government" we have today, is completely at odds with the Catholic Church on just about every major issue.  Abortion, divorce, birth control devices, euthanasia, AIDS, morality, the dignity of woman, pornography, Israel, etc.  Any answer to that?   Revelation says, as you point out, that the "anti-Christ" and "wh*re" will "rule over all the kings of the world".  Even if the Church had some great political power hundreds of years ago, and that is still far short of "ruling over all the world's kings", how in the world are you equating that passage to the status of the Church today?  Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can you say the Catholic church "rules over all the kings of the world", PAGAN Rome, did however, and some time in the future, multinationals or Islam, or some international alliance, or some world power we not yet know of, will do so, but to say you know the answers to what St. John described as a "great mystery" is to either declare yourself a prophet of God, or to blaspheme the Holy Scripture, but Our Lord warned us of these people, who would claim "prophesy" in his name, and "understanding" of the End Times.  Do you not know this?  Which are you, the "prophet of God, or the blasphemer who thinks he knows the great mystery?  Do you not know that Scripture warns us against speculating on this very thing?  Do you see the problem with trying to "crack the code", as the De Vinci code whack-jobs do?  Holy Scripture, incontrovertibly, decries the divisions in Christ's Body, that it anticipated and then, completely turning around from your earlier tack, say "scripture doesn't really mean what it says".  You actually make the ludicrous claim that the Catholic Church wants a bunch of religions all living in harmony.  That would come as a shock to even your fellow anti-Catholic bigots.  Do you know what EENS stand for?  It is Church dogma that means, Extra Ecclesia Nulla Sallus , "outside of the Church, there is no salvation.  You will of course, ignore this as well.  How odd you say this when your fellow anti-Catholics keep attacking Holy Mother Church for insisting on the unity of one Christian Body.   The "wh*re of Babylon" or the "Beast", was St. John's using the present condition that the Church was in at the time and describing how in the future a "new" and "popular" leader and institution would come on the scene and the people will be "led astray by them".  As the Holy Catholic Church has been on the scene for 2,000 years and is the antithesis of everything "new" and is the target of all those "one worlders" that somehow, you seem to think my Church is supported by, or is a part of, (ask the "one worlders" what they think of abortion and then try to equate the Catholic Church with them.), and you may start to get the idea of how silly these bigotries are.  That the "wh*re and Beast"  is clearly defined by St. John as "denying the divinity and reality of Christ", I dare you to twist and turn your way into identifying the Holy Catholic Church with that glaring contradiction to your interpretation of Revelation.  But of course, you will simply ignore that fact as well.   Bigots are just like "conspiracy nuts", they have already decided what they are going to believe, in complete contradiction to reason and fact, and nothing you tell them will ever change their minds.  Any facts you present to them in contradiction to their nutty beliefs, they will simply ignore.  I will pray for you though...

[mclees8]

