Why are you Catholic?

[Black KnightMI]

Black Knight MI,

Thanks for your contribution.  I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I appreciate a personal testimony like yours.

I grew up Catholic and became friends (and later became) who were Protestants.  My new friends
asked me about my Bible.  I had a New American Bible with the orange cover.   My friends had
never seen it before.  They said, you mean, NASB.  I was like, well, not quite. (I had no idea
was a NASB was).   

It was then I realized that I wasn't in Kansas anyone (Actually, I've never been to Kansas).

Your story reminded me of that moment.  Good times. Welcome!

trifecta

You'll see. Just don't wait over 30 years to get it right. The harvest is great and the workers are few.

[Catholica]

I would like to offer you my own personal testimony so you can see where I'm coming from and WHY I returned to Catholicism.

I am a cradle Catholic and a "revert" to the faith after being gone for about 34 years. I had left the Church at about age 17 because I was on drugs and then "got saved" at a Campus Life Bible study that was run by a very cool minister. I had always gone to church but never really taken it seriously or read the Bible, even though it was in the house and other members of my family read it. The lack was not in the church (I see that now) but within me. I began to read the Bible for the first time in my life... (The epistle of St. James) and it really hit home. I have always believed in God, but I saw that that was not enough. I did alright for a couple of years, got married and we moved here to Florida, where I stayed out of establishment churches because I figured they were all messed up and did my thing as a "Jesus freak", witnessing on the streets and handing out Christian underground papers and tracts, and "witnessing" to anyone who would listen.

Eventually I and my little family joined a Baptist church because the preacher convinced me that we believed the same things and he liked my no fear witnessing. That was fine until I admitted that I figured that the gifts of the Holy Spirit did not end with the death of the last apostle. That ended my path to being a Baptist minister so we joined a local Assembly of God where we stayed for many years in spite of some really unscriptural and uncharitable things they did. I became a deacon there, but finally we left after they pulled some really lame stuff and blew me off when I pointed out that what they were doing was unscriptural. My letter telling them why we were leaving was 10 pages long.

I intended to find another church, but we never did and so we remained out of any church for many years. That's where I went wrong for the second time.

About 12 years ago I hit a real crisis and decided to turn back to the Lord. I found that Jesus meant every word of the parable of the prodigal son. I began to read the Bible again and got a New American Bible which is about like the NIV except this one has all the books (which I liked even though at the time I was still a Protestant). This particular edition was fairly big, with a bright green paperback cover that said "The Catholic Bible" in big orange letters. I went diddy-bopping into Bible study one day with that in hand and wasn't in there a hot minute when some guy (a big dude too!) jumped my case.

"Are you Catholic?' he asked me. "Well...yeah", says I, (since technically I was and thinking that maybe he'd get lost if I said I was. Boy, was I wrong!). "You Catholics worship Mary." "Say what?" I responded. "You Catholics worship Mary. You pray to her." "Look, I know I been outta the church for a long time, and we do pray to her but we DON"T worship her and no Catholic that knows his ear from his elbow would ever even SAY such a crazy thing. We worship God alone. End of story, Dude."

He persisted so severely that I finally told him that I'd get some books, check it out and get back to him with what I found out, and that if he was right then I would never enter a Catholic Church ever again.

I went to the library, which, (Thank God), had a well-stocked Catholic section and I found a great book by a priest named Father Oscar Lukefahr of Catholic Home Study Service and read it carefully and prayerfully. I was happy to find that not only were the Catholics right and that they do not worship anyone but Almighty God, but that their doctrines about Mary are soundly based upon the Bible and that the early Christians believed the very same things. Even the three pillars of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) believed the same things about Mary that Catholics do today. In the end I went back to church and met another Catholic guy, who, like me, was returning to the faith as well. We've been best friends ever since. We studied and talked and found ourselves having to dig up real answers for people we knew who didn't like the Catholic Church. We spent hours discussing our new found faith, praying the rosary and even discussing Catholicism with guys who either didn't agree with the faith, usually from serious ignorance and misinformation or had series interest in the faith. We also were used of the Holy Spirit to help some guys convert, which especially to us was really amazing.

I continued to study Catholic teaching and discovered that a great deal of what I had been taught about the Bible and Christianity was wrong. I found that many non-Catholics ignore and "read around" Bible passages that support Catholic teaching and that they seem to completely ignore the history of Christianity prior to the 1500s. Now I know what I believe and why and I will never change, though I promise every non-Catholic that I dialog with that if they can prove that the Catholics are wrong that I'll be in their church with them every Sunday from now on. No one even comes close...

Now I participate at Mass as often as I can, pray the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet often, abstain from meat on most Fridays, and of course read and study my Bible, as well as other Catholic writings. I am Catholic because I know and believe with all my heart and soul that the Catholic Church IS the New Testament church and I believe that the Eucharist is everything that the church teaches it is, the same as the early church did...all the way back to the last supper and the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John. I believe it's really the body and blood of our risen Lord because St. Paul said that if you take communion while living in sin that you become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and that wouldn't be possible if His body and blood weren't really present in the form of bread and wine. People who say it's just symbolic hold a position that is not supported by the New Testament. It is the most powerful miracle in all of Christianity, and I love it.

