To the Catholics visiting the Baptist forum.

??? The Roman Empire. Ultimately, the Bishop of Rome takes on the Latin word for Roman leader, Pontifex Maximus. It is the same word the Ceasars used.
So, yeah, State Controlled Church of Rome is perfect.

 

I refer you to my earlier post, #84. If anything, they were now members of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church.

 

If the state controlled the Church of Rome, who was the Pope? Why didn’t the emperor just sit on Peter’s chair?

Once you answer that, we’ll discuss how Constantinople figures into your assertion.

 

LOL, they were members of "The Way" church. A clearly Baptist fellowship where only believers baptism was done. That fellowship went on until the Roman Empire declared the Church at Rome to be all-powerful and started persecuting all believers who did not submit under the State Controlled Church. Even the bishop of Rome takes on the same name as the Ceasars...Pontifex Maximus. From there we see a 1000 year reign of terror in Western Europe. It is not surprising that the Baptists were calling for separation of church and state after all that abuse perpetrated by the State Controlled Church of Rome.

 

The Pope became the Pontifex Maximus then changed the name to the Holy Roman Empire.
Be a student and see the power mongering of the Popes over the centuries. Those Medici's were something special.

 

No - @Adonia stated:
"All I can say is this, the Catholic Church preaches Christ crucified, that through His death and resurrection (which is the focus of our worship service by the way) we have salvation."

YOU, then made the following claim:
"Then, according to the Council of Trent, you're anathema. And, according to anyone who knows Catholicism, you have no clue what you're talking about."

I am simply holding you accountable for your claim.
Soooooo - where's the proof??

SNIP

 

The Pope was referred to as "Pontifex Maximus", which simply means "Greatest Bridge Builder" - as fa back as the early 3rd century - while the persecution of the Church was STILL going on.

Study your history . . .

 

The Via Labicana Augustus is a sculpture of the Roman emperor Augustus as Pontifex Maximus.
The Roman Emperor's went by that title.
Wake up and smell the State power take over of the church at Rome. Then study history, because the church at Rome is the least Christian exhibit over the past 2000 years that you can find in the world of Christendom. Such evil and power mongering is only equaled by power hungry nations.
Why would you ever try to defend its evil actions?

 

Here's one:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

Here's another:

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."

And then, there's this gem:

Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."


There are more, but that's more than enough to show that Catholicism condemns anyone who believes we're saved by Christ's death and resurrection without works on our part.

I did back them up but quoting scripture and your own cult's sources.

 

If the state controlled the Church of Rome, why was there even a pope to begin with? Wouldnt the Emperor be taking the bishop of Rome’s office / title if the state was running the Church of Rome? Your assertion that the pope took the emperor’s title seeming refutes your own argument. Under your theory, wouldn't it be the opposite, with the Emperor be taking and supplanting the pope’s title?

Since the first thirty plus popes were actually martyred by the state, why didn’t the emperors simply take the chair of Peter unto himself?

Once you answer that, we’ll then move on to Constantinople and how it figures into your assertion.

 

There wasn't a pope to begin with. Peter was never a pope. He was an Apostle, killed by Rome. When Constantine declared Christianity to be the State Religion, he also set up the Pontifex Maximus to be merged as the Roman Church leader. A perfect power move to ensure Rome had ultimate control over the people. From that time on, the pope was empty of God's Spirit and was a power hungry pawn of Satan.
You should not walk away from the Roman Church. You should run, as fast as you can, from the Roman Church.

 

There ya go with that false "seven church ages" garbage again !

 

The church didn't come off of Noah's Ark Catholic or Protestant!

 

Ah, but you overlook the fact that the apostles wrote the New Testament in Jerusalem in King James English! That's why so manyh Baptists have joined the King James Only cult!

 

Whatever are you talking about ?

 

"Gimme the KJV that Paul used !"

 

From the recently closed thread:

“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

You'd have to be an idiot to conclude FAKE FOOD and FAKE DRINK.

Then why didn't the disciples bite off his earlobes (or any part) and eat them then? They ate the Passover bread instead. And later they told the new nonjewish converts that they must abstain from blood, the "true drink."