[JoeT777]

There is so much, but I thought that you would like this one from one of your best known leaders:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

Source: J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.

Lord Have Mercy, So how does this prove that there was no Catholic Church prior to Constantine? This quote says that Constantine used these perfectly acceptable methods to spread a new religion among the heathen.


JoeT

[Akoue]

Lord Have Mercy, Now wait a minute Akoue, 'Kyrie Eleison' is really profound stuff. Why, if it ever got around that Catholic said 'Kyrie Eleison’ it might look bad.

JoeT

Yeah. That prayer dates to the second century.

[JoeT777]

Yeah. That prayer dates to the second century.

Oh! You mean its not a pagan chant?

[Akoue]

Oh! you mean its not a pagan chant?

Nope, not by a long shot. The "Agnus Dei" also dates from the second century. Tertullian writes about making the sign of the Cross--in the second century. Etc. I don't know what this evidence will turn out to be, but I'm sure it will be... interesting.

ADDITION:

I have the vague impression that this little snippet was supposed to cause our eyes to roll back in our heads or something. Of course, Newman (a former Anglican who converted to Catholicism because, he said, his study of early Christianity persuaded him that it was the True Church and authentic Christianity) is talking about the "New" religion of Christianity, which during Constantine's reign came to supplant the "Old" religion of pagan and emperor worhip. It's not at all clear to me how this could be taken even to be relevant, let alone prove that the Catholic Church originated in the fourth century.

[arcura]

ROMCAM.
Very Good.
Right your are Scripture and History prove it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

Nope, not by a long shot. The "Agnus Dei" also dates from the second century. Tertullian writes about making the sign of the Cross--in the second century. Etc. I don't know what this evidence will turn out to be, but I'm sure it will be... interesting.

ADDITION:

I have the vague impression that this little snippet was supposed to cause our eyes to roll back in our heads or something. Of course, Newman (a former Anglican who converted to Catholicism because, he said, his study of early Christianity persuaded him that it was the True Church and authentic Christianity) is talking about the "New" religion of Christianity, which during Constantine's reign came to supplant the "Old" religion of pagan and emperor worhip. It's not at all clear to me how this could be taken even to be relevant, let alone prove that the Catholic Church originated in the fourth century.

Yeah, I was a little taken back by this bit of ‘evidence’ also. The only thing I could think of was ‘so what’. Maybe after Tj has a chance to work on it a bit, he can clue us in.

New Advent suggests that ‘Kyrie Eleison’ actually is bibilical and is found in part in the Old Testament in Psalm 4:2, 6:3, 9:14, 25:11, 121:3; Isaiah 33:2; Tobit 8:10; and in the New Testament in Matthew 9:27, 20:30, 15:22; Mark 10:47; Luke 16:24, 17:13.

I’ve heard Protestant Apologists discuss ‘Kyrie Eleison’ before as if it was a dirty name or something. I haven’t quite figured out what the objection is. Have you got any idea?

[Akoue]

Yeah, I was a little taken back by this bit of ‘evidence’ also. The only thing I could think of was ‘so what’. Maybe after Tj has a chance to work on it a bit, he can clue us in.

New Advent suggests that ‘Kyrie Eleison’ actually is bibilical and is found in part in the Old Testament in Psalm 4:2, 6:3, 9:14, 25:11, 121:3; Isaiah 33:2; Tobit 8:10; and in the New Testament in Matthew 9:27, 20:30, 15:22; Mark 10:47; Luke 16:24, 17:13.

I’ve heard Protestant Apologists discuss ‘Kyrie Eleison’ before as if it was a dirty name or something. I haven’t quite figured out what the objection is. Have you got any idea?

Not really. "Kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy". "Christe eleison" is Greek for "Christ have mercy".

[JoeT777]

Not really. "Kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy". "Christe eleison" is Greek for "Christ have mercy".

I knew that, you lost me in the significance of your post.

[Akoue]

I knew that, you lost me in the significance of your post.

You asked if I have any idea why some people have a problem with the Kyrie. Hence the "Not really". I can't see what would be wrong with it.

[JoeT777]

You asked if I have any idea why some people have a problem with the Kyrie. Hence the "Not really". I can't see what would be wrong with it.

Ok, poor joe. It's past his bed time.

[JoeT777]

ROMCAM.
Very Good.
Right your are Scripture and History prove it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'll be happy to open 'What Scripture verse show that Peter was the leader? Part (3)' if you want. I don't know how much more information we can get out this; we got a fairly exhaustive list on the first 2 or 3 pages. . We could branch off to a corollary of some sort.

JoeT

But, in the morning.