My Christian life is stronger than ever before, my prayer life is powerful, and I have great answers to my prayers like never before. I have always been a soul winner and that has not changed at all. God has used me to win some people that I sure couldn't have won on my own. Some were very anti-Catholic and now are very MUCH Catholic and very happy and forthright about their faith. It's really very humbling...I feel like a raggedy (unworthy) Styrofoam cup at a feast, filled with the very finest wine.

So... That's it. I'm not that special. There are thousands of people like me who are returning to the faith each week and many more who are on their way into it as well. It's been here for over 2,000 years...it won't die off or go away, and the very gates of hell have not prevailed (and will not prevail) against it. Jesus promised and He has kept that promise in spite of the human failings of individual members of His one true church (like me) .

This is the real thing. The fullness of truth, and the most beautiful Christianity you can possibly imagine. Nothing outside the Catholic Church even comes close. I cry tears of humble joy during the consecration at Mass because I am so wrapped up in worship of my risen Lord and Savior. I don't care who notices or what they might think. I'm more concerned with making sure that Jesus hears me when I say, "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
(The peace of the Lord be with you always)
Blackie

Blackie, a wonderful testimony.  I think you capture the heart of what this thread was intended to be about, and the heart of what it is like to be Catholic.  May God bless you.

[.:Lily:.]

I would like to offer you my own personal testimony so you can see where I'm coming from and WHY I returned to Catholicism.

I am a cradle Catholic and a "revert" to the faith after being gone for about 34 years. I had left the Church at about age 17 because I was on drugs and then "got saved" at a Campus Life Bible study that was run by a very cool minister. I had always gone to church but never really taken it seriously or read the Bible, even though it was in the house and other members of my family read it. The lack was not in the church (I see that now) but within me. I began to read the Bible for the first time in my life... (The epistle of St. James) and it really hit home. I have always believed in God, but I saw that that was not enough. I did alright for a couple of years, got married and we moved here to Florida, where I stayed out of establishment churches because I figured they were all messed up and did my thing as a "Jesus freak", witnessing on the streets and handing out Christian underground papers and tracts, and "witnessing" to anyone who would listen.

Eventually I and my little family joined a Baptist church because the preacher convinced me that we believed the same things and he liked my no fear witnessing. That was fine until I admitted that I figured that the gifts of the Holy Spirit did not end with the death of the last apostle. That ended my path to being a Baptist minister so we joined a local Assembly of God where we stayed for many years in spite of some really unscriptural and uncharitable things they did. I became a deacon there, but finally we left after they pulled some really lame stuff and blew me off when I pointed out that what they were doing was unscriptural. My letter telling them why we were leaving was 10 pages long.

I intended to find another church, but we never did and so we remained out of any church for many years. That's where I went wrong for the second time.

About 12 years ago I hit a real crisis and decided to turn back to the Lord. I found that Jesus meant every word of the parable of the prodigal son. I began to read the Bible again and got a New American Bible which is about like the NIV except this one has all the books (which I liked even though at the time I was still a Protestant). This particular edition was fairly big, with a bright green paperback cover that said "The Catholic Bible" in big orange letters. I went diddy-bopping into Bible study one day with that in hand and wasn't in there a hot minute when some guy (a big dude too!) jumped my case.

"Are you Catholic?' he asked me. "Well...yeah", says I, (since technically I was and thinking that maybe he'd get lost if I said I was. Boy, was I wrong!). "You Catholics worship Mary." "Say what?" I responded. "You Catholics worship Mary. You pray to her." "Look, I know I been outta the church for a long time, and we do pray to her but we DON"T worship her and no Catholic that knows his ear from his elbow would ever even SAY such a crazy thing. We worship God alone. End of story, Dude."

He persisted so severely that I finally told him that I'd get some books, check it out and get back to him with what I found out, and that if he was right then I would never enter a Catholic Church ever again.

I went to the library, which, (Thank God), had a well-stocked Catholic section and I found a great book by a priest named Father Oscar Lukefahr of Catholic Home Study Service and read it carefully and prayerfully. I was happy to find that not only were the Catholics right and that they do not worship anyone but Almighty God, but that their doctrines about Mary are soundly based upon the Bible and that the early Christians believed the very same things. Even the three pillars of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) believed the same things about Mary that Catholics do today. In the end I went back to church and met another Catholic guy, who, like me, was returning to the faith as well. We've been best friends ever since. We studied and talked and found ourselves having to dig up real answers for people we knew who didn't like the Catholic Church. We spent hours discussing our new found faith, praying the rosary and even discussing Catholicism with guys who either didn't agree with the faith, usually from serious ignorance and misinformation or had series interest in the faith. We also were used of the Holy Spirit to help some guys convert, which especially to us was really amazing.

I continued to study Catholic teaching and discovered that a great deal of what I had been taught about the Bible and Christianity was wrong. I found that many non-Catholics ignore and "read around" Bible passages that support Catholic teaching and that they seem to completely ignore the history of Christianity prior to the 1500s. Now I know what I believe and why and I will never change, though I promise every non-Catholic that I dialog with that if they can prove that the Catholics are wrong that I'll be in their church with them every Sunday from now on. No one even comes close...

