Question for LH

[mclees8]

Question for LH. do you base truth on just historical records and such. In other words do you believe that what is presented from history is absolute truth because it is correct history

[LightHammer]

1. You could've easily just sent me a pm.

2. I think history matters and not the gut feelings or personal intuitions that most here used to condemn the Church. When you say the Catholic Church is a false church you say so because of her history.

If your knowledge of her history is false then your positions are also false.

If I hate America because I think Americans have historically practiced cannabalism and human sacrificing then my hatred is rooted on falsehood.

Your opposition to the Church (based on the reasons you have presented) is based on falsehood and misunderstanding.

[mclees8]

1. You could've easily just sent me a pm.

2. I think history matters and not the gut feelings or personal intuitions that most here used to condemn the Church. When you say the Catholic Church is a false church you say so because of her history.

If your knowledge of her history is false then your positions are also false.

If I hate America because I think Americans have historically practiced cannabalism and human sacrificing then my hatred is rooted on falsehood.

Your opposition to the Church (based on the reasons you have presented) is based on falsehood and misunderstanding.

Thanks for responding. You know there is a lot to said for gut feelings. Over the years I have learned to trust them.  In this case though it is more than gut feelings. You think correct history then realy tells the truth justifies that everyone else is wrong. Its more like a horse that loves its blinders.

I have done a lot of studying over the last 24 hrs. All about the Middle ages Now called Byzantine, about the papal states the denotion of Pepin and the crowning of his son Charlimaine It seems you just can't get away from the donation forgery. Here is what it says In the New world Encyclopedia

The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks by German historian Hieronymus Wolf (1516–1580), who introduced a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from Medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. Standardization of the term did not occur until the seventeenth century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Hieronymus Wolf himself was influenced by the rift caused by the ninth century dispute between Romans (Byzantines as we render them today) and Franks, who, under Charlemagne's newly formed empire, and in concert with the Pope, attempted to legitimize their conquests by claiming inheritance of Roman rights in Italy thereby renouncing their eastern neighbors as true Romans. The Donation of Constantine, one of the most famous forged documents in history, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) that was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum," "Graecia," "Terra Graecorum" or even "Imperium Constantinopolitanus."
The Donation of Constantine claimed to bequeath to the Pope absolute authority in temporal as well as spiritual affairs, which meant that in the West all political power was in theory delegated by the Pope to the princes. No prince or king could succeed to the throne without papal blessing.

It was all about the seat of power that they saw themselves as. they wanted to be seen as the religioius political power of God upon the earth having divine authority. This was all important but having to forge a document sayng that constantine gave it then showed that there idea of being Christ vicors was a shame. They wanted the power to establish or veto kings and princes  as i found out they fancied a time when Samuel be hight priest crowned Saul king of Israel.  There dream came true with the crowning of Charlemgaine.

With the crowning of the Carolingian leader Charles "the Great" by Pope Leo III in Rome of Christmas Day in 800 C.E.—a symbolic act recalling the coronation of Saul by the high priest Samuel and consolidation of the tribes of Israel into a monarchy some two thousand years earlier—Charlemagne assumed leadership of a new Holy (Christian) Roman Empire. Sometimes called the "father of Europe," Charlemagne fostered a "Carolingian renaissance" in politics, church affairs, and arts and learning.

The pope's role in Charlemagne's and later coronations lent new authority to the papacy, and the Church and secular rulers grew closely allied in a hierarchical system characteristic of the Middle Ages. At the height of influence in the thirteenth century, the Roman Church and its papal head exercised unprecedented power, conferring temporal authority upon kings and governing everyday affairs of the common people through a ubiquitous ecclesiastical infrastructure that fashioned Europe into a unified Christendom

Listen to this tid bit. Pope gregory saw things the way I do but listen tot the resonse

Calls for Reform
Papal preoccupation with temporal power and with the trappings of power had its critics. Various movements within the Church and outside as well called for a return to the care of souls and spiritual leadership. Critics, starting with the Gregorian movement under Pope Gregory VII, pointed out how the wealth, power and property of the church seemed to be a far cry from the simple life-style lived by Jesus. The Popes tended to reply that without power they could not fulfill their mandate as vicars of Christ on earth wielding temporal authority as well as spiritual on his behalf. Pope Boniface VIII is reported to have said, "Emperor! I am the Emperor." They wore the imperial purple, "the red buskins of imperial office together with the gilt shoes and spurs, with the great sword in his hand and the cross on his breast."[5]

does history  tell the truth? Not always but this time it does. You will see no problem but hats because you prefer being blind.  talk about your delusions of grandeur

[winsome]

 mclees, you seem to view everything about the Catholic Church though a distorted lens of obsession about power. Even your idea of history is to pick out little nuggets of anti-Catholic comments from wherever you can find them.

History has to be understood in context and it's not simple. You leap around between centuries as though they were all one without any context.

With the crowning of the Carolingian leader Charles "the Great" by Pope Leo III in Rome of Christmas Day in 800 C.E.—a symbolic act recalling the coronation of Saul by the high priest Samuel and consolidation of the tribes of Israel into a monarchy some two thousand years earlier—Charlemagne assumed leadership of a new Holy (Christian) Roman Empire. Sometimes called the "father of Europe," Charlemagne fostered a "Carolingian renaissance" in politics, church affairs, and arts and learning.

Context – In 799 an attempt was made to assassinate Leo III, and after being ill treated he fled to Charlemagne in Paderborn. He returned to Rome and Charlemagne arrived there in November 800. Where is the comparison to Samuel and Saul? It's ludicrous.

