The true origin of the Roman Catholic Church

The church is universal and the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. It is NOT the Roman Catholic "Church" which DOES NOT follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. The RCC is a pretender to the church, founded by Emperor Constantine of Rome to latch on to the popularity, but not the spirituality, of the fast-growing Christian movement. It is rooted in paganism and bows down to the authority of its own traditions rather than the commands of God.

A brief history of the RCC, quoted from the Biblical Disernment Ministries, follows:

[i]The Roman Catholic Church, in its pagan form, unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reigns of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire -- that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood -- Pontifex Maximus -- a title which the popes would inherit. (The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church -- Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops.)

Prior to the time of Constantine's "conversion," Christians were persecuted not so much for their profession of faith in Christ, but because they would not include pagan deities in their faith as well. Then, with Constantine's emphasis on making his new-found Christianity palatable to the heathen in the Empire, the "Christianization" of these pagan deities was facilitated. For example, pagan rituals and idols gradually took on Christian meanings and names and were incorporated into "Christian" worship (e.g., "saints" replaced the cult of pagan gods in both worship and as patrons of cities; mother/son statues were renamed Mary and Jesus; etc.), and pagan holidays were reclassified as Christian holy days (e.g., the Roman Lupercalia and the feast of purification of Isis became the Feast of the Nativity; the Saturnalia celebrations were replaced by Christmas celebrations; an ancient festival of the dead was replaced by All Souls Day, rededicated to Christian heroes [now Hallowe'en]; etc.). A transition had occurred -- instead of being persecuted for failure to worship pagan deities, Christians who did not agree with the particular orthodoxy backed by the Emperor were now persecuted in the name of Christ! "Christianized" Rome had become the legitimate successor of pagan Rome! This is the sad origin of the Roman Catholic Church.[/i]

A good Roman Catholic is not a follower of Christ for the RCC is a "church" that does not follow Christ. (edit: last sentence removed).

-----------
EDIT (Addendum)

To Roman Catholic guests who may read this thread:

Please understand that my intention in posting the above is not to incite conflict or to demean anyone; my sole purpose is to reveal the truth. As a former Catholic, born in a predominantly Catholic country, and raised by a Catholic family, I can understand how difficult it is to even entertain the thought that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) might be wrong in many of its doctrines. I was born into Catholicism; therefore it was natural for me to accept the RCC and its beliefs as unqualified truth. Everyone around me throughout my early life believed the same things. Under such immersion, it is hard to consider that all of one’s family (including ancestors), friends, community, and country could possibly be wrong. This is especially true for Catholics, who are conditioned from childhood to fear and automatically reject anyone who would cast doubt on the RCC. Nevertheless, I pray that some of you may be willing to read what I have written below.

The RCC claims to be the genuine Christian church, and that all others are not. If this were indeed true, then it would be reasonable to expect that, of all the churches that say they follow Christ, it should be the RCC that obeys God’s commands completely – but is this truly the case?

1. One of the things that struck me most when I started reconsidering my religious beliefs was the fact that, as a Catholic, I was never given a Bible, nor was I advised to obtain one in order to read God’s word. But God instructs us in his word:

[i]2Ti 2:15 [color=CC3300]"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."[/color][/i]

If God wants his followers to correctly handle the word of truth, why are Catholics not encouraged by RCC leaders to read God's Word on their own?

Based on my own hindsight, the reason is because, if all RCC members read the Bible on their own and did not rely solely on the few innocuous verses read by the priest during the Mass, many would eventually realize that RCC teachings are far removed from God's word.

2. God teaches us that his word (the Bible) is complete, and we are warned by God not to add to, or subtract from it.

[i]Pr 30:5-6 [color=CC3300]“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."[/color]

Dt 4:2 [color=CC3300]"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."[/color][/i]

Instead of obeying God’s command, the RCC teaches that the doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i] (“scriptures only”, or the infallibility of God’s word) is heresy. The RCC (along with some Orthodox churches) teaches that God’s word alone is not enough. They claim that Sacred Tradition and Church Governance (Episcopacy) have equal authority with God’s word. By this, the RCC defies God’s teaching and pollutes God’s divine will with its own human inputs.

3. Through this fundamental act of disobedience to God, the RCC has managed to lead many to accept other beliefs and practices as God’s will, when in truth these are contrary to God’s teachings in Scripture. These include: Praying to or Worship of Saints, Purgatory, Salvation through RCC Sacraments, Transubstantiation, etc. There are too many of these departures from God’s teachings by the RCC to be adequately covered in this post. However, anyone wanting clarification on any of these beliefs or practices can post a specific question in this thread and many loving Christians are sure to respond.

