“Wherever the Roman Catholic Church got to in Europe, there were already Christians there when the Vaticanist missionaries arrived. The means was stated in my original post.”
History states clearly otherwise. The Romans in Britain considered themselves just that, Roman. As did the Romans in all the other places.
You are drawing a distinction where none exists, between the missionaries of the Church and between the Catholic church.
“Roman Catholic Church definitely is not, never was, and never shall be, although it misrepresents itself to be something akin to the kingdom of heaven-—so it has a king (pope) and its own city state, and has ruled and ruined kings for centuries.”
Does no such thing. You do know that the city states around Rome have been governed by the bishop of Rome, at least going back to the collapse of the Western Emperor. This is close to 1600 years. Far longer than any other Western government including that of France.
’ “Biblicist” simply means having a faith based on the Bible.’
That is what you say it means. It has absolutely no relevance to the period, and is ahistorical rubbish. Did the Christians of the time call themselves ‘biblicists?’ No. So there is no need to insert our own term to refer to them when they had names for themselves that we ought to use instead.
Names like the Catholic church.
“Because there have always been, since the Apostles’ ministries, true Christians which based their faith on the Scriptures”
Really. You ARE aware that the scriptures that you have today were first published by the Pope in the Vatican who decided what books should be used, books you don’t even use and that you refer to as ‘biblicist’, when you tear such books out of the bible?
Complete and utter hogwash. They referred to themselves by the Creeds when they were declared, and as Catholics and Christians.
“Vaticanism has always been forced to use the Bible (almost always messing it up, of course), to try to make people think it is legitimate, which it is not. It is an impostor, a mere caricature, a religious buffoon.”
Well considering as they wrote and put the blasted thing together, I should think they would use it.
We've already got it. We already know that all history to you must be revised to prop up the Vatican's system. If necessary, to prop up the system, you would say that the Roman Catholic Church was in Britain in 300 B.C., because of the longing anticipation of the British to be Roman Catholic.
We already realize that you absolutely must revise all history to prop up the false notion that Jesus was creating a papacy in Matthew 16, and that a church as you want to believe exists there, actually exists there.
You even want to revise our words as we type them on this forum. We never said anything about what people in 100 A.D. called themselves. We are not concerned what they CALLED themselves.
We know that nice folks like you can't think any differently -- only what the Vatican says is truth, can be truth to you, even if they lie to you. So we are not first interested in changing your minds. We write firmly so that others will realize that the whole world need not succumb to the same mental traps.
Hey, other folks out there reading this, there are libraries, full---literal libraries of historical materials that have been written and compiled without either deference to the Roman Catholic Church or prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church. Read RCC-approved stuff. You're free to do so, and the comparison will help you understand some important things.
But histories, too, that were not written to prop up any religious system exist. The authors were not sitting around saying, "How can we destroy the views of the RCC." They were written by legitimate historians who were not bound to any church or its hierarchy to produce a product or create a particular mind set.
Don't simply swallow the Roman Catholic view of Roman, European, or American history. There is plenty of material out there.