Now I participate at Mass as often as I can, pray the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet often, abstain from meat on most Fridays, and of course read and study my Bible, as well as other Catholic writings. I am Catholic because I know and believe with all my heart and soul that the Catholic Church IS the New Testament church and I believe that the Eucharist is everything that the church teaches it is, the same as the early church did...all the way back to the last supper and the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John. I believe it's really the body and blood of our risen Lord because St. Paul said that if you take communion while living in sin that you become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and that wouldn't be possible if His body and blood weren't really present in the form of bread and wine. People who say it's just symbolic hold a position that is not supported by the New Testament. It is the most powerful miracle in all of Christianity, and I love it.

My Christian life is stronger than ever before, my prayer life is powerful, and I have great answers to my prayers like never before. I have always been a soul winner and that has not changed at all. God has used me to win some people that I sure couldn't have won on my own. Some were very anti-Catholic and now are very MUCH Catholic and very happy and forthright about their faith. It's really very humbling...I feel like a raggedy (unworthy) Styrofoam cup at a feast, filled with the very finest wine.

So... That's it. I'm not that special. There are thousands of people like me who are returning to the faith each week and many more who are on their way into it as well. It's been here for over 2,000 years...it won't die off or go away, and the very gates of hell have not prevailed (and will not prevail) against it. Jesus promised and He has kept that promise in spite of the human failings of individual members of His one true church (like me) .

This is the real thing. The fullness of truth, and the most beautiful Christianity you can possibly imagine. Nothing outside the Catholic Church even comes close. I cry tears of humble joy during the consecration at Mass because I am so wrapped up in worship of my risen Lord and Savior. I don't care who notices or what they might think. I'm more concerned with making sure that Jesus hears me when I say, "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
(The peace of the Lord be with you always)
Blackie

In my opinion, that is going backward. I just left a church that was somehow Catholic in some ways and I can't imagine going back there. It felt like a duty to go to the church. I found it difficult to change and grow in Christ. I understand that some may find it spiritual to practice a religion. I believe we are to have a relationship with Jesus and if you practice a religion then you start to rely on some practices and things you do. I know some Anglo-Catholics and I do not hear them say the name of Jesus! It is all about them and what they try to do to be good and acceptable.  We are not to pray to Mary and saints. The bible says there is only one mediator and that is Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5) Mary is the treasure of grace. We needed the grace alone. Mary is just my sister.

The Catholic doctrine about Mary is really dangerous. I got caught in this false teaching. (Read: Romans 3:10) I'm confident that was a deceiving spirit. You say the reformers believed the same things about Mary. Luther was wrong and I have no idea who is the other guy but I know John Calvin did not teach very Catholic things about Mary. It does not matter really. All of those are just men and taught some errors. Teachers today have a better understanding than the reformers. We know better.

I have no idea how could you join an Assembly of God church then you go back to Catholicism! That is really so weird. What is unscriptural and uncharitable that you found in the AOG church?!!! Did you find purgatory biblical? (Titus 2:14) Is papal authority biblical? (Galatians 1:8–9) Did you find salvation by faith and work biblical? (Galatians 2:21) Where can I read in the bible that Mary is sinless or that she did not need Jesus to save her? There are tons of things that are not biblical in the Catholic Church and all other formal churches.

You also say you help people convert to Catholicism; my personal belief that Catholicism has no connection whatsoever to Christianity. It is not another denomination; It is another religion and as long as they trust the Pope (Personally, I believe he is the antichrist.) then we need to evangelize them. Yes many Catholics are saved DESPITE what the church teaches them.

You say it is beautiful Christianity. well it looks a beautiful "religion" to me, but if that is the only reason why I should be Catholic? There are other pagan religions that looks very attractive. Are we to use the law of attraction or teach about Jesus ?

I believe in ONE Catholic (universal) church and that is the Invisible Church - everyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and not one true building. It has no basis in the bible.

[mclees8]

I would like to offer you my own personal testimony so you can see where I'm coming from and WHY I returned to Catholicism.

I am a cradle Catholic and a "revert" to the faith after being gone for about 34 years. I had left the Church at about age 17 because I was on drugs and then "got saved" at a Campus Life Bible study that was run by a very cool minister. I had always gone to church but never really taken it seriously or read the Bible, even though it was in the house and other members of my family read it. The lack was not in the church (I see that now) but within me. I began to read the Bible for the first time in my life... (The epistle of St. James) and it really hit home. I have always believed in God, but I saw that that was not enough. I did alright for a couple of years, got married and we moved here to Florida, where I stayed out of establishment churches because I figured they were all messed up and did my thing as a "Jesus freak", witnessing on the streets and handing out Christian underground papers and tracts, and "witnessing" to anyone who would listen.

Eventually I and my little family joined a Baptist church because the preacher convinced me that we believed the same things and he liked my no fear witnessing. That was fine until I admitted that I figured that the gifts of the Holy Spirit did not end with the death of the last apostle. That ended my path to being a Baptist minister so we joined a local Assembly of God where we stayed for many years in spite of some really unscriptural and uncharitable things they did. I became a deacon there, but finally we left after they pulled some really lame stuff and blew me off when I pointed out that what they were doing was unscriptural. My letter telling them why we were leaving was 10 pages long.

I intended to find another church, but we never did and so we remained out of any church for many years. That's where I went wrong for the second time.