[u]Warning[/u]: Those who post in this thread to promote RCC doctrines can expect opposition from members of this forum, not because of personal animosity, but because the propagation of false teachings is an abomination before God; and many here who love the Lord will be compelled to vigorously counter any doctrinal error with the truth.

Greetings Leo

Thank you for posting this. I know so many who are lost in the RCC, deceived by the lies and traditions that they believe save them. I pray for them to repent and to live their lives for Jesus, trusting in Him alone. I have seen the fear and guilt the RCC holds over those trapped in this empty religion with my own family and friends. You are correct in saying that the RCC is not the "Church" nor do they follow Biblical Jesus.

God Bless
mj

Dear mj,

My own beloved mother and some of my siblings remain trapped in the deception of the RCC. I tried sharing with them again recently, and my mom lovingly told me to "just leave me where I am now". It is heartbreaking. It is not just fear or guilt, but also a love of tradition and an unwillingness to consider that they (the Catholic person, their Catholic parents, and all their Catholic ancestors) could have been deceived for so long.

Perhaps if more people knew about and talked about the truth of the RCC's origins, many will finally realize that they are not right with God.

In Christ,
Leo

There is a great difference between early christianity and the modern roman catholic church. Many practices of RCC became standard doctrines in the early middle ages, later middle ages and in modern times.

The mass, purgatory, papal indulgences, the papal infallibility, the seven sacraments, the immaculate conception of Mary and the assumption of Mary, the belief that after assuption Mary assumed the role of helper in the mystery of redemption (Co-Redemptix), the rule of celibacy for all priests and clergy.

Few facts found on internet about the history of some popes and dogmas of RCC.

1. In "357 Pope Liberius signs Semi-Arian creed."

2. "379 Emperor Gratian permits Roman pope authority over neighboring bishops."

3. "382 First use of papal title Pontifex Maximus (formerly a pagan religious title reserved to the emperor)."

4. 451 Fourth Ecumenical Council notes that Rome's primacy is because it was "the imperial city"

5. (About) 590-604 Pope St. Gregory the Great rejects the title of "universal bishop" for any bishop.

6. "About 750 Forging of the Donation of Constantine, a false document claiming to be from St. Constantine granting universal secular power to the Pope and his successors."

7. 752 Founding of Papal States (lasting until 1870).

8. 1059 Beginning of the use of the term transubstantiation in West.

9. 1302 Papal bull Unam Sanctam declares submission to pope necessary for salvation.

10. 1379 Beginning of Western "Great Schism," during which there are eventually 3 rival popes.

11. 1414-1418 Council of Constance ends Western "Great Schism;" this council emphasized the Conciliar Movement over the authority of the pope.

12. 1439 Council of Florence fails to force Orthodox capitulation to papacy and confesses Purgatory as dogma.

13. 1444 Catholic priest Lorenzo Valla proves Donation of Constantine a forgery.

14. 1854 Declaration of Immaculate Conception of Mary as dogma.

15. 1870 Declaration of Papal Infallibility to be dogma at First Vatican Council.

16. 1950 Declaration of Bodily Assumption of Mary as dogma.

These facts mentioned are history and many practices today in RCC contradict the holy Scriptures.

**Edited** :-)

elected wrote:

the immaculate conception...

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Thanks

It means that Mary was conceived immaculately at birth (no original sin)....and remained sinless and virginal her entire life. Immaculate Conception basically is to Mary what Virgin Birth is to Christ. In a nutshell.

The dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary was established by Pope Pius IX in 1845:

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful."
—Pope Paul IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Later on after the decree of papal bull, in 1858 a 14 year old girl named Bernadette Soubirous had visions or apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes ('Mary') and in the vision this woman believed to be 'Mary' of the bible by roman catholics said to the young girl, "I am the Immaculate Conception".

The bible does not say anything about the
immaculate conception of Mary.