[RickJ]

What is the History of the Early Church from Christ to about 400 A.D.

What was Peter's role in that Church.

JoeT

Entire volumes have been written on that subject...
One thing you might find helpful is reading the works of the early Christian writers. Here's a nice list that you can read online and/or print.
CHURCH FATHERS: Home

[Tj3]

I haven't rejected anything. You quoted a short snippet from Newman, in which he mentions Eusebius. This isn't evidence that the Catholic Church was begun by Constantine in the fourth century. This is just Newman talking about Eusebius. What do you take this to prove about anything? Explain.

Can you tell me any other church that Eusebius and newman might be speaking of other than the Roman catholic Church?

Did not Constantine live in the 4th century?

Was Constantine not the Pontif of the pagan Roman religion?

What was the "new religion" that Newman speaks of?

Ponder those questions for a bit.

Oh, and I do reserve the right to reject what I believe to be false. If I find myself in that position, I will happily provide reasons for rejecting it. But so far, you haven't really said anything.

Yes, you have the right to reject anything false. But so far, since I first ran into you on this board, you have rejected anything that does not agree with what you want to believe, no matter who or what the source is. That is not the same thing.

[Tj3]

Lord Have Mercy, So how does this prove that there was no Catholic Church prior to Constantine?

First, let's be clear what we are talking about - we are discussing the Roman catholic denomination.

This quote says that Constantine used these perfectly acceptable methods to spread a new religion among the heathen.

So, incorporating paganism into the church is, in your view an acceptable approach?

Okay - clearly we disagree.

[RickJ]

First, let's be clear what we are talking about - we are discussing the Roman catholic denomination.

There WERE no denominations in the first 4 centuries.

One needs to understand what "catholic" means:

The first known use of the term “the catholic church” (note the small “c”) was about 110 A.D.; in a letter from an early Christian leader, Ignatius, to the [Church of the] Smyrnaeans:

“…even as where Jesus may be, there is the katholike ekklesia“…katholike ekklesia is translated “universal church” or “the catholic church” or “the one and only church”.

For the full text of the letter, click here. All Christians can enjoy reading what Christian leaders of the generation following the Apostles wrote.

By the beginning of the 4th century, the descriptive (adjective) “catholic” became the popular name (noun) of the Church of the Christians: The Catholic Church.

[Tj3]

There WERE no denominations in the first 4 centuries.

325 AD was the first.

One needs to understand what "catholic" means:

The first known use of the term “the catholic church” (note the small “c”) was about 110 A.D.; in a letter from an early Christian leader, Ignatius, to the [Church of the] Smyrnaeans:

“…even as where Jesus may be, there is the katholike ekklesia“…katholike ekklesia is translated “universal church” or “the catholic church” or “the one and only church”.

For the full text of the letter, click here. All Christians can enjoy reading what Christian leaders of the generation following the Apostles wrote.

By the beginning of the 4th century, the descriptive (adjective) “catholic” became the popular name (noun) of the Church of the Christians: The Catholic Church.

Prior to 325AD, the term catholic referred to the Christian church, and yes it was small "c", not a denomination, and did not always agree and was not under one leader. In 325, Constantine (not the man who the Roman catholic denomination claims was pope) called and presided over the Council of Nicea and subsequently issued decrees to the churches.

This was a key change.

[RickJ]

325 AD was the first [denomination].

We'll have to agree to disagree. There is no historical info to back that up. There were schisms galore even before that, but no "denominations".

[Tj3]

We'll have to agree to disagree. There is no historical info to back that up. There were schisms galore even before that, but no "denominations".

No historical information to back what up? How could there be a schism if there was no denomination to break off from?

We agree that there are no denominations prior to 325 (you may think it extends further, I don't know).

We do have historical evidence regarding what Constantine did to the church at and after the council of Nicea. It seems to me that we may only disagree on what the definition of a denomination is.

[RickJ]

The schism's broke off from the one and only church. They taught other than what Christ and the apostles taught. That's what made them schisms.

Today we call schisms "denominations".

[Tj3]

The schism's broke off from the one and only church.

There was not just one and only church from an organizational perspective. There was if we are speaking of the body of Christ, but that is not what we are discussing here. The body of Christ does not have denominations, nor does membership in an organization whether it be a local church or denomination make one a member of the body of Christ.

They taught other than what Christ and the apostles taught. That's what made them schisms.

Today we call schisms "denominations".

I think that you'd have a hard time getting any expert in the English language accepting your definition equating the word "schism" to "denomination". Can you find any recognized dictionary that say that?

A denomination exists essentially when a manmade organization establishes a central authority under which all other churches are bound. That did not exist until 325AD.