Posted on 05/26/2008 4:50:16 AM PDT by NYer
Not hard to believe, since it was instituted by Christ.
TQC-””The Catholics tried to suppress them through violence, and when that failed, have continued to try to lie about what these groups believed and practiced, but they were there nevertheless, the true adherents to the apostolic Christianity, instead of the paganised “Christianity” which arose in the 4th century when Constantine tried to unite the various belief systems of the Empire together, which eventually resulted in Catholicism.””
What you just wrote is one of the biggest historical lies that protestants have been taught to believe,and many are brainwashed by this lie even today.
The Church was called Catholic and Catholicism was the practiced Faith of the persecuted Christians before Constantine
The persecuted before Costantine were the ones who believed in the TRUE PRESENCE of Christ in Eucharist ,they believed along with all the other Sacraments that make up Catholicism because they were taght by the Apostles themselves.
Here are some writings from Saint Ignatius ,a direct Disiple of the Apostle Saint John.
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
...and here is what He says about Eucharist
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
Saint Igantius-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
If you call Igantius a lier than your calling the Apostle Saint John a lier
Also,Constantine did not influence Catholicism,he only made it legal.
The Early Church Fathers called Constantine an antichrist for his arian beliefs amongst other things.
Take a look...
“But nowadays, we have to do with a disguised persecutor, a smooth-tongued enemy, a Constantius who has put on Antichrist; who scourges us, not with lashes, but with caresses who instead of robbing us, which would give us spiritual life, bribes us with riches, that he may lead us to eternal death; who thrusts us not into the liberty of a prison, but into the honours of his palace, that he may enslave us: who tears not our flesh, but our hearts; who beheads not with a sword, but kills the soul with his gold; who sentences not by a herald that we are to be burnt, but covertly enkindles the fire of hell against us. He does not dispute with us, that he may conquer; but he flatters us, that so he may lord it over our souls. He confesses Christ, the better to deny him; he tries to procure a unity which shall destroy peace; he puts down some few heretics, so that he may also crush the Christians; he honours Bishops, that they may cease to be Bishops; he builds up Churches, that he may pull down the Faith.” - Saint Hilary of Poiters
Was that Constantius or Constantine?
So are you saying the Bible was not divinely inspired text and that it contains errors? Did not know that was the Catholic teaching. And I think your argument on teaching not including written text was weak. Besides, in Matthew 28:19 the Greek was not "paradosis", but "matheteuo" which is to teach.
Once Christians stop arguing over all these peripheral issues, and realize we all agree on the gospel, there is just one faith.
Why would that be? He writings were poor and inconsistent and being a Bishop, it is self-beneficial to claim power for that position. Certainly interesting writings for an insight into early history, but not reliable text and certainly not divinely inspired.
I was educated on the Catholic belief on this topic on a thread not too long ago. It was quite informative. I had never previously understood what transubstantiation was all about. < sarcasm > I was relieved to discover Catholics are not cannibals. < /sarcasm > Thanks for providing further enlightenment on this topic, which is no doubt quite important for Catholics.
So it’s my impression from this that it was Constantius, the son of Constantine who was the Arian.
They line up completely and consistently with all of the other Church fathers throughout History.
The God you believe in is a fool to let this happen if it were false.
Lets see you come up with Christian writings to support the protestant viewpoint on Eucharist for 1500 years.
You have nothing but inconsistencies amongst yourselves in 500 years.
If I were not Catholic,I would be an atheist rather than be a protestant(which I once was a protestant) with all of these inconsistencies
No, I've never heard him make that kind of distinction. He just teaches what the Bible quotes Jesus is saying. "This is my body, this is my blood." I've never actually hearhim use the words "Transubstantion," or "spiritual or objective presence." It just simply is His Body and Blood. That's about it. When I read the description of transubstatiation in the article that was posted, it seemed like what we believe, though. But we don't keep a feast of Corpus Christi -- I don't get that part.
No, I've never heard him make that kind of distinction. He just teaches what the Bible quotes Jesus is saying. "This is my body, this is my blood." I've never actually hearhim use the words "Transubstantion," or "spiritual or objective presence." It just simply is His Body and Blood. That's about it. When I read the description of transubstatiation in the article that was posted, it seemed like what we believe, though. But we don't keep a feast of Corpus Christi -- I don't get that part.
They both were
Actually, it was tested, and the flesh of the host was determined to be a slice of a living man’s heart- a slice so thin that the surgical tools of the time could not have produced it.
The globules of blood were weighed, and found to weigh the same independently as they weighed collectively.
The blood type, I believe, was AB positive.
University of Siena professors Linoli and Bertoli tested the Eucharist between 11/1970 AND 3/71.
In 1973, a UNESCO Medical Commision corroborated their findings with 500 tests lasting about 15 months.
It’s a joke to say Catholics suppressed through violence. The English martyrs like Campion, drawn and quartered, suffered for the One True Faith.
I’d like to see an international team using today’s technology do the testing. I don’t believe this is real or a real miracle. I believe it is more likely this is a hoax created by the monk in the 8th century to draw attention to his church.
Many people claim there is scientific consensus that global warming exists and is caused by man.
The Weather Channel climatologists certainly seem to promote that belief.
Yet, more than 30,000 scientists disagree, and have stated so publicly, providing counter-evidence.
So, which is it?
Is it possible that some of these scientists are: lying? duped? viewing only select bits of data that suit their own worldview?
Regardless, shouldn’t the evidence speak for itself?
Why and how can there be contradictory declarations by similarly trained and qualified scientists regarding the same data?
Do you really put your faith in scientists?
You wrote:
“Who are they going to judge???”
Whoever still needs to be judged. :)
Many people claim there is scientific consensus that global warming exists and is caused by man.”
And what does the founder of The Weather Channel have to say?
Coleman: Was there a consensus of 2,500 scientists at the Bali meeting of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Heavens no. The key paragraphs or chapters of their report and the research documents behind it, which are very voluminous, were not widely read by these scientists.
If you look at the history of the IPCC, its mission and existence was to prove that there is climate change. So they start hiring scientists and giving them research money to go out and prove that its mission is valid.
But 19,000 scientists signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol, and 400-plus scientists spoke out against global warming in 2007, along with at least four dozen TV meteorologists. There is no consensus.
Coleman: I never believed it was coming, nor do I believe global warming is coming. Are you aware that officials of both the Canadian and Russian governments in the past six weeks have warned of a coming ice age? Climatologists are constantly reacting to swings in the climate.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.