Then, less 40 years later Gregory IV had to cope with the power struggle in Europe between the four sons of Louis The Pious (Charlemagne's son) which culminated in the fall of the Carolingian Empire, and also with the threat of a Saracen invasion. He fortified Rome's port of Ostia. However in the Pontificate of his successor Ostia fell to the Saracens and parts of Rome were sacked, including St. Peter's Basilica. It fell to his successor, Leo IV,  to fortify the walls of Rome.

They were turbulent times. The Popes were doing their best to look after Jesus' sheep, and that meant physically as well as spiritually.

[mclees8]

mclees, you seem to view everything about the Catholic Church though a distorted lens of obsession about power. Even your idea of history is to pick out little nuggets of anti-Catholic comments from wherever you can find them.

History has to be understood in context and it's not simple. You leap around between centuries as though they were all one without any context.

With the crowning of the Carolingian leader Charles "the Great" by Pope Leo III in Rome of Christmas Day in 800 C.E.—a symbolic act recalling the coronation of Saul by the high priest Samuel and consolidation of the tribes of Israel into a monarchy some two thousand years earlier—Charlemagne assumed leadership of a new Holy (Christian) Roman Empire. Sometimes called the "father of Europe," Charlemagne fostered a "Carolingian renaissance" in politics, church affairs, and arts and learning.

Context – In 799 an attempt was made to assassinate Leo III, and after being ill treated he fled to Charlemagne in Paderborn. He returned to Rome and Charlemagne arrived there in November 800. Where is the comparison to Samuel and Saul? It's ludicrous.

Then, less 40 years later Gregory IV had to cope with the power struggle in Europe between the four sons of Louis The Pious (Charlemagne's son) which culminated in the fall of the Carolingian Empire, and also with the threat of a Saracen invasion. He fortified Rome's port of Ostia. However in the Pontificate of his successor Ostia fell to the Saracens and parts of Rome were sacked, including St. Peter's Basilica. It fell to his successor, Leo IV,  to fortify the walls of Rome.

They were turbulent times. The Popes were doing their best to look after Jesus' sheep, and that meant physically as well as spiritually.

Yes I'm sure they were.
You know that every great wave crashes on the shore. then it gets replaced by another great wave and that to will crash. Let say Jesus and that would be ludicrouse, Excepted satans offer to have the whole world. He could settled all right then. He could have been the worlds relgious and political messiah yet he chose to do the will of the Father. You see it was not Gods will to clean up the world or for the church rule it. turbulent times have always been. It the world we live in. It is also a world of ambition arrogance

[LightHammer]

1. You could've easily just sent me a pm.

2. I think history matters and not the gut feelings or personal intuitions that most here used to condemn the Church. When you say the Catholic Church is a false church you say so because of her history.

If your knowledge of her history is false then your positions are also false.

If I hate America because I think Americans have historically practiced cannabalism and human sacrificing then my hatred is rooted on falsehood.

Your opposition to the Church (based on the reasons you have presented) is based on falsehood and misunderstanding.

Thanks for responding. You know there is a lot to said for gut feelings. Over the years I have learned to trust them.  In this case though it is more than gut feelings. You think correct history then realy tells the truth justifies that everyone else is wrong. Its more like a horse that loves its blinders.

I have done a lot of studying over the last 24 hrs. All about the Middle ages Now called Byzantine, about the papal states the denotion of Pepin and the crowning of his son Charlimaine It seems you just can't get away from the donation forgery. Here is what it says In the New world Encyclopedia

The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks by German historian Hieronymus Wolf (1516–1580), who introduced a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from Medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. Standardization of the term did not occur until the seventeenth century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Hieronymus Wolf himself was influenced by the rift caused by the ninth century dispute between Romans (Byzantines as we render them today) and Franks, who, under Charlemagne's newly formed empire, and in concert with the Pope, attempted to legitimize their conquests by claiming inheritance of Roman rights in Italy thereby renouncing their eastern neighbors as true Romans. The Donation of Constantine, one of the most famous forged documents in history, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) that was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum," "Graecia," "Terra Graecorum" or even "Imperium Constantinopolitanus."
The Donation of Constantine claimed to bequeath to the Pope absolute authority in temporal as well as spiritual affairs, which meant that in the West all political power was in theory delegated by the Pope to the princes. No prince or king could succeed to the throne without papal blessing.

It was all about the seat of power that they saw themselves as. they wanted to be seen as the religioius political power of God upon the earth having divine authority. This was all important but having to forge a document sayng that constantine gave it then showed that there idea of being Christ vicors was a shame. They wanted the power to establish or veto kings and princes  as i found out they fancied a time when Samuel be hight priest crowned Saul king of Israel.  There dream came true with the crowning of Charlemgaine.

With the crowning of the Carolingian leader Charles "the Great" by Pope Leo III in Rome of Christmas Day in 800 C.E.—a symbolic act recalling the coronation of Saul by the high priest Samuel and consolidation of the tribes of Israel into a monarchy some two thousand years earlier—Charlemagne assumed leadership of a new Holy (Christian) Roman Empire. Sometimes called the "father of Europe," Charlemagne fostered a "Carolingian renaissance" in politics, church affairs, and arts and learning.

