Replies

The premise is as flawed as the rebuttle. Catholicism gets rejected because of what it is as much as what it isn't. It's misunderstandings of it's proclaimed roots are as obvious as it's historical lies and fraudulent historians.
Catholicism as a historical entity makes more sense when put under the microscope and examined in historical context.. but not as a religion - as a political entity.

Historically speaking, Theodosius gave Catholicism it's proper name. It grew out of the Rabble that accused the Donatists as a matter to save popular face. The Donatists not only refused to compromise the faith by paying respect to the pagan gods of Rome by paying tribute, they had the nerve to point out that all the other sects were sinning in so doing. The other sects grumbled to Constantine till the Donatists found themselves pursued by the Emperor for a time. They ultimately outlived Constantine. But, Theodosius put the charge on the table later when he drew the paganized church together and named it Catholicism as
a means to hold the content of a struggling empire.

Catholicism might have been a bastardized version of Christianity; but, Constantine had lived a pagan life and died a pagan. He'd used Christianity as a political anchor to cement his place as emperor.. the heeders of pagan gods that Theodosius proclaimed "Catholic" later on would use Constantine as much as he had used them - and some would lie and use his name in forgery to create the Rule of the Roman rite. This is the loose history with a lot of holes left to fill with other facts.

When one starts adding in the fraudulent books and documents passed on by the Roman rite as authentic for decades (ie, isidore, Gracian, the fraudulent books of Clement, Ignatius, etc).. to the pile of fraudulent relics such as the "Chair of Peter" and the Seven baskets of teeth purportedly belonging to the same "saint" if the questions haven't started about authenticity or authority, one isn't thinking. This is to say nothing of the blatent misunderstandings of Judaic terms and rites that were both misinterpreted and misapplied out of ignorance by Catholicism - ie Binding and loosing. Binding and loosing is an interpretive office like our Judicial system in the states. No right exists in the judiciary to craft new law - only to interpret what exists. New law in our judiciary comes from abuse of office, so to in Catholicism. Had they understood half of what they misapplied, it might not be so blatent.

So the repulsion felt by Christians and protestants against Catholicism has nothing to do with what is stated in the article. It has everything to do with knowing your stuff, knowing history and knowing snake oil when it's seen. People have a right to believe what they will. They have a right to practice that belief. But niether believing nor practicing makes it right. And simply saying one must have faith doesn't cut it. Christ, the Apostles and Prophets of old - even Moses proclaimed that our faith must be in God - not in men or their devices.

Much of this stuff has long since been debated and rehashed in the Christian Chronicals book.. it's too big any longer to call it a thread. Have fun.

I didn't read most of this drivel. I stopped right after the claim that Catholicism was given its name after the "Donation of Constantine." THe authr was off by 1,000 years.

Historically speaking, Theodosius gave Catholicism it's proper name.

Presently speaking, you don't have a clue about history.

Now the Church is called Catholic because it is throughout the world from one end of the earth to the other. And since the word Church is applied to different things ... the Creed states for the sake of security the article, "And in One Holy Catholic Church"; that you may avoid their (the heretics') wretched services and ever remain in the Holy Catholic Church in which you were regenerated. And if you are staying in any city, do not ask simply where the Lord's house is (for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own places houses of the Lord,), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem AD 340)

Under the apostles, you will say, no one was called Catholic. Granted! But, when, after the apostles, heresies had arisen and were attempting, under various names, to tear apart and divide the dove and the queen of God, did not the apostolic people require a special name to distinguish the unity of the people who were uncorrupted. ... Suppose this very day I entered a large city. When I had met Marcionites, Apollinarians, etc., who call themselves Christians, by what name should I know the congregation of my own people unless it were named Catholic? .... Christian is my name, but Catholic is my surname. The former gives me a name; the latter distinguishes me ... Wherefore our people, then named Catholic, are separated by this appellation from the heretical sects. (St. Pacian AD 370)

Hmmm ... AD 340, AD 370. Emperor Theodosius - didn't he come to power in AD 379? How could he give a proper name to the Church if it already clearly had one?

When ya'll gain some credibility, you can come on back!

Historically speaking, Theodosius gave Catholicism it's proper name.

Presently speaking, you don't have a clue about history.

Now the Church is called Catholic because it is throughout the world from one end of the earth to the other. And since the word Church is applied to different things ... the Creed states for the sake of security the article, "And in One Holy Catholic Church"; that you may avoid their (the heretics') wretched services and ever remain in the Holy Catholic Church in which you were regenerated. And if you are staying in any city, do not ask simply where the Lord's house is (for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own places houses of the Lord,), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem AD 340)

Under the apostles, you will say, no one was called Catholic. Granted! But, when, after the apostles, heresies had arisen and were attempting, under various names, to tear apart and divide the dove and the queen of God, did not the apostolic people require a special name to distinguish the unity of the people who were uncorrupted. ... Suppose this very day I entered a large city. When I had met Marcionites, Apollinarians, etc., who call themselves Christians, by what name should I know the congregation of my own people unless it were named Catholic? .... Christian is my name, but Catholic is my surname. The former gives me a name; the latter distinguishes me ... Wherefore our people, then named Catholic, are separated by this appellation from the heretical sects. (St. Pacian AD 370)

Hmmm ... AD 340, AD 370. Emperor Theodosius - didn't he come to power in AD 379? How could he give a proper name to the Church if it already clearly had one?

When y'all gain some credibility, you can come on back!