P.S - Immaculate means without stain of original sin

**Edited**

Greetings Leo

Sadly I know and understand the sorrow you feel deeply in your heart for you family. The last time I shared with my mom she told me that she would rather go to Hell then give up her faith in the Catholic Church. She really honestly believes that the RCC and following Christ are one in the same. To her giving up the church is the same as giving up Jesus. When I try to share with her from the Bible she tells me the Bible is not enough that we need the pope, the priests, and the traditions handed down to us since Peters time. You are right of course it is these traditions that she loves so much, they give her comfort and she finds peace in believing that if she says enough hail Marys during her devotional times then she will some how please God. When I spoke of the guilt I was referring to the many times that my mother has shared how heart broken she is that her children who were baptized in the Catholic church would turn there back on it. She carries considerable guilt over this, she feels as if she has failed God. I try to tell her that my choice to follow Jesus was not because of some failure on her part but rather because I saw how much a sinner I am and how great my need for Him is. I came to see that no one could save me except Christ. It just makes me so sad and angry to, I will admit that I struggle with anger at the lies and deception that is put forth as truth. I struggle with anger at those who should know better but call for unity at any cost, do they not even care that people are dying and going to hell?! I know though that I should not have an angry heart so please pray for me in this. I do not want to sin against the Lord.

Thank you for sharing this, my prayer is that someone who comes by SI and reads these truths might begin to ask questions, and seek God for answers not the RCC. Maybe it will be your mom, or mine...I pray that.

God Bless
mj

Dear mj,

When I spoke of the guilt I was referring to the many times that my mother has shared how heart broken she is that her children who were baptized in the Catholic church would turn there back on it. She carries considerable guilt over this, she feels as if she has failed God.

In Christ,
Leo

PaulWest wrote:

It means that Mary was conceived immaculately at birth (no original sin)....and remained sinless and virginal her entire life. Immaculate Conception basically is to Mary what Virgin Birth is to Christ. In a nutshell.

Well that's just plain foolishness.

*Edit* I always assumed that the immaculate conception was Christ's virgin birth. Guess I was way off. Seriously, Catholosism gets more and more foolish by the day.

You Catholic bashers! lol... seriously tho, a simple read of the NT and it becomes clear to any casual reader that Jesus had sisters and brothers... including James and Jude. Mary did not remain a virgin. Even Ray Charles could see that.

actually, Martin Luther and John Calvin, all the Reformers, must have been blinder than Ray Charles, because they too believed in the virginity of the Virgin Mary. :) In fact, Martin Luther is on record describing the Immaculate Conception as a "pious belief". The introduction of the belief that Mary was not ever-virgin was from heretics c. 4th century, the universal Church was unanimous in their claim.

Now, ironically, saying that Mary was not ever-virgin is considered a sign of "Protestantism" when in actuality it had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation.

FWIW,
Karsten

haydock wrote:

Well that's just plain foolishness. *Edit* I always assumed that the immaculate conception was Christ's virgin birth. Guess I was way off. Seriously, Catholosism gets more and more foolish by the day.

Presumptuous they are...

Self willed...

Not afraid to speak evil of dignities...

haydock,
Ignorant of God's teachings you are...
Arrogant of your irrelevant knowledge you are...
Totally lost in false teachings you are...
Not afraid to disobey God you are...
Bound for hell you are...

haydock wrote:

Presumptuous they are...

Self willed...

Not afraid to speak evil of dignities...

haydock. You are decieved. What does the Bible say about Mary? What does it say? Show me where Mary was virginal her entire life and had no other children. Show me where it says that Mary is a "co-saver" with Christ. Show me where it says that Mary will petition on mortals behalf to the Lord. Open the Bible and show me in context.

Gloves off.

Show me.

The problem with discussing Christianity with haydock is he doesn't believe in sola scriptura. Therefore he is no longer truly a Christian, he is a papist -- a non-Christian. He doesn't believe the Bible when it commands men not to add or subtract from Scripture.

To be blunt, he places his traditions and fruits of human "wisdom" above God's. He quotes Scripture only when it suits his argument. More often than not, he quotes the declarations of pitiful vessels of clay who think they are equal to God.

Leo wrote:The problem with discussing Christianity with haydock is he doesn't believe in sola scriptura. Therefore he is no longer truly a Christian, he is a papist -- a non-Christian. He doesn't believe the Bible when it commands men not to add or subtract from Scripture.

To be blunt, he places his traditions and fruits of human "wisdom" above God's. He quotes Scripture only when it suits his argument. More often than not, he quotes the declarations of pitiful vessels of clay who think they are equal to God.

____

This is exactly right and that is also why he will never be able to give you chapter and verse where it says that Mary was conceived and born free from sin, or that she was ever virgin, or that she was co-saver, or that we are to pray to her...the list goes on and on. He will simply fall back on the lies that we must look to traditions and men for understanding. His views have been twisted and he is deceived into following a false religion instead of the Lord Jesus. I am praying for him and all those lost in the RCC. I pray one day very soon they will come to know His truth and repent before it is to late.

God Bless
mj