The pope's role in Charlemagne's and later coronations lent new authority to the papacy, and the Church and secular rulers grew closely allied in a hierarchical system characteristic of the Middle Ages. At the height of influence in the thirteenth century, the Roman Church and its papal head exercised unprecedented power, conferring temporal authority upon kings and governing everyday affairs of the common people through a ubiquitous ecclesiastical infrastructure that fashioned Europe into a unified Christendom

Listen to this tid bit. Pope gregory saw things the way I do but listen tot the resonse

Calls for Reform
Papal preoccupation with temporal power and with the trappings of power had its critics. Various movements within the Church and outside as well called for a return to the care of souls and spiritual leadership. Critics, starting with the Gregorian movement under Pope Gregory VII, pointed out how the wealth, power and property of the church seemed to be a far cry from the simple life-style lived by Jesus. The Popes tended to reply that without power they could not fulfill their mandate as vicars of Christ on earth wielding temporal authority as well as spiritual on his behalf. Pope Boniface VIII is reported to have said, "Emperor! I am the Emperor." They wore the imperial purple, "the red buskins of imperial office together with the gilt shoes and spurs, with the great sword in his hand and the cross on his breast."[5]

does history  tell the truth? Not always but this time it does. You will see no problem but hats because you prefer being blind.  talk about your delusions of grandeur

1. 24 hrs? I guess its a start.

2. The"Middle Ages" is term that denotes a period in history. "Byzantine" is term that refers to the eastern Christian empire. The two terms are not interchangable.

So no the "middle ages" are not now refered to as "byzantine". That would be like someone saying the term "Reconstruction Era" was replaced by the term "the South". Completely incorrect.

3. Skimming through an article and running with it only further proves your deceitful heart. You are not concerned with truth but with slander. If you cared about truth and an accurate understandig of Christianity you would not have spent 30 minutes on Google, 10 minutes reading an article less than two pages and you would not have returned here and claim to have spent 24 hrs doing what high schoolers do in 1 hr to finish a paper they don't want to do. However since you at least attempted to halfway dive into the history of Christianity I'll act like I believe you sincerely care about my faith.

4. The Donations of Constantine did not attempt to legitimize the newly formed Holy Roman Empire. It was already legitimate. The East was no longer even really Roman since it did not hold the city of Rome. (Kind of hard to be a "Roman" Empire without oh I don't know Old Rome).

I'm black so I don't really care to argue the old "heir of ancient Rome" case but seeing how the east was primarily Greek and was annihilated by Persians I don't think the ancient Romans would care to have their legacy vested in them.

5. The Donation of Constantine was used to support the supremacy of the Pope and the apostolic successors over the emperor. I think you're missing the main controversy here and so the Donations of Constantine doesn't make much since to you because it is simply one argument or piece of evidence in that case.

When Christianity became the official religion of the empire the question of leadership and power came into play. Why is this the case? The Empire did not simply become Christian it literally became apart of the Church itself. This radically changes things. In ancient Rome the state (both republic and empire) were held to be divinely established. The Emperor of Rome was thought to derive his authority as emperor from the gods because he was a son of one of the gods (I think it was Venus/Aphrodite).

Well now that the empire is Christian with only one God and only one divine Son of God, where does the emperor get his divine authority from? To the Pope and the western bishops the answer was simple. In our faith Christ holds all authority on heaven and earth and here on earth He left His authority to the Apostles and they their successors. Basically the emperor and the state get their authority from the bishops who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles. That is why the in the west kings were known as "Princes of the Church". The Church only has Christ as a King so the kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire were principalities (or under the power of a Christian "prince" called a king)  with Christ ultimately as King of Kings.

3. However in the East an entirely different idea of power came to be. In the minds of the eastern bishops power in a Christian kingdom did flow from Christ but to them that authority resided primarily with the Christian Emperor with the bishops and the entire Church on Earth being subject to him. He was called God's Viceregent on Earth, An Equal to the Apostles and Head of the Church on Earth. The emperor could appoint and remove bishops at will and regulate Church affairs at his leisure.

To the Pope and the western bishops this borderlined on heresy. To them Christ specifically gave His authority to the Apostles and the Apostles to the bishops. An emperor can not by his own right be head of the Church on earth. The Apostles are the ones who lead the Church on earth and their successors likewise inherit that mission. This was the controversy that the Donations of Constantine were used in.

The above mindset was prevalent in the East. Only in Egypt was there any eastern opposition to the supremacy an the emperor. The Egyptian bishops took a third route and called for a separation of powers. The authority of the state would be completely self-sufficient and the Church would be likewise. The two would work in consort for the sake of the empire but neither had jurisdiction in either's realm of society.

This didn't gain ground so some desparate western cleric paniced and forged a document saying Constantine had recognized the supremacy of the Apostles successors.

Now what exactly are you not understanding here?

[mclees8]

1. You could've easily just sent me a pm.

2. I think history matters and not the gut feelings or personal intuitions that most here used to condemn the Church. When you say the Catholic Church is a false church you say so because of her history.

If your knowledge of her history is false then your positions are also false.

If I hate America because I think Americans have historically practiced cannabalism and human sacrificing then my hatred is rooted on falsehood.

Your opposition to the Church (based on the reasons you have presented) is based on falsehood and misunderstanding.

Thanks for responding. You know there is a lot to said for gut feelings. Over the years I have learned to trust them.  In this case though it is more than gut feelings. You think correct history then realy tells the truth justifies that everyone else is wrong. Its more like a horse that loves its blinders.

I have done a lot of studying over the last 24 hrs. All about the Middle ages Now called Byzantine, about the papal states the denotion of Pepin and the crowning of his son Charlimaine It seems you just can't get away from the donation forgery. Here is what it says In the New world Encyclopedia

The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks by German historian Hieronymus Wolf (1516–1580), who introduced a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from Medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. Standardization of the term did not occur until the seventeenth century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Hieronymus Wolf himself was influenced by the rift caused by the ninth century dispute between Romans (Byzantines as we render them today) and Franks, who, under Charlemagne's newly formed empire, and in concert with the Pope, attempted to legitimize their conquests by claiming inheritance of Roman rights in Italy thereby renouncing their eastern neighbors as true Romans. The Donation of Constantine, one of the most famous forged documents in history, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) that was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum," "Graecia," "Terra Graecorum" or even "Imperium Constantinopolitanus."
The Donation of Constantine claimed to bequeath to the Pope absolute authority in temporal as well as spiritual affairs, which meant that in the West all political power was in theory delegated by the Pope to the princes. No prince or king could succeed to the throne without papal blessing.