About 12 years ago I hit a real crisis and decided to turn back to the Lord. I found that Jesus meant every word of the parable of the prodigal son. I began to read the Bible again and got a New American Bible which is about like the NIV except this one has all the books (which I liked even though at the time I was still a Protestant). This particular edition was fairly big, with a bright green paperback cover that said "The Catholic Bible" in big orange letters. I went diddy-bopping into Bible study one day with that in hand and wasn't in there a hot minute when some guy (a big dude too!) jumped my case.

"Are you Catholic?' he asked me. "Well...yeah", says I, (since technically I was and thinking that maybe he'd get lost if I said I was. Boy, was I wrong!). "You Catholics worship Mary." "Say what?" I responded. "You Catholics worship Mary. You pray to her." "Look, I know I been outta the church for a long time, and we do pray to her but we DON"T worship her and no Catholic that knows his ear from his elbow would ever even SAY such a crazy thing. We worship God alone. End of story, Dude."

He persisted so severely that I finally told him that I'd get some books, check it out and get back to him with what I found out, and that if he was right then I would never enter a Catholic Church ever again.

I went to the library, which, (Thank God), had a well-stocked Catholic section and I found a great book by a priest named Father Oscar Lukefahr of Catholic Home Study Service and read it carefully and prayerfully. I was happy to find that not only were the Catholics right and that they do not worship anyone but Almighty God, but that their doctrines about Mary are soundly based upon the Bible and that the early Christians believed the very same things. Even the three pillars of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) believed the same things about Mary that Catholics do today. In the end I went back to church and met another Catholic guy, who, like me, was returning to the faith as well. We've been best friends ever since. We studied and talked and found ourselves having to dig up real answers for people we knew who didn't like the Catholic Church. We spent hours discussing our new found faith, praying the rosary and even discussing Catholicism with guys who either didn't agree with the faith, usually from serious ignorance and misinformation or had series interest in the faith. We also were used of the Holy Spirit to help some guys convert, which especially to us was really amazing.

I continued to study Catholic teaching and discovered that a great deal of what I had been taught about the Bible and Christianity was wrong. I found that many non-Catholics ignore and "read around" Bible passages that support Catholic teaching and that they seem to completely ignore the history of Christianity prior to the 1500s. Now I know what I believe and why and I will never change, though I promise every non-Catholic that I dialog with that if they can prove that the Catholics are wrong that I'll be in their church with them every Sunday from now on. No one even comes close...

Now I participate at Mass as often as I can, pray the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet often, abstain from meat on most Fridays, and of course read and study my Bible, as well as other Catholic writings. I am Catholic because I know and believe with all my heart and soul that the Catholic Church IS the New Testament church and I believe that the Eucharist is everything that the church teaches it is, the same as the early church did...all the way back to the last supper and the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John. I believe it's really the body and blood of our risen Lord because St. Paul said that if you take communion while living in sin that you become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and that wouldn't be possible if His body and blood weren't really present in the form of bread and wine. People who say it's just symbolic hold a position that is not supported by the New Testament. It is the most powerful miracle in all of Christianity, and I love it.

My Christian life is stronger than ever before, my prayer life is powerful, and I have great answers to my prayers like never before. I have always been a soul winner and that has not changed at all. God has used me to win some people that I sure couldn't have won on my own. Some were very anti-Catholic and now are very MUCH Catholic and very happy and forthright about their faith. It's really very humbling...I feel like a raggedy (unworthy) Styrofoam cup at a feast, filled with the very finest wine.

So... That's it. I'm not that special. There are thousands of people like me who are returning to the faith each week and many more who are on their way into it as well. It's been here for over 2,000 years...it won't die off or go away, and the very gates of hell have not prevailed (and will not prevail) against it. Jesus promised and He has kept that promise in spite of the human failings of individual members of His one true church (like me) .

This is the real thing. The fullness of truth, and the most beautiful Christianity you can possibly imagine. Nothing outside the Catholic Church even comes close. I cry tears of humble joy during the consecration at Mass because I am so wrapped up in worship of my risen Lord and Savior. I don't care who notices or what they might think. I'm more concerned with making sure that Jesus hears me when I say, "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
(The peace of the Lord be with you always)
Blackie

In my opinion, that is going backward. I just left a church that was somehow Catholic in some ways and I can't imagine going back there. It felt like a duty to go to the church. I found it difficult to change and grow in Christ. I understand that some may find it spiritual to practice a religion. I believe we are to have a relationship with Jesus and if you practice a religion then you start to rely on some practices and things you do. I know some Anglo-Catholics and I do not hear them say the name of Jesus! It is all about them and what they try to do to be good and acceptable.  We are not to pray to Mary and saints. The bible says there is only one mediator and that is Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5) Mary is the treasure of grace. We needed the grace alone. Mary is just my sister.

The Catholic doctrine about Mary is really dangerous. I got caught in this false teaching. (Read: Romans 3:10) I'm confident that was a deceiving spirit. You say the reformers believed the same things about Mary. Luther was wrong and I have no idea who is the other guy but I know John Calvin did not teach very Catholic things about Mary. It does not matter really. All of those are just men and taught some errors. Teachers today have a better understanding than the reformers. We know better.

