Books of the bible different in Hippo from what was declared in Trent? Help please

[Cindy]

Gracie2004:

Yes, I’m also dealing with a protestant who swears that the first Fathers never mention infant baptism, purgatory, or the Papacy and he lists the ones who started talking about it in about 400 A.D…for the life of me I can’t find any earlier than that myself…let alone the perpetual virginity of Mary

If anyone else has some information here, or, Notworthy, if you have proof from the Fathers than I cannot find, would you let me know? Thanks.

Gracie

Hi Gracie,

The Catholic Answers Fathers Know Best tracts might be helpful.

God bless!

Cindy

Here are a few…

In the following tracts, the fathers of the early church speak for themselves.

Tracts:

Scripture & Tradition

Apostolic Tradition
The Old Testament Canon

Church & Papacy

Apostolic Succession
The Authority of the Pope Part 1
The Authority of the Pope Part 2
Origins of Peter as Pope
Peter’s Primacy
Peter’s Roman Residency
Peter’s Successors

Mary & Saints

The Intercession of the Saints
Mary: Ever Virgin
Mary: Full of Grace
Mary: Mother of God

Morality & Ethics

Abortion
Contraception and Sterilization
Early Teachings on Homosexuality

Sacraments

The Real Presence
Baptismal Grace
Bishop, Priest, and Deacon
Born Again in Baptism
Confession
Confirmation
The Permanence of Matrimony
Early Teachings of Infant Baptism
The Sacrifice of the Mass

Salvation

Mortal Sin
The Necessity of Baptism
Reward and Merit
Salvation Outside the Church

Last Things

The Roots of Purgatory

 

[NotWorthy]

Gracie2004:

Yes, I’m also dealing with a protestant who swears that the first Fathers never mention infant baptism, purgatory, or the Papacy and he lists the ones who started talking about it in about 400 A.D…for the life of me I can’t find any earlier than that myself…let alone the perpetual virginity of Mary

If anyone else has some information here, or, Notworthy, if you have proof from the Fathers than I cannot find, would you let me know? Thanks.

Gracie

There’s not much on Infant Baptism, which proves what? That there was no disputes over it. Think about it, as much as we gripe and moan when they make a minor change to the Mass (On the tongue? In the Hand?), wouldn’t the Early Church Fathers have raised a major stink when all of a sudden Baptism were allowed to children???

Regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, I understand the ECF’s spent a lot of the time defining Jesus’ nature (fully God? Fully Man? True God and True Man?) all the way into the late 4th century(?). They couldn’t get around to defining Mary as the Theotokos (and such) until they resolved the issue of Jesus’ Godhood.

Here’s some of what I’ve found on Infant Baptism, though:

**The Catholic Church Baptizes infants. Show me the Biblical authority to do this?

Where does it say in Holy Scripture, “Do not Baptize infants”? Show me the Biblical authority NOT to Baptize infants?

Jesus Christ said in Matt 28:19, “GO, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…”
He did not say adults only did he? Did he ever put an age limit to receive Baptism?

Acts 22:16, “and now WHY DO YOU DELAY? Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
So why do you delay in Baptizing your children?

Acts 2:38, But Peter said to them, “Repent and be Baptized every one of you…”
I would say that verse would include everyone, including infants and children of all ages. Peter did not say to leave your infants at home.

Acts 16:15, “And when she and her household had been Baptized…”
Did her household have infants maybe? Did Luke say “everyone in her household except infants”?

Acts 16:33, “And he took them at that very hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he and ALL his family were baptized immediately.”
Again, were infants excepted here?

1Cor 1:16, “I Baptized also the household of Stephanas…”
Did Paul say “everyone except infants”?

Luke 3:21, “Now it came to pass when all the people had been baptized…”
Aren’t infants part of “all the people”?

For those who deny infant baptism, the burden of proof is upon you to show that in all of the verses listed above there were no infants in all of those households and families.

Jesus Christ said in Matt 19:14, “Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.”
He also said in John 3:5, “…unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
How are they to come to Him unless they are Baptized?
Those who say not to Baptize infants clearly have a Biblical conflict here, and they risk the salvation of the souls of their children.

The baptism of the New Testament makes a man a Christian, and baptism saves,
Acts 2:38, Rom 6:4, 1Pet 3:21.
The “type” of baptism in the Old Testament was circumcision, which made a man a Jew,
Gen 17:10-14.
Circumcision had to be done early in life, on the eighth day of birth.
“He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male throughout your generations…”
Gen 17:12
Eight days old and every male, certainly does include infants, does it not?
I must ask: Since circumcision of infants was so important for the GOD of the Old Testament, why then are children excluded from Baptism by some in the New Testament?