It was all about the seat of power that they saw themselves as. they wanted to be seen as the religioius political power of God upon the earth having divine authority. This was all important but having to forge a document sayng that constantine gave it then showed that there idea of being Christ vicors was a shame. They wanted the power to establish or veto kings and princes  as i found out they fancied a time when Samuel be hight priest crowned Saul king of Israel.  There dream came true with the crowning of Charlemgaine.

With the crowning of the Carolingian leader Charles "the Great" by Pope Leo III in Rome of Christmas Day in 800 C.E.—a symbolic act recalling the coronation of Saul by the high priest Samuel and consolidation of the tribes of Israel into a monarchy some two thousand years earlier—Charlemagne assumed leadership of a new Holy (Christian) Roman Empire. Sometimes called the "father of Europe," Charlemagne fostered a "Carolingian renaissance" in politics, church affairs, and arts and learning.

The pope's role in Charlemagne's and later coronations lent new authority to the papacy, and the Church and secular rulers grew closely allied in a hierarchical system characteristic of the Middle Ages. At the height of influence in the thirteenth century, the Roman Church and its papal head exercised unprecedented power, conferring temporal authority upon kings and governing everyday affairs of the common people through a ubiquitous ecclesiastical infrastructure that fashioned Europe into a unified Christendom

Listen to this tid bit. Pope gregory saw things the way I do but listen tot the resonse

Calls for Reform
Papal preoccupation with temporal power and with the trappings of power had its critics. Various movements within the Church and outside as well called for a return to the care of souls and spiritual leadership. Critics, starting with the Gregorian movement under Pope Gregory VII, pointed out how the wealth, power and property of the church seemed to be a far cry from the simple life-style lived by Jesus. The Popes tended to reply that without power they could not fulfill their mandate as vicars of Christ on earth wielding temporal authority as well as spiritual on his behalf. Pope Boniface VIII is reported to have said, "Emperor! I am the Emperor." They wore the imperial purple, "the red buskins of imperial office together with the gilt shoes and spurs, with the great sword in his hand and the cross on his breast."[5]

does history  tell the truth? Not always but this time it does. You will see no problem but hats because you prefer being blind.  talk about your delusions of grandeur

1. 24 hrs? I guess its a start.

2. The"Middle Ages" is term that denotes a period in history. "Byzantine" is term that refers to the eastern Christian empire. The two terms are not interchangable.

So no the "middle ages" are not now refered to as "byzantine". That would be like someone saying the term "Reconstruction Era" was replaced by the term "the South". Completely incorrect.

3. Skimming through an article and running with it only further proves your deceitful heart. You are not concerned with truth but with slander. If you cared about truth and an accurate understandig of Christianity you would not have spent 30 minutes on Google, 10 minutes reading an article less than two pages and you would not have returned here and claim to have spent 24 hrs doing what high schoolers do in 1 hr to finish a paper they don't want to do. However since you at least attempted to halfway dive into the history of Christianity I'll act like I believe you sincerely care about my faith.

4. The Donations of Constantine did not attempt to legitimize the newly formed Holy Roman Empire. It was already legitimate. The East was no longer even really Roman since it did not hold the city of Rome. (Kind of hard to be a "Roman" Empire without oh I don't know Old Rome).

I'm black so I don't really care to argue the old "heir of ancient Rome" case but seeing how the east was primarily Greek and was annihilated by Persians I don't think the ancient Romans would care to have their legacy vested in them.

5. The Donation of Constantine was used to support the supremacy of the Pope and the apostolic successors over the emperor. I think you're missing the main controversy here and so the Donations of Constantine doesn't make much since to you because it is simply one argument or piece of evidence in that case.

When Christianity became the official religion of the empire the question of leadership and power came into play. Why is this the case? The Empire did not simply become Christian it literally became apart of the Church itself. This radically changes things. In ancient Rome the state (both republic and empire) were held to be divinely established. The Emperor of Rome was thought to derive his authority as emperor from the gods because he was a son of one of the gods (I think it was Venus/Aphrodite).

Well now that the empire is Christian with only one God and only one divine Son of God, where does the emperor get his divine authority from? To the Pope and the western bishops the answer was simple. In our faith Christ holds all authority on heaven and earth and here on earth He left His authority to the Apostles and they their successors. Basically the emperor and the state get their authority from the bishops who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles. That is why the in the west kings were known as "Princes of the Church". The Church only has Christ as a King so the kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire were principalities (or under the power of a Christian "prince" called a king)  with Christ ultimately as King of Kings.

3. However in the East an entirely different idea of power came to be. In the minds of the eastern bishops power in a Christian kingdom did flow from Christ but to them that authority resided primarily with the Christian Emperor with the bishops and the entire Church on Earth being subject to him. He was called God's Viceregent on Earth, An Equal to the Apostles and Head of the Church on Earth. The emperor could appoint and remove bishops at will and regulate Church affairs at his leisure.

To the Pope and the western bishops this borderlined on heresy. To them Christ specifically gave His authority to the Apostles and the Apostles to the bishops. An emperor can not by his own right be head of the Church on earth. The Apostles are the ones who lead the Church on earth and their successors likewise inherit that mission. This was the controversy that the Donations of Constantine were used in.

