The Origin Of Roman Catholic Religion - with Peter Michael Martinez
4:17 "streamed into the NEW Christian Church"?
- 1) The Edict of Milan was not founding any Church, just recognising as legal and as in certain ways privileged one already in existence;
- 2) What do you consider then and there happened to the 280 years OLD one?
4:25 "And the NEW Polytheistic Christianity" ... There you go again!
- 1) You have not pointed to any point which reasonably could have been then and there a founding act for a new counterfeit Christian Church, the edict if Milan was not one;
- 2) You are still not explaining what happened to the original Christian Church.
4:46 "The wholesale conversion of the Roman people without any understanding of the original doctrine of the Apostles"
- 1) The edict of Milan, unlike that of Theodosius, decades later, obliged no Pagans to desist even from public Paganism and was therefore not forcing people with a taste for public religion to become Christians;
- 2) If the Christians in Rome and Empire in 312 had an understanding of the original Christian doctrine, why would the Church lose it in 313?
- 3) And since Christian clergy had privileges, they could impose on the ones wanting to convert to study the faith for some time before getting to baptism : it was called being a Catechumen. In other words, your whole scenario breaks down as impossible.
4:54 "many pagan and polytheistic beliefs were incorporated into the New State Church"
- 1) Except that the Edict of Milan didn't make Christianity a State Church.
- 2) Except that the original Church, which would normally still have been extant and which would normally have been the first beneficiaries of the Edict (at least before Constantine supposedly meddled with it at Nicaea) were still around to prevent such paganism flowing in.
5:11 "Converted in mass to the all inclusive new religion"
Sorry, but the Catholic Church just after 313 was anything BUT "all inclusive"!
It is not exactly like the Vatican II Council "Catholicism", you know!
5:41 "it was decided to incorporate as many of the customs and beliefs"
When and where?
What historical fact can you point to?
You are telling a just so story, not very different from the one given by Dan Brown, through his character Teabing!
5:51 "they thought they would increase the number of Pagan converts"
Again, when and where?
If you look at Pope St Gregory the Great, he is a fan of including customs from Pagans, as long as the remains of these customs include nothing in conflict with the Christian belief.
BUT Pope St Gregory I is Pope 590 to 604.
You are supposedly still talking about just after the Edict of Milan. 313. Nearly 300 years before Pope St Gregory I.
6:03 J. L. von Monsheim, Ecclesiastical History, vol. I.
Thank you for citing your authority, at least.
I can google it, and it gives exactly five hits on some korean page.
In other words, the book probably does not exist. You are probably a fraud.
And you are also not even giving page numbers, fair enough, since the page numbers cannot exist without the book.
What however does exist is a 4 vol. Institutionum historiae ecclesiasticae libri IV, 1726, by one Johann Lorenz von Mosheim. Mosheim, not Monsheim.
As he was a Lutheran, his view of the Catholic Church can be suspected of being somewhat biassed. Especially back then in 1726.
6:41 "had found a way ... without confronting false religions"
Why was the Catholic Church then so very busy doing that, precisely confronting false religions?
Oh, it is perhaps not in von Monsheim, but it is in more real Ecclesiastical histories.
Take the Annals of Quedlinburg monastery. They tell of a monk and priest who went to Lithuania and who was nearly sacrificed to Lithuanian gods, only a horse gave a nudge interpreted as gods being against the sacrifice, and he survived and could tell of it.
Or take the men who came to Birka, Sts Ansgar and Rimbert and bishop Gauzbert - confronting Odinism near its headquarters in Sweden (Birka to Elder Uppsala is a fairly short distance, c. 92 km - using the municipalities they are part of, Ekerö and Uppsala).
If their Catholicism was so all inclusive as you claim, why take the trouble?
Speaking of Pope St Gregory, again : if his Catholicism was so all inclusive, why did he bother to tell bishops in Gaul (now France) they should NOT read in the Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid, poems containing pagan names of false gods?
This last in R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries.
7:21 Identifying Jesus with the sun god ... "Et orietur vobis timentibus nomen meum sol justitiae, et sanitas in pennis ejus: et egrediemini, et salietis sicut vituli de armento." [Malachias (Malachi) 4:2]
Catholics hardly did so more than Malachy did! You do consider Malachy a real prophet of the Old Testament, do you?
7:31 Imagery repackaged from sunworshippers?
Possible - but for another purpose.
IDOLS repackaged from sunworshippers?
You'd have to document that!
7:45 "Rather than convert the people to the Gospel, the new Church in Rome decided to convert their traditions and customs and simply call them Christian."
Funny, then, that you don't find solar looking monstrances until centuries after sun worship was gone.
Funny also, then, that you STILL have:
- 1) not answered by what act of apostasy or new foundation the "New" Christian Church arose;
- 2) NOR explained what happened to the old Christian Church, the one which Roman Pagans had persecuted along with Jews for 280 years.
8:28 OK, you are speaking of Constantine in 321 introducing Sunday rest.
Can you show that Sunworshippers before that had been resting on Sundays?
8:42 Tim Dowley, noted.
9:09 Sorry, but Christmas celebrated on december 25 is actually older than Constantine and arguably it could at least be older than Aurelian instituting Sol Invictus on Dec. 25 a few decades earlier than Constantine.
9:34 If one had only had one Church in Rome / Roman Empire ceasing to be purely Christian and becoming a new Church, this could have been possible. Actually it did happen too, they were called Arians, one of the times.
BUT you are not just saying this happened, you are also saying it happened after the Church had already become a new Church purely through the Edict of Milan, and also you are at least not giving any evidence of showing there was another Church surviving and resisting apostasy beside this. If Christianity had merely been human or demonic, no problem. But since Christianity is from God, you are contradicting Matthew 28.
Unless you claim sth other than the RC Church continued to be the Christian Church that Christ had founded.