Joshua David Zambrano writes:
I have Catholic friends who I very much respect and admire who I'm convinced are Christians. I really do hate to offend them. Nevertheless, I am likewise convinced the institution of Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact one of the greatest institutions for evil and assault on Christianity ever introduced on Earth.
Lulz.
Well thanks for the preface, I would like to preface myself by saying that contrary to popular opinion I am not trying to troll you here, but I am going to have to engage you on your falsehoods. 1st of all you cannot possibly have Catholic friends that you respect and admire when you think their church was founded by Satan to bring down all of Christianity (as it says later in your essay). Just be honest. Listening to you, We (Roman Catholics) are worse than atheists (you should get Buzsaw in here, he loves to hate us). I realize that these are your beliefs and you are entitled to them, but I have to question you about much of it.
I believe Roman Catholicism was instituted in A.D. 380 by Roman Emperor Theodosius I as a way to destroy Christianity.
Interesting, especially because back in the early church there was a pentarchy (rule of five); 5 holy sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). Catholicism was already all across the Empire, something that was helped by
Pax Romana and because the Romans built roads all over the place. The flow of goods and ideas was encouraged.
Before that, Rome had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out Christianity in defense of government power over the people and to protect its pagan traditions by lining up crucified Christians all along its highways, feeding them to lions, seizing their property, and imprisoning them to work in underground mines for the rest of their lives. That wasn't working, people continued to become Christians. Therefore, Rome declared "Christianity" the state religion but only pardoned Christians who swore allegiance to Rome, and confessed belief in the newly-created doctrine of the Trinity under the Nicene Creed.
I am not sure where you get your history of the western world from but ok. The
Edict of Milan in 313ce (AD313) proclaimed religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire. The Romans were more practical than they are credited with, using syncretism to ally their faith with those of new peoples. Christianity became the state religion after most of the people became Christian, not before hand.
Those who believed Jesus and God the Father were separate entities, and that Jesus was the first-born of creation (a created being rather than eternal, according to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14) were declared Arians and exterminated. This was only the beginning of Catholic persecutions of "heretics". Next were the Novatians and Donatists, who both believed in re-baptizing rather than infant baptism. They too were declared heretics and slaughtered.
Seriously!?!
Remember the topic here about Canon? The Canon was not established until 397 at the council of Carthage. So attributing Colossians and Revelation as evidence cannot be used. Mainly because the Arians were determinded to be heretics in 325 (1st Council of Nicaea) 72 years before the bible. You really can’t bring up the bible before it was the bible and use that. Also note that the 1st council of Nicaea is accepted by Anglicans, the Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. This makes it more than a little ridiculous sounding that it was ALL the Roman Catholics who labeled the Arians as heretics, when in factual reality 4th century Christendom made the declaration. It is also rather odd that protestants today side with the rest of the Christians on Nicaea, and thus against the Arians, yet somehow you are trying to argue that the Arians were the orginial protestants. Please explain in case I have you confused or have missed your point.
I believe Catholicism was in effect Satan's attempt to persecute real Christianity while removing popular appeal by creating a fake Christianity. This allowed Rome to continue persecuting the real Christians, giving itself justification for doing so (since now they were "heretics" rather than "Christians"), allowed it to preserve its pagan traditions under the guise of "Christianity", allowed it to attack all forms of real Christianity as heretical, eliminating them wherever they'd sprout, and allowed it to retain power over government and the people (confession could be considered a population control tactic, e.g.).
Real Christians!?! Like say the Arians, who were called heretics by all the other Christians? I also like how you bring up Novatians and Donatists without mentioning why they were heretical. You try to blame it on re-baptism, but that was not the reason. The reason was that Novatian (the Antipope), held a strict view that refused to accept lapsed Christians, and refused to forgive them, because under duress and persecution some of the Christians (the Lapsi) renounced Christianity. This attitude would have denied Peter for denying Christ. The Donatists were very similar, but in north Africa (Tunisia and Libya), they said that anyone who gave into the persecution were not a part of the church, so in 313 when the
Diocletianic Persecution (303ce-313ce) ended, and Christianity was legal many people came out of the shadows to renew their faith and the Donatists said they could not. Since my Christianity is about conversion and forgiveness I have to agree that the views of the hardline Donatists were in error. I know that Protestants today have nothing in common with the Novatians or the Donatists, but perhaps you could explain to me how they are? A great example is my friend who is a Baptist youth minister, he was raised in that denomination, born again in that denomination, and in college turned to a live of drugs and sex, renouncing his Christian faith (I was there it was a blast). As a more mature adult, he was born again, again (for the 2nd time) and welcomed back into the flock with open arms. This is not something either the Novatians or the Donatists would allow, it is something that the Catholics (and I guess Baptists) would definitely allow.
I don’t want to dogpile you with tons of posts so I’ll refrain from questioning your logic, reasoning, and source information until you answer the questions I have posted here and in post #35.
I look forward to your response.
™ Version 4.2