The above mindset was prevalent in the East. Only in Egypt was there any eastern opposition to the supremacy an the emperor. The Egyptian bishops took a third route and called for a separation of powers. The authority of the state would be completely self-sufficient and the Church would be likewise. The two would work in consort for the sake of the empire but neither had jurisdiction in either's realm of society.

This didn't gain ground so some desparate western cleric paniced and forged a document saying Constantine had recognized the supremacy of the Apostles successors.

Now what exactly are you not understanding here?

Im not finished yet.   I don't think everyone sees it your way. I suppose you could set every one strait with the ecyclopedea.  Rest assured God is not mocked. I have gut instincts and I trust them to be God given. the scripture comes to mind that says they will call evil good and good evil. God only knows the hearts of men and is a true judge of them. The question is still If they were already lagitimate as you say then why the forgery in the first place. Does God have to lie to secure his authority?  and the Byzantine thing I don't care what they choose to call it. I was not trying to skimm any thing but I do not intend to join some history class and get some degree. Maybe you have and thats goody for you. One thing i know for sure my salvation does no thang on your history lessons.

[LightHammer]

1. You could've easily just sent me a pm.

2. I think history matters and not the gut feelings or personal intuitions that most here used to condemn the Church. When you say the Catholic Church is a false church you say so because of her history.

If your knowledge of her history is false then your positions are also false.

If I hate America because I think Americans have historically practiced cannabalism and human sacrificing then my hatred is rooted on falsehood.

Your opposition to the Church (based on the reasons you have presented) is based on falsehood and misunderstanding.

Thanks for responding. You know there is a lot to said for gut feelings. Over the years I have learned to trust them.  In this case though it is more than gut feelings. You think correct history then realy tells the truth justifies that everyone else is wrong. Its more like a horse that loves its blinders.

I have done a lot of studying over the last 24 hrs. All about the Middle ages Now called Byzantine, about the papal states the denotion of Pepin and the crowning of his son Charlimaine It seems you just can't get away from the donation forgery. Here is what it says In the New world Encyclopedia

The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks by German historian Hieronymus Wolf (1516–1580), who introduced a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from Medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. Standardization of the term did not occur until the seventeenth century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Hieronymus Wolf himself was influenced by the rift caused by the ninth century dispute between Romans (Byzantines as we render them today) and Franks, who, under Charlemagne's newly formed empire, and in concert with the Pope, attempted to legitimize their conquests by claiming inheritance of Roman rights in Italy thereby renouncing their eastern neighbors as true Romans. The Donation of Constantine, one of the most famous forged documents in history, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) that was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum," "Graecia," "Terra Graecorum" or even "Imperium Constantinopolitanus."
The Donation of Constantine claimed to bequeath to the Pope absolute authority in temporal as well as spiritual affairs, which meant that in the West all political power was in theory delegated by the Pope to the princes. No prince or king could succeed to the throne without papal blessing.

It was all about the seat of power that they saw themselves as. they wanted to be seen as the religioius political power of God upon the earth having divine authority. This was all important but having to forge a document sayng that constantine gave it then showed that there idea of being Christ vicors was a shame. They wanted the power to establish or veto kings and princes  as i found out they fancied a time when Samuel be hight priest crowned Saul king of Israel.  There dream came true with the crowning of Charlemgaine.

With the crowning of the Carolingian leader Charles "the Great" by Pope Leo III in Rome of Christmas Day in 800 C.E.—a symbolic act recalling the coronation of Saul by the high priest Samuel and consolidation of the tribes of Israel into a monarchy some two thousand years earlier—Charlemagne assumed leadership of a new Holy (Christian) Roman Empire. Sometimes called the "father of Europe," Charlemagne fostered a "Carolingian renaissance" in politics, church affairs, and arts and learning.

The pope's role in Charlemagne's and later coronations lent new authority to the papacy, and the Church and secular rulers grew closely allied in a hierarchical system characteristic of the Middle Ages. At the height of influence in the thirteenth century, the Roman Church and its papal head exercised unprecedented power, conferring temporal authority upon kings and governing everyday affairs of the common people through a ubiquitous ecclesiastical infrastructure that fashioned Europe into a unified Christendom

Listen to this tid bit. Pope gregory saw things the way I do but listen tot the resonse

Calls for Reform
Papal preoccupation with temporal power and with the trappings of power had its critics. Various movements within the Church and outside as well called for a return to the care of souls and spiritual leadership. Critics, starting with the Gregorian movement under Pope Gregory VII, pointed out how the wealth, power and property of the church seemed to be a far cry from the simple life-style lived by Jesus. The Popes tended to reply that without power they could not fulfill their mandate as vicars of Christ on earth wielding temporal authority as well as spiritual on his behalf. Pope Boniface VIII is reported to have said, "Emperor! I am the Emperor." They wore the imperial purple, "the red buskins of imperial office together with the gilt shoes and spurs, with the great sword in his hand and the cross on his breast."[5]

does history  tell the truth? Not always but this time it does. You will see no problem but hats because you prefer being blind.  talk about your delusions of grandeur

1. 24 hrs? I guess its a start.

2. The"Middle Ages" is term that denotes a period in history. "Byzantine" is term that refers to the eastern Christian empire. The two terms are not interchangable.

So no the "middle ages" are not now refered to as "byzantine". That would be like someone saying the term "Reconstruction Era" was replaced by the term "the South". Completely incorrect.

3. Skimming through an article and running with it only further proves your deceitful heart. You are not concerned with truth but with slander. If you cared about truth and an accurate understandig of Christianity you would not have spent 30 minutes on Google, 10 minutes reading an article less than two pages and you would not have returned here and claim to have spent 24 hrs doing what high schoolers do in 1 hr to finish a paper they don't want to do. However since you at least attempted to halfway dive into the history of Christianity I'll act like I believe you sincerely care about my faith.