I have no idea how could you join an Assembly of God church then you go back to Catholicism! That is really so weird. What is unscriptural and uncharitable that you found in the AOG church?!!! Did you find purgatory biblical? (Titus 2:14) Is papal authority biblical? (Galatians 1:8–9) Did you find salvation by faith and work biblical? (Galatians 2:21) Where can I read in the bible that Mary is sinless or that she did not need Jesus to save her? There are tons of things that are not biblical in the Catholic Church and all other formal churches.

You also say you help people convert to Catholicism; my personal belief that Catholicism has no connection whatsoever to Christianity. It is not another denomination; It is another religion and as long as they trust the Pope (Personally, I believe he is the antichrist.) then we need to evangelize them. Yes many Catholics are saved DESPITE what the church teaches them.

You say it is beautiful Christianity. well it looks a beautiful "religion" to me, but if that is the only reason why I should be Catholic? There are other pagan religions that looks very attractive. Are we to use the law of attraction or teach about Jesus ?

I believe in ONE Catholic (universal) church and that is the Invisible Church - everyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and not one true building. It has no basis in the bible.

Lilly they cannot see or understand the invisible things of God. They are carnal and all that is outward. facts and evidences, tangible things and rites and ritual. Everthing that is dead. That is what Black Night MI went back to

[trifecta]

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

[.:Lily:.]

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic.

Lily, there are rules in the forum.

My comment is being approved by a moderator and it is not against the rules to state my belief about the papacy.

"Calling of the Pope does not help your argument."

I'll ask then why he mentioned the reformers to support his views about Mary?

If we are to follow what they taught, then here is what they said about the Pope: "The Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power."  – Martin Luther.

"Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?"

Yes, there is also a visible church. I belong to one. I can join any church. It does not matter where I go as long as it is biblical. I may visit a Cahtolic Church with some friends but I never want to be a member. That is ok. I reject a dogma not people.

"No, the church is not just about building, it never was."

I did not say it is. 

[mclees8]

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Trifecta many may believe that the pope is the antichrist. Personally I do not believe he is but is a false prophet. One who is guiding the church toward antichrist. Actually everthing the papal system is is  antichrist because it of the world and its politics It is not thee antichrist but walks hand and hand with Him

No one denies that there is the physical aspects of the church. Let me ask you who is the church and what makes the church the church?  We say to day we are going to church. We say what a quaint church that is. What a grand church with its architechure and steeples. Tradition has made the church a place we go. You say a gathering yes but what makes the gathering the church? Is it the order of priests with all its fancy apparel and ritual? is that what makes it the church?

[winsome]

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Trifecta many may believe that the pope is the antichrist. Personally I do not believe he is but is a false prophet. One who is guiding the church toward antichrist. Actually everthing the papal system is is  antichrist because it of the world and its politics It is not thee antichrist but walks hand and hand with Him

No one denies that there is the physical aspects of the church. Let me ask you who is the church and what makes the church the church?  We say to day we are going to church. We say what a quaint church that is. What a grand church with its architechure and steeples. Tradition has made the church a place we go. You say a gathering yes but what makes the gathering the church? Is it the order of priests with all its fancy apparel and ritual? is that what makes it the church?

Mclees

Please read this and do not just skim it and ignore it.

Ignatius of Antioch (also called Theophorus) died probably around 107 -110 AD, though the Catholic Encyclopedia gives a range of 98-117 AD. The Church historian Eusebius said he was a bishop for 40, so although his death and major writings are in the second century, most of his episcopate is in the first. He was a contemporary of some of the apostles. Indeed Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) says he was appointed to the see of Antioch by St. Peter himself and was the third bishop there, Peter himself being the first (before he moved to Rome). He and his friend Polycarp were reputed to be disciples of the apostles John.

Ignatius of Antioch was therefore a bishop contemporary with some of the Apostles. He was martyred during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, (98-117 AD). During his long journey, by sea and land to his martyrdom in Rome, he met up with delegations from various churches and wrote letters to six churches and his friend Polycarp.  These letters are a valuable source for understanding the Church in the sub-apostolic times.

He can tell us much about the Church in those early sub-apostolic times. Here are some extracts of those letters he wrote:

Ignatius.... I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. (Letter to the Philadephians, Greeting)

Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. ...... Do nothing without the bishop. (Letter to the Philadelphians Ch 7)

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. (Letter to the Trallians Ch 3)

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (Letter to the Magnesians. Ch 6). 

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. (Letter to the Symrnaeans Ch 8)

Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. (Letter to Polycarp Ch 6)

It is clear that the Church was hierarchical with Bishops, Priests (presbyters) and Deacons and it was one Church. In fact Ignatius was very concerned about them keeping unity with each other.

[mclees8]

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Trifecta many may believe that the pope is the antichrist. Personally I do not believe he is but is a false prophet. One who is guiding the church toward antichrist. Actually everthing the papal system is is  antichrist because it of the world and its politics It is not thee antichrist but walks hand and hand with Him

No one denies that there is the physical aspects of the church. Let me ask you who is the church and what makes the church the church?  We say to day we are going to church. We say what a quaint church that is. What a grand church with its architechure and steeples. Tradition has made the church a place we go. You say a gathering yes but what makes the gathering the church? Is it the order of priests with all its fancy apparel and ritual? is that what makes it the church?

Mclees

Please read this and do not just skim it and ignore it.