“When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him as GOD had commanded him.”
Gen 21:4

“And when eight days were fulfilled for his circumcision, his name was called Jesus…”
Luke 2:21

Where in the Old Testament does it say not to circumcise infants?

Once again, where does it say in the New Testament not to baptize infants?

**This came from the website:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/baptism.htm

NotWorthy***

---

 

[Katholikos]

Superstar905:

Is this claim accurate? I can’t find the information.

"From the Roman Catholic standpoint, it was not until the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, that a general council declared ‘infallibly’ the books of the Bible. (The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local synods, and could not be considered infallible, since the list of Old Testament books was different from that given by Trent. Indeed, if Trent is correct, then Hippo and Carthage were not merely fallible, but actually mistaken). "

Ask your Protestant correspondent for the source of his/her information.

There is no difference whatever in the canonical Scriptures decreed by the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397), Basle-Ferrera-Florence (1441-1435) and Trent (1545-1563).

Trent dogmatically and infallibly affirmed the canon of the Vulgate, which was commissioned by Pope Damasus in A.D. 382 following the Council of Rome, over which he presided. That means the decree of the Council of Rome was affirmed retroactively. Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were all local synods. Florence was an ecumenical (general) council, as was Trent.

Council of Trent: If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Jay

 

[Kurt_G]

Gracie2004:

Yes, I’m also dealing with a protestant who swears that the first Fathers never mention infant baptism, purgatory, or the Papacy and he lists the ones who started talking about it in about 400 A.D…for the life of me I can’t find any earlier than that myself…let alone the perpetual virginity of Mary

If anyone else has some information here, or, Notworthy, if you have proof from the Fathers than I cannot find, would you let me know? Thanks.

Gracie

Thanks, Katholikos and others, for tying together Hippo, Carthage, Council of Rome, with Florence and Trent. It’s amazing what a little proper history can do to clear the air…

Now, Gracie, even though somewhat off subject, some quick help for you:

1. Infant Baptism: Hippolytus of Rome, “The Apostolic Tradition” AD 215 quote P#21 “Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them”.
Except for the Didache (90 AD), this writing is viewed as the first “how to” manual for Liturgical practice in the Church.

2. Papacy - Letter of Clement (Bishop of Rome) to the Corinthians AD 80/AD102: P#27 “You therefore who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility”.
Clement, as Bishop of Rome, is actually involving himself in a dispute in Corinth, where the people want to dismiss their bishop.
My translation actually confirms (P.#1) that these Corinthians brought the issue before Clement of their own accord. Why would they do this?
To a Catholic the answer is simple, because Clement is the Pope. To a non-Catholic it is a problem, since it is clear historical evidence, when years still had 2 digits, that the Bishop of Rome had an unusual position of primacy in the Church regarding certain Christian matters. I just don’t know how someone gets around this. Usually they don’t…they ignore it.

3. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: St. Jerome’s “Against Helvidius…The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” AD 383. Throughout the entire writing, Jerome scathes Helvidius for using Scripture to suggest that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary. Jerome also uses Scripture, to refute Helvidius, and defend the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But, even in the face of the rather late date of this writing, we must recognize:

Helvidius is the one with the “new” idea, not Jerome. Mary’s perpetual virginity is being defended by Jerome as the established belief, not proposed as a novel idea! Rather, the new “novel” idea is “blood brothers of Jesus”!

In fairness, we should mention that Helvidius claimed to have 2 people on his side, Victorinus and Tertullian. Jerome shows Victorinus to actually believe in her perpetual virginity, and Jerome casually dismisses Tertullian by claiming “I say no more than Tertullian did not belong to the Church.” wow…

The threads on all three of these subjects are numerous, but since you asked the question here, we thought we’d give at least some asnwer here…

God Bless Us All!

 

[Genesis315]

Gracie2004:

Yes, I’m also dealing with a protestant who swears that the first Fathers never mention infant baptism, purgatory, or the Papacy and he lists the ones who started talking about it in about 400 A.D…for the life of me I can’t find any earlier than that myself…let alone the perpetual virginity of Mary

At least the Baptists admit there is no evidence of their religion in the early Church–of course, they claim it’s because the Catholic Church killed all the Baptist fathers and destroyed their writings as well as any other evidence .

 

[Pax]

The Council of Florence in the 15th century also affirmed the Canon of Scripture enumerated in the 4th century prior to it being reiterated again at the Council of Trent. Unanimity reigned from the fourth century forward within the Church.