4. The Donations of Constantine did not attempt to legitimize the newly formed Holy Roman Empire. It was already legitimate. The East was no longer even really Roman since it did not hold the city of Rome. (Kind of hard to be a "Roman" Empire without oh I don't know Old Rome).

I'm black so I don't really care to argue the old "heir of ancient Rome" case but seeing how the east was primarily Greek and was annihilated by Persians I don't think the ancient Romans would care to have their legacy vested in them.

5. The Donation of Constantine was used to support the supremacy of the Pope and the apostolic successors over the emperor. I think you're missing the main controversy here and so the Donations of Constantine doesn't make much since to you because it is simply one argument or piece of evidence in that case.

When Christianity became the official religion of the empire the question of leadership and power came into play. Why is this the case? The Empire did not simply become Christian it literally became apart of the Church itself. This radically changes things. In ancient Rome the state (both republic and empire) were held to be divinely established. The Emperor of Rome was thought to derive his authority as emperor from the gods because he was a son of one of the gods (I think it was Venus/Aphrodite).

Well now that the empire is Christian with only one God and only one divine Son of God, where does the emperor get his divine authority from? To the Pope and the western bishops the answer was simple. In our faith Christ holds all authority on heaven and earth and here on earth He left His authority to the Apostles and they their successors. Basically the emperor and the state get their authority from the bishops who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles. That is why the in the west kings were known as "Princes of the Church". The Church only has Christ as a King so the kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire were principalities (or under the power of a Christian "prince" called a king)  with Christ ultimately as King of Kings.

3. However in the East an entirely different idea of power came to be. In the minds of the eastern bishops power in a Christian kingdom did flow from Christ but to them that authority resided primarily with the Christian Emperor with the bishops and the entire Church on Earth being subject to him. He was called God's Viceregent on Earth, An Equal to the Apostles and Head of the Church on Earth. The emperor could appoint and remove bishops at will and regulate Church affairs at his leisure.

To the Pope and the western bishops this borderlined on heresy. To them Christ specifically gave His authority to the Apostles and the Apostles to the bishops. An emperor can not by his own right be head of the Church on earth. The Apostles are the ones who lead the Church on earth and their successors likewise inherit that mission. This was the controversy that the Donations of Constantine were used in.

The above mindset was prevalent in the East. Only in Egypt was there any eastern opposition to the supremacy an the emperor. The Egyptian bishops took a third route and called for a separation of powers. The authority of the state would be completely self-sufficient and the Church would be likewise. The two would work in consort for the sake of the empire but neither had jurisdiction in either's realm of society.

This didn't gain ground so some desparate western cleric paniced and forged a document saying Constantine had recognized the supremacy of the Apostles successors.

Now what exactly are you not understanding here?

Im not finished yet.   I don't think everyone sees it your way. I suppose you could set every one strait with the ecyclopedea.  Rest assured God is not mocked. I have gut instincts and I trust them to be God given. the scripture comes to mind that says they will call evil good and good evil. God only knows the hearts of men and is a true judge of them. The question is still If they were already lagitimate as you say then why the forgery in the first place. Does God have to lie to secure his authority? 

You aren't being objective again.

1. You automatically assume that the Pope knew the document was a forgery. It seems rather unlikely given that it was a Roman priest who later reveals that the document was a forgery.

2. You assume that such scriptures refer to my position and not the position of the tradition you come from.

This is becoming a waste of my time. If every piece of history that you or your gut doesn't like is passed by as not true then there's nothing for us to talk about. God is not in you in this because you obviously don't care about the truth of these matters.

[mclees8]

Im not finished yet.   I don't think everyone sees it your way. I suppose you could set every one strait with the ecyclopedea.  Rest assured God is not mocked. I have gut instincts and I trust them to be God given. the scripture comes to mind that says they will call evil good and good evil. God only knows the hearts of men and is a true judge of them. The question is still If they were already lagitimate as you say then why the forgery in the first place. Does God have to lie to secure his authority? 




You aren't being objective again.

1. You automatically assume that the Pope knew the document was a forgery. It seems rather unlikely given that it was a Roman priest who later reveals that the document was a forgery.

2. You assume that such scriptures refer to my position and not the position of the tradition you come from.

This is becoming a waste of my time. If every piece of history that you or your gut doesn't like is passed by as not true then there's nothing for us to talk about. God is not in you in this because you obviously don't care about the truth of these matters.

Be sure i am not trying to waste your time. I am simply digging for truth. I understand that the document was done for convienice, being that when ever questions of the authority came up they just stood on the letter. As you said they already had the authority weather it was lagitimate or not.  It probably most benifited the church purpose close to the time it was wrote but the effect was for 700 years. Certainly someone knew of the future effect . Of course they also must have known that the jig would be up sooner or latter. In any  case the forgery was a huge success.  Certainly succeding popes would not know it was a forgery.  We know that the document only benefited the papacy. It is reasoalble then to assume that someone in and of the papacy knew of it. right ! The fact the writer is still not known is also convenient for just forwhat  you said.  So at least we can assume that one pope probably
knew. Your own encyclopedia mentions secular power. I will post it.

i don't undertstand you second comment

[winsome]

Im not finished yet.   I don't think everyone sees it your way. I suppose you could set every one strait with the ecyclopedea.  Rest assured God is not mocked. I have gut instincts and I trust them to be God given. the scripture comes to mind that says they will call evil good and good evil. God only knows the hearts of men and is a true judge of them. The question is still If they were already lagitimate as you say then why the forgery in the first place. Does God have to lie to secure his authority? 