Ignatius of Antioch (also called Theophorus) died probably around 107 -110 AD, though the Catholic Encyclopedia gives a range of 98-117 AD. The Church historian Eusebius said he was a bishop for 40, so although his death and major writings are in the second century, most of his episcopate is in the first. He was a contemporary of some of the apostles. Indeed Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) says he was appointed to the see of Antioch by St. Peter himself and was the third bishop there, Peter himself being the first (before he moved to Rome). He and his friend Polycarp were reputed to be disciples of the apostles John.

Ignatius of Antioch was therefore a bishop contemporary with some of the Apostles. He was martyred during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, (98-117 AD). During his long journey, by sea and land to his martyrdom in Rome, he met up with delegations from various churches and wrote letters to six churches and his friend Polycarp.  These letters are a valuable source for understanding the Church in the sub-apostolic times.

He can tell us much about the Church in those early sub-apostolic times. Here are some extracts of those letters he wrote:

Ignatius.... I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. (Letter to the Philadephians, Greeting)

Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. ...... Do nothing without the bishop. (Letter to the Philadelphians Ch 7)

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. (Letter to the Trallians Ch 3)

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (Letter to the Magnesians. Ch 6). 

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. (Letter to the Symrnaeans Ch 8)

Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. (Letter to Polycarp Ch 6)

It is clear that the Church was hierarchical with Bishops, Priests (presbyters) and Deacons and it was one Church. In fact Ignatius was very concerned about them keeping unity with each other.

Yes I hear the constant drumbeat. It is all come to be so twisted. The apsotles were the first leaders of the church. They were not the church themselves. You take from anything that sounds like the priestly order is solely the church, yet they are not the church itself. Bishops are true leaders when they are humble in spirit and not pounding the drum authority authority authority as one who is drunk with it. In all that i read of the apostles not one pounded such a drum, yet this is the whole drive of the papacy with all their grand show pius ways.

Your drive is that the church is only a phyisacal earthly entity. Yes we must me subject to those who are established over us but there was one other even more important gift Jesus gave to all of us and that is what you adamently despise and that is the relationship and personal communion with the father throught the holy Spirit who he gives to all who disire Him. Not one commnication that you presented even mentions the Holy Spirit. Its all about men and position and adhearence to authority. You wonder why i charge you as carnal. The carnal is all you ever speak of. even now I doubt you will understand the invisible things of God yet the New Testament church is estalished in them. How is it that you deny them so.

[winsome]

Yes I hear the constant drumbeat.

What is that supposed to mean?

Anything or nothing?

It is all come to be so twisted.

What is twisted and why is it twisted

The apsotles were the first leaders of the church. theywere were not the church themselves. You take from anything that sounds like the priestly order is solely the church, yet they are not the church itself.

Of course the Church is not just the hierarchy. It is both clergy and laity. The Church is visible and not just an invisible mystical group pf people. It has a structure.

Bishops are true leaders when they are humble in spirit and not pounding the drum authority authority authority as one who is drunk with it. In all that i read of the apsotles not one pounded such a drum, yet this is the whole drive of the papacy with all their grand show pius ways.

To put it politely that is a bunch of cr*p. Yes the best leaders are humble in spirit but they come in all shapes, sizes and temperaments, just like all of us.

You drive is that the church is only a phyisacal earthly entity.

Wrong again. That is not what we say.

The Church is both visible and invisible. It has a visible presence and structure. But as the Mystical Body of Christ, encompassing all Christians it is also in a sense, invisible.

Yes we must me subject to those who are established over us but there was one other even more important gift Jesus gave to all of us and that is what you adamently despise and that is the relationship and personal communion with the father throught the holy Spirit who he gives to all who disire Him.

We do not adamantly despise any such thing.

Not one commnication that you presented even mentions the Holy Spirit. Its all avbout men and position and adhearence to authority. You wonder why i charge you as carnal. The carnal is all you ever speak of. even now I doubt you will understand the invisible things of God yet the New Testament church is estalished in them. How is i the deny them so.

That is all so untrue. I don't know how you have the gall to write it.

[LightHammer]

Then there's the point of context. Mclees and the others claim we focus too much on the authority of the papacy and the clergy when in fact it is actually their fault that such an emphasis is made. It is they who actively try to discredit the validity of our leadership and so when we react to defend that legitimacy (more adamantly than they attack) they claim all we care about is temporal power and carnal hierarchy.

We wouldn't have to mention the authority of the bishops if heretics wouldn't continuously try to attack such. The Pope would not have to continuously make a point of his primacy if his brother bishops, the laity, non Catholics and non Christians wouldn't feel the need to try to usurp such wind every strange wind that blows.

Why did the Pope assert the supremamcy of St. Peter to a appoint that caused the Great Schism? Because the East sought to support the supremacy of the Emperor.

Why did the Pope promulgate Unam Sanctam? Because of King Henry VIII and other kings trying to lay claim to authoirty that is passed on only by the laying on of hands from the Apostles, to his succescor, to his successor and so on.

Papal Infallibility? The same.

Its always a bunch of heretics fueled by some overexaggerated form of nationalism or pride that come in and try to rip the Rock of the Church apart to form the foundations for their state and be subjugated to the state.