I really feel sorry for you Mike in bearing false witness against your Christian neighbors.  God will have a judgment for you for that.  You keep railing on and on without the slightest proof.  You claim for certain that the "wh*re" is the Catholic Church centered in Rome, but provide not one whit of proof.  St. John's alliteration is clearly one that describes the persecutions that pagan Rome was enacting on the faithful then, and then using that to describe the "end times" in the future.  The "unfaithful" one, is clearly Israel, for example, (Remember the 144,000?), not his brother Christians.  How do we know he is making no reference to the Catholic Church?  In St. John's letters (1 John 3, 2 John 7), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist. There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom.  Any answer to that?  You keep saying that the Catholic Church didn't exist until Constantine, and yet I have been proving otherwise with primary source evidence again, and again, and again,...you simply make no comment on it, as if it doesn't exist.  When I point out that the "wh*re of Babylon" is described as the very center of all trade and commerce in the world, you twist and turn logic, and somehow say that that is the Catholic Church, again, without a scrap of proof, and contrary to all common sense on the matter.  How in all God's creation, could the Catholic Church, in any way, shape , or form, be described in any way, by a sane human being, as "the center of the planet's trade and commerce"   You keep saying the Catholic Church wants "one world government"  and when I say prove it, you cite one letter of HH John Paul calling on the UN to better do it's job in resolving conflict for the good of world peace.  Yup, you caught us there red-handed; working for world peace.  How in the wide world of sports is that working for "one world government"?  Anything close to the "one world government" we have today, is completely at odds with the Catholic Church on just about every major issue.  Abortion, divorce, birth control devices, euthanasia, AIDS, morality, the dignity of woman, pornography, Israel, etc.  Any answer to that?   Revelation says, as you point out, that the "anti-Christ" and "wh*re" will "rule over all the kings of the world".  Even if the Church had some great political power hundreds of years ago, and that is still far short of "ruling over all the world's kings", how in the world are you equating that passage to the status of the Church today?  Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can you say the Catholic church "rules over all the kings of the world", PAGAN Rome, did however, and some time in the future, multinationals or Islam, or some international alliance, or some world power we not yet know of, will do so, but to say you know the answers to what St. John described as a "great mystery" is to either declare yourself a prophet of God, or to blaspheme the Holy Scripture, but Our Lord warned us of these people, who would claim "prophesy" in his name, and "understanding" of the End Times.  Do you not know this?  Which are you, the "prophet of God, or the blasphemer who thinks he knows the great mystery?  Do you not know that Scripture warns us against speculating on this very thing?  Do you see the problem with trying to "crack the code", as the De Vinci code whack-jobs do?  Holy Scripture, incontrovertibly, decries the divisions in Christ's Body, that it anticipated and then, completely turning around from your earlier tack, say "scripture doesn't really mean what it says".  You actually make the ludicrous claim that the Catholic Church wants a bunch of religions all living in harmony.  That would come as a shock to even your fellow anti-Catholic bigots.  Do you know what EENS stand for?  It is Church dogma that means, Extra Ecclesia Nulla Sallus , "outside of the Church, there is no salvation.  You will of course, ignore this as well.  How odd you say this when your fellow anti-Catholics keep attacking Holy Mother Church for insisting on the unity of one Christian Body.   The "wh*re of Babylon" or the "Beast", was St. John's using the present condition that the Church was in at the time and describing how in the future a "new" and "popular" leader and institution would come on the scene and the people will be "led astray by them".  As the Holy Catholic Church has been on the scene for 2,000 years and is the antithesis of everything "new" and is the target of all those "one worlders" that somehow, you seem to think my Church is supported by, or is a part of, (ask the "one worlders" what they think of abortion and then try to equate the Catholic Church with them.), and you may start to get the idea of how silly these bigotries are.  That the "wh*re and Beast"  is clearly defined by St. John as "denying the divinity and reality of Christ", I dare you to twist and turn your way into identifying the Holy Catholic Church with that glaring contradiction to your interpretation of Revelation.  But of course, you will simply ignore that fact as well.   Bigots are just like "conspiracy nuts", they have already decided what they are going to believe, in complete contradiction to reason and fact, and nothing you tell them will ever change their minds.  Any facts you present to them in contradiction to their nutty beliefs, they will simply ignore.  I will pray for you though...

It is you tha i really feel sorry for. for you cannot see or know the truth when it is front of your eyes. You want some kind facts and evidences that quite frankly you would not except no matter how compelling they were . this is why I said it is fruitless to talk to you and this why I can no longer feed your need for arguement.   

but you Have a very Happy Easter.
mike123

[Amo]

Thank you for posting those Amo. Although the Gibbon's ones were somewhat harsh on Christians , (even in his day he was accused of neo-paganism in his favoritism),

Just because somebody states the many ugly facts of history in relation to many who called themselves Christians, doesn't mean they are lying, or in favor of paganism.  To the contrary, it is the Church of Rome itself that is obviously in favor of paganism, having incorporated so much of the rites, ceremonies, and teachings of the same into itself.

your posts demonstrate clearly that...1. The existing structure of the Catholic Church pre-existed Constantine as paragraph 1 of your first post confirms.

I know that Catholicism predates Constantine.  They used each other to realize their goals.  The Church of Rome had it's beginnings even during the days of the apostles, as they testify.

II Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

I Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

II Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2. That the Imperial government and the Catholic Church were two separate, although intertwined entities, as paragraph 1 of your second post confirms. Gibbons compares the two and the importance to the Roman civil state of making Christianity the state religion.

I know that the Church of Rome, and the Roman state were intertwined.  This is what makes Rome what she is.


Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Rev 18:9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

3. In all your posts there is confirmation that any force used to maintain the Roman state as "Christian" was carried out by the civil state and not the Church.

I know that the state enforced the laws favoring the Church of Rome.  She is that apostate Christian entity which first realized their goal of replacing the power of the Holy Spirit, with the power of the state.  That is to say, the powers of heaven, with the powers of this earth.  That is to say, the power of Satan, over the power of God. 