You aren't being objective again.

1. You automatically assume that the Pope knew the document was a forgery. It seems rather unlikely given that it was a Roman priest who later reveals that the document was a forgery.

2. You assume that such scriptures refer to my position and not the position of the tradition you come from.

This is becoming a waste of my time. If every piece of history that you or your gut doesn't like is passed by as not true then there's nothing for us to talk about. God is not in you in this because you obviously don't care about the truth of these matters.

Be sure i am not trying to waste your time. I am simply digging for truth. I understand that the document was done for convienice, being that when ever questions of the authority came up they just stood on the letter. As you said they already had the authority weather it was lagitimate or not.  It probably most benifited the church purpose close to the time it was wrote but the effect was for 700 years. Certainly someone knew of the future effect . Of course they also must have known that the jig would be up sooner or latter. In any  case the forgery was a huge success.  Certainly succeding popes would not know it was a forgery.  We know that the document only benefited the papacy. It is reasoalble then to assume that someone in and of the papacy knew of it. right ! The fact the writer is still not known is also convenient for just forwhat  you said.  So at least we can assume that one pope probably
knew. Your own encyclopedia mentions secular power. I will post it.

i don't undertstand you second comment

mclees,

The problem with your posts is that they are 5% (or less) facts and 95% (or more) personal opinions.

History is facts + interpretations of those facts. But don't include interpretations as facts.

Also you ignore context. Someone commented on the radio todays that context is 70% of understanding and you tend to ignore context.

[mclees8]

Im not finished yet.   I don't think everyone sees it your way. I suppose you could set every one strait with the ecyclopedea.  Rest assured God is not mocked. I have gut instincts and I trust them to be God given. the scripture comes to mind that says they will call evil good and good evil. God only knows the hearts of men and is a true judge of them. The question is still If they were already lagitimate as you say then why the forgery in the first place. Does God have to lie to secure his authority? 




You aren't being objective again.

1. You automatically assume that the Pope knew the document was a forgery. It seems rather unlikely given that it was a Roman priest who later reveals that the document was a forgery.

2. You assume that such scriptures refer to my position and not the position of the tradition you come from.

This is becoming a waste of my time. If every piece of history that you or your gut doesn't like is passed by as not true then there's nothing for us to talk about. God is not in you in this because you obviously don't care about the truth of these matters.

Be sure i am not trying to waste your time. I am simply digging for truth. I understand that the document was done for convienice, being that when ever questions of the authority came up they just stood on the letter. As you said they already had the authority weather it was lagitimate or not.  It probably most benifited the church purpose close to the time it was wrote but the effect was for 700 years. Certainly someone knew of the future effect . Of course they also must have known that the jig would be up sooner or latter. In any  case the forgery was a huge success.  Certainly succeding popes would not know it was a forgery.  We know that the document only benefited the papacy. It is reasoalble then to assume that someone in and of the papacy knew of it. right ! The fact the writer is still not known is also convenient for just forwhat  you said.  So at least we can assume that one pope probably
knew. Your own encyclopedia mentions secular power. I will post it.

i don't undertstand you second comment

mclees,

The problem with your posts is that they are 5% (or less) facts and 95% (or more) personal opinions.

History is facts + interpretations of those facts. But don't include interpretations as facts.

Also you ignore context. Someone commented on the radio todays that context is 70% of understanding and you tend to ignore context.

Actually the problem here is apathy rock hard apathy at that. Secondly it is a failure to see all this in the true light of Gods purpose for His church.  You know I am not wasting your time as much as Iam wasting my own. If you really were going to see the truth you would have by now, but since you have not you will probaly  not see even if it smacked your in the head. Im going to give you a break now. 

God bless

[winsome]

Im not finished yet.   I don't think everyone sees it your way. I suppose you could set every one strait with the ecyclopedea.  Rest assured God is not mocked. I have gut instincts and I trust them to be God given. the scripture comes to mind that says they will call evil good and good evil. God only knows the hearts of men and is a true judge of them. The question is still If they were already lagitimate as you say then why the forgery in the first place. Does God have to lie to secure his authority? 




You aren't being objective again.

1. You automatically assume that the Pope knew the document was a forgery. It seems rather unlikely given that it was a Roman priest who later reveals that the document was a forgery.

2. You assume that such scriptures refer to my position and not the position of the tradition you come from.

This is becoming a waste of my time. If every piece of history that you or your gut doesn't like is passed by as not true then there's nothing for us to talk about. God is not in you in this because you obviously don't care about the truth of these matters.

Be sure i am not trying to waste your time. I am simply digging for truth. I understand that the document was done for convienice, being that when ever questions of the authority came up they just stood on the letter. As you said they already had the authority weather it was lagitimate or not.  It probably most benifited the church purpose close to the time it was wrote but the effect was for 700 years. Certainly someone knew of the future effect . Of course they also must have known that the jig would be up sooner or latter. In any  case the forgery was a huge success.  Certainly succeding popes would not know it was a forgery.  We know that the document only benefited the papacy. It is reasoalble then to assume that someone in and of the papacy knew of it. right ! The fact the writer is still not known is also convenient for just forwhat  you said.  So at least we can assume that one pope probably
knew. Your own encyclopedia mentions secular power. I will post it.

i don't undertstand you second comment

mclees,

The problem with your posts is that they are 5% (or less) facts and 95% (or more) personal opinions.

History is facts + interpretations of those facts. But don't include interpretations as facts.

Also you ignore context. Someone commented on the radio todays that context is 70% of understanding and you tend to ignore context.