Look at this forum. Look at how many threads the Catholics actually start and see how many of them are focused on things like authority, hierarchy and the like. You will find that almost none of the Catholic posters here are oreinted in that way. We usually start topics realted to devotion, theology and other things pertinent to the every day aspects of living out our faith.

Its only when outsiders come in and attack do you see us actually have discussions like these and even then it is to refute those attacks.

[Lively Stone]

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Lilly and Mclees,

Name calling is not a substitute for arguments.  Lily, there are rules in the forum.
We can disagree but please follow the rules.  You don't understand Christian history
if you think Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity. I am sure you are being
honest, but it is insulting and name calling of the Pope does not help your argument.

The scriptures themselves say that the church is the foundation of the truth. (I Tim 3:15).
In fact, the church gave us the NT. 

Church, in its most  basic definition, is a gathering.  How can a gathering be invisible?
No one believed in the "invisible church" until the Protestants invented it for the simple
reason they could not claim to be in the actual physical church.

No, the church is not just about building, it never was. 

Finally, mcLees, I don't appreciate the word "carnal" being applied to the church.
I believe the church must be physical (as well as spiritual) because its head, Jesus Christ,
is both physical and spiritual.   If you are equating physical with carnal, then I am carnal, but
by using the c word you have equated physical with bad stuff, when in fact when God made the
physical world he said it was good.

You can do better. By the way, I am not Catholic. 

Trifecta many may believe that the pope is the antichrist. Personally I do not believe he is but is a false prophet. One who is guiding the church toward antichrist. Actually everthing the papal system is is  antichrist because it of the world and its politics It is not thee antichrist but walks hand and hand with Him

No one denies that there is the physical aspects of the church. Let me ask you who is the church and what makes the church the church?  We say to day we are going to church. We say what a quaint church that is. What a grand church with its architechure and steeples. Tradition has made the church a place we go. You say a gathering yes but what makes the gathering the church? Is it the order of priests with all its fancy apparel and ritual? is that what makes it the church?

Mclees

Please read this and do not just skim it and ignore it.

Ignatius of Antioch (also called Theophorus) died probably around 107 -110 AD, though the Catholic Encyclopedia gives a range of 98-117 AD. The Church historian Eusebius said he was a bishop for 40, so although his death and major writings are in the second century, most of his episcopate is in the first. He was a contemporary of some of the apostles. Indeed Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) says he was appointed to the see of Antioch by St. Peter himself and was the third bishop there, Peter himself being the first (before he moved to Rome). He and his friend Polycarp were reputed to be disciples of the apostles John.

Ignatius of Antioch was therefore a bishop contemporary with some of the Apostles. He was martyred during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, (98-117 AD). During his long journey, by sea and land to his martyrdom in Rome, he met up with delegations from various churches and wrote letters to six churches and his friend Polycarp.  These letters are a valuable source for understanding the Church in the sub-apostolic times.

He can tell us much about the Church in those early sub-apostolic times. Here are some extracts of those letters he wrote:

Ignatius.... I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. (Letter to the Philadephians, Greeting)

Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. ...... Do nothing without the bishop. (Letter to the Philadelphians Ch 7)

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. (Letter to the Trallians Ch 3)

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (Letter to the Magnesians. Ch 6). 

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. (Letter to the Symrnaeans Ch 8)

Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. (Letter to Polycarp Ch 6)

It is clear that the Church was hierarchical with Bishops, Priests (presbyters) and Deacons and it was one Church. In fact Ignatius was very concerned about them keeping unity with each other.

Yes I hear the constant drumbeat. It is all come to be so twisted. The apsotles were the first leaders of the church. They were not the church themselves. You take from anything that sounds like the priestly order is solely the church, yet they are not the church itself. Bishops are true leaders when they are humble in spirit and not pounding the drum authority authority authority as one who is drunk with it. In all that i read of the apostles not one pounded such a drum, yet this is the whole drive of the papacy with all their grand show pius ways.

Your drive is that the church is only a phyisacal earthly entity. Yes we must me subject to those who are established over us but there was one other even more important gift Jesus gave to all of us and that is what you adamently despise and that is the relationship and personal communion with the father throught the holy Spirit who he gives to all who disire Him. Not one commnication that you presented even mentions the Holy Spirit. Its all about men and position and adhearence to authority. You wonder why i charge you as carnal. The carnal is all you ever speak of. even now I doubt you will understand the invisible things of God yet the New Testament church is estalished in them. How is it that you deny them so.

Good post.

A true leader is a servant, and all believers are called to be leaders.

[mclees8]

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

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

[LightHammer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[trifecta]

Lily,

You may some good points.  I guess thinking the Pope is the antichrist is just your viewpoint.
I guess that's okay.

Yes, there is also a visible church. I belong to one. I can join any church. It does not matter where I go as long as it is biblical. I may visit a Cahtolic Church with some friends but I never want to be a member. That is ok. I reject a dogma not people.

What makes a church "biblical"?  Is the RCC a biblical church?  They use the Bible in all their services.
There is no answer to what churches are biblical because Protestants have no way of defining it.

Your real question is, "Does a church agree with my interpretation of the Bible?"  Hey, I don't mind this.  My church does it too, but certain (most) Protestants say their view is "biblical" rather than the truth, their view is reformational, not "biblical" nor in congruence with the early church.

[trifecta]

No one denies that there is the physical aspects of the church.

