The Father Of Roman Catholicism, Emperor Constatine The Great

[Athanasius377]

Luther and Calvin were very clear about how they came to their OWN conclusions about what scripture said. They were very arrogant, Calvin killed people for disagreeing with him in that cult colony he governed. I’m not following a church created by those men over 1600 years after Christ established his church.

If you are talking about Servetus he would have been burned at the stake by catholic authorities too. I’m not excusing what happened in Geneva but both Calvin and Rome recognized Servetus was a heretic. So it’s not like Rome gets a pass for preferring those they disagreed with crispy.

 

[Athanasius377]

I said nothing inaccurate about what an indulgence is. I just don’t need 4 to 5 paragraphs to explain things like you do. And yes he is bigoted towards Catholics

Then I would say that you don’t understand indulgences. They are not easy to understand and assume several things which I accurately described. There are several streams of doctrine that had to develop before you could have an indulgence. Then again you are hardly the first RC not to understand the idea.

 

[Truth7t7]

NO giving 48 after being banned once under a different name is. he must be your friend or maybe you are both the same with two accounts

Your accusations are "False"

2 Timothy 3:2-3KJV
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Jesus Christ Is Lord!

 

[shittim]

I don't recall Jesus selling or giving "indulgences" and He modeled how we are all to live.
Nobodies church died for their sins nor do we need to work toward anything to secure heaven ,Jesus paid it all, "It is finished" were His words at the cross.
best wishes

 

[Athanasius377]

I don't recall Jesus selling or giving "indulgences" and He modeled how we are all to live.
Nobodies church died for their sins nor do we need to work toward anything to secure heaven ,Jesus paid it all, "It is finished" were His words at the cross.
best wishes

Great point. That’s why I left Rome and never really entertained Eastern Orthodoxy. With those guys it’s all like “orthodoxy teaches, or Rome teaches”. They usually never talk about Jesus and how He bled and died for my sins. All I have to do is have faith the Christ covered all my sins by His one sacrifice. I don’t need indulgences or extra merit earned by saint so and so. It’s a gift. And thank God it is a gift because I would never be worthy.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Then I would say that you don’t understand indulgences. They are not easy to understand and assume several things which I accurately described. There are several streams of doctrine that had to develop before you could have an indulgence. Then again you are hardly the first RC not to understand the idea.

Nothing I said was inaccurate, you just don’t know how to express yourself without writing a book about it.

 

[Athanasius377]

Nothing I said was inaccurate, you just don’t know how to express yourself without writing a book about it.

That’s because I sometimes have thoughts that take more than a Twitter response to express. I would hope you would as well. Especially something as important as truth.

 

[GodMyFortress]

If you are talking about Servetus he would have been burned at the stake by catholic authorities too. I’m not excusing what happened in Geneva but both Calvin and Rome recognized Servetus was a heretic. So it’s not like Rome gets a pass for preferring those they disagreed with crispy.

As far as human beings go, Calvin and Leo were equivalently terrible people. Leo was selfish, incompetent, and licentious, Calvin was a megalomaniac, cruel, and a hypocrite. He saw himself just like a Pope in Geneva. Anyone who disagreed with him paid for it.

 

[Athanasius377]

Nothing I said was inaccurate, you just don’t know how to express yourself without writing a book about it.

And yes you were inaccurate because you assume the same thing you were trying to prove. Folks here don’t have the same assumptions you do and given your responses you already know this.

 

[Athanasius377]

As far as human beings go, Calvin and Leo were equivalently terrible people. Leo was selfish, incompetent, and licentious, Calvin was a megalomaniac, cruel, and a hypocrite. He saw himself just like a Pope in Geneva. Anyone who disagreed with him paid for it.

Have you ever read Calvin? Because love or hate him he was pastoral first and foremost. That surprised me when I finally read him. What you are reacting to is a charcture of what some say about him. I can understand vitriol regarding Luther as he could be rather ham fisted. But after reading Table Talk you get a whole other side to Luther.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Have you ever read Calvin? Because love or hate him he was pastoral first and foremost. That surprised me when I finally read him. What you are reacting to is a charcture of what some say about him. I can understand vitriol regarding Luther as he could be rather ham fisted. But after reading Table Talk you get a whole other side to Luther.

Yes, I’ve read Calvin. Very stoic man but even Calvinists don’t deny that he tortured, killed, and lorded over the people of Geneva like a dictator.

 

[Athanasius377]

As far as human beings go, Calvin and Leo were equivalently terrible people. Leo was selfish, incompetent, and licentious, Calvin was a megalomaniac, cruel, and a hypocrite. He saw himself just like a Pope in Geneva. Anyone who disagreed with him paid for it.

Which brings us back full circle. Why was there even a counci in Nicea to begin with. If the pope had this authority why didn’t he simply declare that Christ was in fact God the second person of the Holy Trinity?

 

[GodMyFortress]

Which brings us back full circle. Why was there even a counci in Nicea to begin with. If the pope had this authority why didn’t he simply declare that Christ was in fact God the second person of the Holy Trinity?

That was not the only thing that was decided at Nicea.

 

[Athanasius377]

Yes, I’ve read Calvin. Very stoic man but even Calvinists don’t deny that he tortured, killed, and lorded over the people of Geneva like a dictator.

stoic? Really? What did you read from him? The Institutes or his commentaries? What about his sermons? They are available free on the internet.

http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/calvin.htm

 

[Athanasius377]

That was not the only thing that was decided at Nicea.

Agreed. Why were the up for debate if the pope had this authority?

 

[Athanasius377]

That was not the only thing that was decided at Nicea.

Look, I realize this isn’t exactly a fair fight as I hold a degree in history. What I am suggesting rather strongly is to read the original sources. Read all of Augustine or my personal hero Athanasius. Then see if what they say lines up with what Rome teaches.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Agreed. Why were the up for debate if the pope had this authority?

Just because you have the authority to do something doesn’t mean you should do it regardless of the circumstances.

Any good leader would of recognized that after hundreds of years of Church persecution and this massive heresy they were facing, that it was time for the Church to come together in one place. Those other Bishops and Christians deserved the right to be part of that moment in Church history and have their voices heard. And as I said before, that was but one topic.

 

[GodMyFortress]

Look, I realize this isn’t exactly a fair fight as I hold a degree in history. What I am suggesting rather strongly is to read the original sources. Read all of Augustine or my personal hero Athanasius. Then see if what they say lines up with what Rome teaches.

I have, they’re Catholic unlike you.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Agreed. Why were the up for debate if the pope had this authority?

With your knowledge of history you know that the Popes were just bishops of Rome, just as Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria, and while the emperor liked the church or was Christian sympathetic, they could have some political voice to what ever degree the emperor favored them. However it was not until after Pepin the Frankish King gave large land holdings to the bishop of Rome that Popes began to have real authority, because this created papal states. That it was this secular authority that gave rise to papal authoritarianism with in the church.
I know this is a very rough description and that it is a long and detailed history and more factors come into play but this is the basic outline.

Primacy of the pope is heretical. A kin to Henry establishing a church and him as head, and James using his authority as king to make himself head of the Church.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

It's the use of secular authority to take control of the church.