James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. 3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. 4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

No other religion on earth has been more intricately involved in the politics and wars of this world than the Church of Rome.  It is her own fault for becoming a political entity of this world, instead of a religious entity calling Christ's own out of this world.

Besides this, the scriptures clearly point out the relationship between the Church of Rome, and the kingdoms of this earth.  She does not do the dirty work, she gets those who serve her to do the same.

Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

The Church of Rome is that religious institution which commits fornication with the kings of the earth, choosing their power over the power of the Holy Spirit of God.  She does not serve the beast, the beast serves her, for she rides it.  Thus the kings of the earth and the state carry out her will.  She is that manipulative and spiritually sexually impure woman of biblical prophecy, as apposed to the spiritual virgin and pure woman of scripture, the true Church of Christ.

This last post above is the most telling. In paragraph one, which is numbered "1", the Emperor clearly indicates that the Papacy has existed since Peter. He goes on to point out that the decree is his, and is separate from the Church, identifying by name the civil authorities who undersign it. Again, not one Bishop, or Presbyter's name is signed to it.

The Church of Rome's deafening silence regarding the same, is proof enough of her full approval of the same.  Instead of protesting the invasion of earthly government upon the work and power of the Church of Christ, she gladly accepted the same.  Even to the extent of persecuting those who would not submit to the governments authority, and therefore to the Church of Rome's authority. 

Even though she suffered severe persecution herself, in her battle for freedom against an abusive government controlled by pagans, she gleefully accepted the same abusive power in her favor when presented the opportunity.  Thus she became pagan herself.  Not only by accepting this power of the state over the power of the Holy Spirit, but also by accepting the leadership of half Christian, half pagan Emperors.  Not to mention the countless pagans who became members of her Church instantly by order of the government without ever being spiritually converted.  So they along with their unconverted half pagan Emperors brought their pagan rites and ceremonies into the Church with them.

All of this with no protest from the Church of Rome.  One would of course be inclined to think that she was directly involved in the same.  The fact that some half pagan Emperor thought the Papacy existed in the days of Peter means very little to me.

Ever hear of Pope Damascus? I haven't either, (I had to look him up). This clearly supports the fact that Damascus, although Pontiff, was not in any way, the "ruler" of the state or the "known world". Further down Theodosius speaks of his predecessor, Justinian, and states that the Pope at that time was HH John. Never heard of that Pope John? Me either, (I had to look him up as well.). Again, this clearly confirms that no "Pope John", had any authority to "rule" the civil government or the Roman state. How do we know? Just look at the names on the decree. No Pope, No Bishop, not even a single Presbyter or Deacon has signed it. In fact, Theodosius only says that "they will be remembered in Our, (his), prayers."

Careful reading of any text is always important no matter how harsh one thinks it.

More of the same.  Constantine used the Church of Rome to unify the empire under his control.  The Church allowed this in order to be exalted as the state religion and receive all the worldly power and prestige that comes along with it.  Constantine was never truly converted, and never entirely abandoned sun worship.  Through his influence, and the influence of other half pagan half Christian Emperors and multitudes brought into the Church by the power of the state, paganism took hold of the same.  I will share some more regarding the same in the next post.

[Amo]

In A.D. 321, to please the bishops of the Catholic Church, he issued an
edict commanding judges, townspeople, and mechanics to rest on Sunday.
Yet in this also his paganism was still manifest, as the edict required rest on
"the venerable day of the sun," and "enjoined the observance, or rather
forbade the public desecration, of Sunday, not under the name of
Sabbatum, or Dies Domini, but under its old astrological and heathen title,
Dies Solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to
the worshipers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christians." —
Schaff."History of the Christian Church,

[desertknight]

Do you actually have a question or intelligent comment of your own Amo, (What a odd screen name for you.), or are you content to just post the standard idiotic anti-Catholic bigotry? 

[Amo]

Do you actually have a question or intelligent comment of your own Amo, (What a odd screen name for you.), or are you content to just post the standard idiotic anti-Catholic bigotry? 

My screen name is the first three letters of my last name.  Actually the first of the two posts you are responding to, is filled with my words, backed up by scripture.  All recorded history that does not speak favorably of the Church of Rome is considered idiotic anti-Catholic bigotry to the same.  When you cannot present a good argument against recorded historical facts, you simply personally attack the one who provides it, and the authors of the same.  As though this changes the facts, which it most certainly does not. 

I am sure you would prefer that I got all of my historical info regarding the Church of Rome from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Or perhaps one of the many modern day Encyclopedia's which has allowed members of the Church of Rome to write the articles concerning them within the same.  I don't think so.