Yet my church is "carnal" and yours is not.  What makes your church physical and not carnal?

Let me ask you who is the church and what makes the church the church?

Look at the NT.  It says lots of things about the church.  Firstly, it's a gathering-not an invisible group that never meets.  Secondly, it is the possessor of the truth (I Tim 3:15).  To safeguard this truth, it has people to guard it.  The Bible mentions bishop, presbyter, and deacon: so it has a human resource structure.  We also meet in council to determine the truth of fads in Christianity, another way of guarding the truth (Acts 15).  The gathering meets to praise, read scripture, have communion, and read liturgy (Acts 2:42).
It has baptism  and other important occasional physical rituals.  It is not just thinking about things.
Finally, it is the witness not only to the world but beyond (Acts 3:10)!  A mind-boggling idea!

We say to day we are going to church. We say what a quaint church that is. What a grand church with its architechure and steeples. Tradition has made the church a place we go. You say a gathering yes but what makes the gathering the church? Is it the order of priests with all its fancy apparel and ritual? is that what makes it the church?

The fancy stuff may not be your cup of tea, but it appeals to a great many people.  To be honest,
it's not my thing either.  However, I'm warming up to it:  My church looks toward the future when the king will rule in royal splendor.  The robes reflect that.  As for ritual, there is nothing wrong with that. 
Rituals exist to emphasize the importance of the occasion.   Ritual is very biblical and ensures correct practice, while lack of ritual, such as being "led by the spirit" often leads to division and questioning of already settled issues.

Thanks for reading.

[mclees8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

[LightHammer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

You are a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

[.:Lily:.]

"What makes a church "biblical"?  Is the RCC a biblical church?  They use the Bible in all their services."

Yes, I know they use it in their services and it is another gospel. I'm saved by faith alone in Jesus alone and by grace alone.

Your real question is, "Does a church agree with my interpretation of the Bible?"

I think my real question is: "Is the Church Catholic?"  I can probably join any other church. 

but certain (most) Protestants say their view is "biblical" rather than the truth, their view is reformational, not "biblical" nor in congruence with the early church.

I disagree

[mclees8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

You are a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mclees8]

this is from wicki

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

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

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

[.:Lily:.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

You are a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen brother.

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

[LightHammer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

You are a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are dodging your lies and trying to shift focus away from your error.

1. You stated that the Popes used the Donations of Constantine to amass poltical power and wealth. LIE.

The Donations of Constantine did not give the Pope any power and the only Pope that history confirms to have even used the document was a Pope in dialogue with the Eastern bishops.

2. You stated that the Pope got his temporal authority from the Donations of Constantine. LIE.

The Pope got his temporal power (the Papal States) from the french king Pepin and that had nothing to do with the Donations of Constantine. Pepin gave the Pope a gift of land (the Papal States) to thank him for his help in establishing his dynasty over France. A dynasty responsible for restoring civilization to a Europe in chaos after the fall of the heathen Roman Empire.

You are continuously lie over and over again. Its disgusting and shameful. I honestly question whether or not you are an atheist posing as a Christian on this forum just the spread untrues.

[FireSword]

Mcless 8 posted a wiki article and is a true brother of the faith. If theres any aethist here it's most likely one or two Catholics here, who believe in church more than God.

[LightHammer]

this is from wicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LightHammer]

Mcless 8 posted a wiki article and is a true brother of the faith. If theres any aethist here it's most likely one or two Catholics here, who believe in church more than God.

Anybody can post an article. That means little if a so called believer is not compelled by his so called faith to actually understand the heritage of his faith and how it has evolved and worked throughout the centuries.

[FireSword]

Mcless 8 posted a wiki article and is a true brother of the faith. If theres any aethist here it's most likely one or two Catholics here, who believe in church more than God.

Anybody can post an article. That means little if a so called believer is not compelled by his so called faith to actually understand the heritage of his faith and how it has evolved and worked throughout the centuries.

Yes. The church has evolved and today we have protestants who have help develop the church the way Christ intended and intends.

[winsome]

this is from wicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good points LH.

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

For those that are interested here is some history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then came Islam

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

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

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

[winsome]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

You are a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen brother.

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

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

[FireSword]

You've posted same info twice winsome. Also its too simple to say Muslim invaded, I think there were different Muslim empires,who fought each other and this tension still exists today, between kurds, Turks, Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, Saracens, Assyrians and so on.

[.:Lily:.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

You are a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen brother.

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

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

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


I have a question:

What makes a person a Catholic lol?

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

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

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

[winsome]

You've posted same info twice winsome. Also its too simple to say Muslim invaded, I think there were different Muslim empires,who fought each other and this tension still exists today, between kurds, Turks, Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, Saracens, Assyrians and so on.

It doesn't matter which branch of Islam invaded Christian countries. The point is they were invaded. It was a very turbulent time.
Yes  noticed the doubling & corrected it.

[winsome]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donations of Constantine  catholic encyclopedia

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

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

You are a liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen brother.

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

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

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


I have a question:

What makes a person a Catholic lol?

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

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

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

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

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

[mclees8]

this is from wicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good points LH.

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

For those that are interested here is some history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then came Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LightHammer]

this is from wicki

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good points LH.

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

For those that are interested here is some history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then came Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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