Actually the problem here is apathy rock hard apathy at that. Secondly it is a failure to see all this in the true light of Gods purpose for His church.  You know I am not wasting your time as much as Iam wasting my own. If you really were going to see the truth you would have by now, but since you have not you will probaly  not see even if it smacked your in the head. Im going to give you a break now. 

God bless

You use words but all you give me is your rambling opinions.

I shall be glad of a break from you.

[mclees8]

Im not finished yet.   I don't think everyone sees it your way. I suppose you could set every one strait with the ecyclopedea.  Rest assured God is not mocked. I have gut instincts and I trust them to be God given. the scripture comes to mind that says they will call evil good and good evil. God only knows the hearts of men and is a true judge of them. The question is still If they were already lagitimate as you say then why the forgery in the first place. Does God have to lie to secure his authority? 




You aren't being objective again.

1. You automatically assume that the Pope knew the document was a forgery. It seems rather unlikely given that it was a Roman priest who later reveals that the document was a forgery.

2. You assume that such scriptures refer to my position and not the position of the tradition you come from.

This is becoming a waste of my time. If every piece of history that you or your gut doesn't like is passed by as not true then there's nothing for us to talk about. God is not in you in this because you obviously don't care about the truth of these matters.

Be sure i am not trying to waste your time. I am simply digging for truth. I understand that the document was done for convienice, being that when ever questions of the authority came up they just stood on the letter. As you said they already had the authority weather it was lagitimate or not.  It probably most benifited the church purpose close to the time it was wrote but the effect was for 700 years. Certainly someone knew of the future effect . Of course they also must have known that the jig would be up sooner or latter. In any  case the forgery was a huge success.  Certainly succeding popes would not know it was a forgery.  We know that the document only benefited the papacy. It is reasoalble then to assume that someone in and of the papacy knew of it. right ! The fact the writer is still not known is also convenient for just forwhat  you said.  So at least we can assume that one pope probably
knew. Your own encyclopedia mentions secular power. I will post it.

i don't undertstand you second comment

mclees,

The problem with your posts is that they are 5% (or less) facts and 95% (or more) personal opinions.

History is facts + interpretations of those facts. But don't include interpretations as facts.

Also you ignore context. Someone commented on the radio todays that context is 70% of understanding and you tend to ignore context.

Actually the problem here is apathy rock hard apathy at that. Secondly it is a failure to see all this in the true light of Gods purpose for His church.  You know I am not wasting your time as much as Iam wasting my own. If you really were going to see the truth you would have by now, but since you have not you will probaly  not see even if it smacked your in the head. Im going to give you a break now. 

God bless

You use words but all you give me is your rambling opinions.

I shall be glad of a break from you.

You know I found myself still wantitng to study the history and was thinking that in it I could intelligently relate with those here who think that it is the the source of truth. I thought that by this I could gain some ground maybe but I was reminded this morning when I was just waking out of my dreams and barely being yet awake a voice spoke to me saying." Why look for life amonst the dead" I wasn't sure who the voice was talking to whether someone in the dream or to me. I was thinking about that for a spell. Why would someone go to a graveyard to find life. Or why waste time with those who are twice dead.  Only Jesus can save such a person.

[winsome]

You know I found myself still wantitng to study the history and was thinking that in it I could intelligently relate with those here who think that it is the the source of truth. I thought that by this I could gain some ground maybe but I was reminded this morning when I was just waking out of my dreams and barely being yet awake a voice spoke to me saying." Why look for life amonst the dead" I wasn't sure who the voice was talking to whether someone in the dream or to me. I was thinking about that for a spell. Why would someone go to a graveyard to find life. Or why waste time with those who are twice dead.  Only Jesus can save such a person.

mclees,

History is A source of truth. No-one is claiming it is the only one. History is what happened, not your dreams.

Why do you think history is dead? That is a very strange idea.

You seem to think that your strange notions and opinions are truth.

I think your problem is that you don't like facts. They tend to contradict your prejudices. But that's just my opinion.

[mclees8]

You know I found myself still wantitng to study the history and was thinking that in it I could intelligently relate with those here who think that it is the the source of truth. I thought that by this I could gain some ground maybe but I was reminded this morning when I was just waking out of my dreams and barely being yet awake a voice spoke to me saying." Why look for life amonst the dead" I wasn't sure who the voice was talking to whether someone in the dream or to me. I was thinking about that for a spell. Why would someone go to a graveyard to find life. Or why waste time with those who are twice dead.  Only Jesus can save such a person.

mclees,

History is A source of truth. No-one is claiming it is the only one. History is what happened, not your dreams.

Why do you think history is dead? That is a very strange idea.

You seem to think that your strange notions and opinions are truth.

I think your problem is that you don't like facts. They tend to contradict your prejudices. But that's just my opinion.

Im sorry but I think you misss understand me. I have no prejudices. History does say something but let me share something I was thinking last night as i was still roaming the encyclopedia. encylopedias just state facts and accurances and have nothing to do with faith in Christ. You won't find anything that promotes  Christ in the sense of personal salvation. Yet Jesus said i am the truth. So what truh is realy important. Facts from a history book or knowing Christ. You can go to different encyclopedias and you will find different presentations. Personally i like the New world encyclopdia but wicki is OK.

When someone shares truth from History such as the denatio Constantine it is truth that a forgery was made and used yet if one does not see Christ and what his church really was about you can't determin the good or the bad or the right or the wrong, its just facts. If one then says to you or LH This was not christ church it is then just dismissed as an opinion. sound descerment is not anything. Just check your brain at the door. So you defend on with out careing at all what is sound descernmnet. Its just your opinion. Its a no win thing. so why waste time. you won't listen anyway. One day I pray the Lord will wake you out of this. You defend not really understanding why you defend it. If its History all is good.