The Church of Rome used to burn the people, and all the writings of the people who spoke and wrote the truth concerning her.  When they lost that power, they began to resort to other methods.  The easiest of course is to ridicule all sources but those they approve.  Another method, not quite as simple, yet definitely practiced by the Church of Rome, is to rewrite history according to their own desires.  Yet another is remove all sources not approved of by whatever means possible without getting caught or raising suspicions of the same. 

Now of course you will ridicule my own words, and when I try to back them up with the testimony of others, you will ridicule the same.  This is because you will accept no testimony concerning the Church of Rome but that of her own, which has been proved to be false many times in the past already.  Nevertheless, if you really want to hear my own words, I have written two books concerning the Church of Rome, and would be happy to share some of them with you.  Just let me know.  I believe some of them are in my blogs if you wish to examine them. 

[desertknight]

Yes, that's right.  All those pesky Encyclopedias and history books have all been controlled secretly by that bad ole' Catholic Church.  Sure, that's not nutty or anything.  That must be why they completely disagree with your view of history, and clearly it is the Catholic Church that is talked about in Revelation, the beast and whore and all, and the Jews control the media and were all working together with Satan to establish ONE, WORLD, GOVERNMENT.....Bbbwwwaaaaaa!!!!! 

[Amo]

Yes, that's right.  All those pesky Encyclopedias and history books have all been controlled secretly by that bad ole' Catholic Church.  Sure, that's not nutty or anything.  That must be why they completely disagree with your view of history, and clearly it is the Catholic Church that is talked about in Revelation, the beast and wh*re and all, and the Jews control the media and were all working together with Satan to establish ONE, WORLD, GOVERNMENT.....Bbbwwwaaa aaa!!!!! 

You actually got some of that right.  Not the part about the Jews though.  It is actually the Church of Rome that has invested heavily in the media.  Concerning the one world government, perhaps you should read a book by one of your own, THE KEYS OF THIS BLOOD,  written by Malachi Martin.  In it Malachi Martin has no qualms with admitting that the Church of Rome is one of the main players in the end game for world domination.

Here is another book you might check out written by an ex-Roman Catholic monk, Joseph McCabe, The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britannica.  It documents many of the changes made by Roman Catholics in the said Encyclopedia.  The following is from the same.

"I do not in the least say that it is the only work of public reference that has been so used. The new Encyclopedia Americana betrays a lamentable degree of Catholic influence, and even the more scholarly Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics has curried favor with Catholics by entrusting a number of important articles ("Inquisition," etc.) to Catholic writers, with the usual disastrous results; while manuals of European, especially medieval, history by some American professors strain or suppress evidence scandalously to suit Catholic authorities. I have here merely given the definite evidence in one field that the Catholic Church uses its enormous wealth and voting power to poison the wells of truth and to conceal from the public the facts of history which make a mockery of the fantastic claims it advances today.

[desertknight]

That you slander Christ's Body, His Church, and the faith of 1.1 billion people in the world, including myself, and then cry "foul!", is the kid with chocolate all over his face pointing the finger at little brother for getting into the candy.  I cannot respond to your specific arguments...because they are ridiculous.  If you walked into any accredited University, of any unbiased persuasion, any state or non-religious, private University; and you went to their History dept. and asked them to comment on the Catholic Church's control or influence in deceiving and hiding the compilation of basic Encyclopedias of some reputation, or of basic history books used in freshman courses on Western Civilization, they would literally, laugh you out of their offices.  You are asking me to make comment on something that is akin to "Why I deny the truth of aliens from space being hidden in area 51."  I cannot comment on it, because it is ridiculously silly, and no rational adult of any education would believe in either.  both Protestants and Catholics have done some pretty horrendous things over the years that would embarrass Our Lord, but that has nothing to do with the truth of His Gospel or His Church.  That man is a sinner, whether Pope or pauper, is Catholic teaching and the truth.  That you take that and advance such ludicrous theories of world domination and control of the global media, is proposterious kookiness.  It can't be commented on, nor should it be.

[mclees8]

Do you actually have a question or intelligent comment of your own Amo, (What a odd screen name for you.), or are you content to just post the standard idiotic anti-Catholic bigotry? 

My screen name is the first three letters of my last name.  Actually the first of the two posts you are responding to, is filled with my words, backed up by scripture.  All recorded history that does not speak favorably of the Church of Rome is considered idiotic anti-Catholic bigotry to the same.  When you cannot present a good argument against recorded historical facts, you simply personally attack the one who provides it, and the authors of the same.  As though this changes the facts, which it most certainly does not. 

