Not true, the Rc wasn't around till Constantine.
Do you read the Bible?
Christ asked Peter three times if he loved him and then he announced that the Church would be built on him as rock and he gave him the keys to the kingdom.
*8Not true, the Rc wasn’t around till Constantine.**
This is a misconception that many non-Catholics entertain.
Also your use of RC is mistaken because there are many rites of the Catholic Church. In the United States most celebrate Mass in the Latin Rite.
Please read up on the truth.
the Rc wasn’t around till Constantine.
Perhaps not, but Nero et.al. were slaughtering Christians long before Constantine. And this in no way detracts from Peter’s role in the establishment of the Church.
Constantine wasn't all that important. He was pope from 708 to 715 and was remembered as "a remarkably affable man," but he's mostly forgotten now, even though the Emperor Justinian II treated him with honor when he visited Constantinople. He resisted the next emperor's attempt to revive the Monothelete heresy.
In the 3rd century there was a dispute at Antioch with two men both claiming to be the rightful bishop. The emperor Aurelian decided to recognize as legitimate the one accepted by the bishop of Rome. That shows that the pope's influence doesn't start with the emperor Constantine. Aurelian was a pagan but got called on because there was property at stake in the dispute.
Historically speaking, that's impossible. If there wasn't any Catholic Church until Constantine, then where did all those bishops come from that he invited to the Council of Nicaea? He didn't appoint them. He didn't consecrate them. They were in place before he was even emperor.
How could there be hundreds of Catholic bishops in place, inside of the Roman Empire as well as beyond its borders, before Constantine, if the Catholic Church didn't exist until Constantine?
In the West, there was only “The Church” until the reformation (1500’s) when denominations began to form. So the Church until them is somewhat like a tap root of every denomination and not owned solely by the Roman Catholic Church.
Post 43 was supposed to be directed to you.
“...RC wasn’t around until Constantine...”
The persecuted underground (prior to Constantine) and the official state Church that emerged after Constantine are the same Church.
The eucharist which can only be present in the Catholic Church, including the Orthodox branch of the Church because since Christ they have also always had a valid eucharist, was beyond doubt referenced as early as circa 110 A.D. by St. Ignatius’ epistle to the Philadelphians:
“Take heed then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of his blood; one altar; as there is one bishop ...”
Because the underground Christians beleived in the real presence during the eucharist (and all of the sacraments) prior to Constantine, by definition it could not have been the same Church (group of early Christians) as those who later deleted the eucharist and the sacraments.
Also: St. Justin Martyr, writing in the 150 A.D. time period well before Constantine, chastised and condemned Mithraism:
“...Wicked demons have imitated (imitated the “food eucharized through the word of prayer that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate) in the mysteries of Mithra ...”
If an early underground church that DID NOT celebrate the eucharist and reemerged in the 1500’s did exist, it would have had to have happened prior to the writings of St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and of couse the Acts themselves.
The fact that Holy Communion was preserved before Constantine, shows a consistent tradition being preserved, not a new church being formed.
Both the Greek and the Latin Church recognize these historical truths, not simply the “evil RC’s”.
The five sects condemned by Constantine were NOT “original Christians”; their beliefs were heretical even by the modern protestant standards:
For example - the Paulians were not from St. Paul, but a deceiver named Paul of Samosa who like Mohammed, did not believe in Christ’s divinity but taught that He was a mere man.
In 150 AD, a contemporary writer, in “The Shepherd of Hermas”, confirms that the Roman church is still overseen by a plurality of “elders”. Moreover, these “elders” fought among themselves and brought scandal to the church.
Hermas, wrote: “But you yourself will read [my book] to this city [Rome], along with the elders (“presbuteroi” in the original Greek) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church.” (Vis 2.4). Hermas could not be more clear. There is a plurality of presbyters who “preside over” the church at Rome. There is no one person in charge.
But more, he urged them,
“I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers … You carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King.
Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves,”
We’ve seen Jesus admonish this behavior when the disciples themselves “argued among themselves as to who was greatest”. Nor does Hermas attribute any gift of “infallibility” to these elders, who themselves “have no instruction”.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/05/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-papacy.html