I am sure you would prefer that I got all of my historical info regarding the Church of Rome from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Or perhaps one of the many modern day Encyclopedia's which has allowed members of the Church of Rome to write the articles concerning them within the same.  I don't think so.

The Church of Rome used to burn the people, and all the writings of the people who spoke and wrote the truth concerning her.  When they lost that power, they began to resort to other methods.  The easiest of course is to ridicule all sources but those they approve.  Another method, not quite as simple, yet definitely practiced by the Church of Rome, is to rewrite history according to their own desires.  Yet another is remove all sources not approved of by whatever means possible without getting caught or raising suspicions of the same. 

Now of course you will ridicule my own words, and when I try to back them up with the testimony of others, you will ridicule the same.  This is because you will accept no testimony concerning the Church of Rome but that of her own, which has been proved to be false many times in the past already.  Nevertheless, if you really want to hear my own words, I have written two books concerning the Church of Rome, and would be happy to share some of them with you.  Just let me know.  I believe some of them are in my blogs if you wish to examine them.  

Good post Amo. The problem here is they not only not except any testimony that chalenges the RCC they see nothing wrong with the churches political ambition then or now.
mike123

[mclees8]

That you slander Christ's Body, His Church, and the faith of 1.1 billion people in the world, including myself, and then cry "foul!", is the kid with chocolate all over his face pointing the finger at little brother for getting into the candy.  I cannot respond to your specific arguments...because they are ridiculous.  If you walked into any accredited University, of any unbiased persuasion, any state or non-religious, private University; and you went to their History dept. and asked them to comment on the Catholic Church's control or influence in deceiving and hiding the compilation of basic Encyclopedias of some reputation, or of basic history books used in freshman courses on Western Civilization, they would literally, laugh you out of their offices.  You are asking me to make comment on something that is akin to "Why I deny the truth of aliens from space being hidden in area 51."  I cannot comment on it, because it is ridiculously silly, and no rational adult of any education would believe in either.  both Protestants and Catholics have done some pretty horrendous things over the years that would embarrass Our Lord, but that has nothing to do with the truth of His Gospel or His Church.  That man is a sinner, whether Pope or pauper, is Catholic teaching and the truth.  That you take that and advance such ludicrous theories of world domination and control of the global media, is proposterious kookiness.  It can't be commented on, nor should it be.


What about my questions I posed to you in the thread "Honest answers for honest questions" Are they proposterious to ?

[desertknight]

I replied to your questions in the other thread Mike.

The problem here is they not only not except any testimony that chalenges the RCC they see nothing wrong with the churches political ambition then or now.

I accept any scholarly work of history that is critical of my Church.  There is much to criticize about it, but I do not accept any "kooky", ax-grinding history, smear, as even worthy of comment.  Not only as a Catholic, but also as a student of history.  As I said, if you walked into "Your State University", Dept. of History, and told them of some theory that the Catholic Church controls the content of most basic books of history and the media as well, (otherwise the secret would get out.), and that they are out to control the world through one government, they would laugh in your face, and rightly so.  It's nuts.  It is exactly the kind of stuff that neo-nazi skinheads say about the Jews and ...the Catholic Church, by the way.  It simply is not worthy of comment.  I have no such ridiculous notions about Protestants so why should I entertain them when they are about my Church?

[papist1]

kooky, at best.

[wayne]

I replied to your questions in the other thread Mike.

The problem here is they not only not except any testimony that chalenges the RCC they see nothing wrong with the churches political ambition then or now.

I accept any scholarly work of history that is critical of my Church.  There is much to criticize about it, but I do not accept any "kooky", ax-grinding history, smear, as even worthy of comment.  Not only as a Catholic, but also as a student of history.  As I said, if you walked into "Your State University", Dept. of History, and told them of some theory that the Catholic Church controls the content of most basic books of history and the media as well, (otherwise the secret would get out.), and that they are out to control the world through one government, they would laugh in your face, and rightly so.  It's nuts.  It is exactly the kind of stuff that neo-nazi skinheads say about the Jews and ...the Catholic Church, by the way.  It simply is not worthy of comment.  I have no such ridiculous notions about Protestants so why should I entertain them when they are about my Church?

protestants have off the deep end too. its just that the vatican is satans pride. what amazes me is that people stay in that church. its too obvious a hoax