Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

[ConfusedTim]

I was trying to find a non catholic view of the Deuterocanonical Books (The Apocrypha) and ended up on lots of evangelical, presybeteryian and other non catholic christian web sites. Whilst there i noticed that virtually none of them made any mention of how we got the bible even though on the same sites you would see references to John Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin etc.

The intersting thing was that whenever a site did mention the origins of the bible they referred to the “early Church Fathers”. The thing is they would include the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Nicea in the list of early church fathers but fail to say WHICH church they were in. My thoughts were that the thought of their flocks knowing the truth about the origins of the bible must be so frightening for many church leaders that they either gloss over it or are deceptive.

 

[Tietjen]

I was trying to find a non catholic view of the Deuterocanonical Books (The Apocrypha) and ended up on lots of evangelical, presybeteryian and other non catholic christian web sites. Whilst there i noticed that virtually none of them made any mention of how we got the bible even though on the same sites you would see references to John Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin etc.

The intersting thing was that whenever a site did mention the origins of the bible they referred to the “early Church Fathers”. The thing is they would include the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Nicea in the list of early church fathers but fail to say WHICH church they were in. My thoughts were that the thought of their flocks knowing the truth about the origins of the bible must be so frightening for many church leaders that they either gloss over it or are deceptive.

This is very true here in the States as well. I wonder some times what I would find if I took a survey of the many Protestants that I come in contact with daily and the question was, “Where did we get the Bible from?” I wonder what types of answers I’d get.

 

[friarpark]

I had this discussion with someone I work with several years ago, and I overheard him tell someone else that he never knew how the Bible was put together.

 

[Eucharisted]

Some believe the Apostles compiled the Bible, than the Church got corrupt and corrupted the Bible, and the original Bible was restored along with the Church at the Reformation (or any creation of a new denomination, really). So, yeah, it’s nothing new under the Sun.

 

[Hesychios]

… The thing is they would include the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Nicea in the list of early church fathers but fail to say WHICH church they were in. My thoughts were that the thought of their flocks knowing the truth about the origins of the bible must be so frightening for many church leaders that they either gloss over it or are deceptive.

Yes, at least if they were honest about it they would admit that these were Orthodox church Councils and Fathers.

 

[1ke]

I was trying to find a non catholic view of the Deuterocanonical Books (The Apocrypha)

The Deuterocanon and Apocrypha are two different things.

The Deuterocanon are the 7 books of the old testament included in the canon of scripture by the Councils, and subsequently rejected by the Reformers.

The Apocrypha are books never accepted by anyone as canonical. Many are Gnostic in origin and contain heretical teachings.

To refer to the Deuterocanon as “apocrypha” is incorrect. Many protestants use the term to cast aspersions on the Catholic Bible. Catholics, IMHO, should never refer to the Deuterocanon in this manner.

 

[Publisher]

The Deuterocanon and Apocrypha are two different things.

The Deuterocanon are the 7 books of the old testament included in the canon of scripture by the Councils, and subsequently rejected by the Reformers.

The Apocrypha are books never accepted by anyone as canonical. Many are Gnostic in origin and contain heretical teachings.

To refer to the Deuterocanon as “apocrypha” is incorrect. Many protestants use the term to cast aspersions on the Catholic Bible. Catholics, IMHO, should never refer to the Deuterocanon in this manner.

Question,

What do Catholics call those books which are included in the Orthodox canon but not in the Catholic canon?

 

[Publisher]

Question,

What do Catholics call those books which are included in the Orthodox canon but not in the Catholic canon?

BUMP

 

[qui_est_ce]

Question,

What do Catholics call those books which are included in the Orthodox canon but not in the Catholic canon?

As far as I know, we don’t call them anything. Biblical inspiration ended with the death of the last Apostle. Therefore “inspired” writings may exist, but they must be consistent with the Bible.

 

[Publisher]

As far as I know, we don’t call them anything. Biblical inspiration ended with the death of the last Apostle. Therefore “inspired” writings may exist, but they must be consistent with the Bible.

I wasn’t asking about biblical inspriation…my question was more to the point of one of the previous posters who stated that it was disrespectful for Protestants to refer to the Dueterocanical Books as “Apocrypha”…they were to be referred to as “Deuterocanonical”…when Catholic scholars and Catholics in general refer to those books which are considered scripture by the Orthodox and included in their Old Testament canon, but not in the Catholic canon…how are they referred to? They wouldn’t be referred to “Dueterocanoical” would they…would Catholics use the term “Apocrypha” for those extra books in the Orthodox OT? Would that be disrespectful to do so?

What are your opinions on the subject?

 

[Justy90]

I was trying to find a non catholic view of the Deuterocanonical Books (The Apocrypha) and ended up on lots of evangelical, presybeteryian and other non catholic christian web sites. Whilst there i noticed that virtually none of them made any mention of how we got the bible even though on the same sites you would see references to John Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin etc.

The intersting thing was that whenever a site did mention the origins of the bible they referred to the “early Church Fathers”. The thing is they would include the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Nicea in the list of early church fathers but fail to say WHICH church they were in. My thoughts were that the thought of their flocks knowing the truth about the origins of the bible must be so frightening for many church leaders that they either gloss over it or are deceptive.

If the Bible comes from the Catholic church, then why can’t that be found in the Bible? This should be a no brainer but yet nobody can answer that.

 

[qui_est_ce]

If the Bible comes from the Catholic church, then why can’t that be found in the Bible? This should be a no brainer but yet nobody can answer that.

Because English wasn’t invented at that time.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I wasn’t asking about biblical inspriation…my question was more to the point of one of the previous posters who stated that it was disrespectful for Protestants to refer to the Dueterocanical Books as “Apocrypha”…they were to be referred to as “Deuterocanonical”…when Catholic scholars and Catholics in general refer to those books which are considered scripture by the Orthodox and included in their Old Testament canon, but not in the Catholic canon…how are they referred to? They wouldn’t be referred to “Dueterocanoical” would they…would Catholics use the term “Apocrypha” for those extra books in the Orthodox OT? Would that be disrespectful to do so?

What are your opinions on the subject?

Can’t find any references except Proto-Canonical, but I don’t think that is an exactly correct description. Everything I’ve checked is the books are just called by their names, or referred to as the Orthodox Canon. I do not believe this is a disrespectful term, but you’d have to ask an Orthodox person. And if they found it disrespectful, I’d apologize and ask them the correct terminology.

By the way Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox have different canons.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

If the Bible comes from the Catholic church, then why can’t that be found in the Bible? This should be a no brainer but yet nobody can answer that.

You’re asking why the Bible doesn’t say that it came from the Catholic Church? Why do you think that it should say that? The Bible is a Book of books. These books were written first, then the Bible was compiled. It makes no logical sense for the Bible to say that it comes from the Catholic Church when the books that make up the Bible were written before it was put together.

 

[jpk1313]

the Deuterocanonical/apocrapha are different for catholics and protestants. the protestants consider the deuterocanonical books apocrapha and the apocrapha for catholics are books like pauls letter to the laodisians, the prayer of manassa (my spelling sucks pray for me) ect, these books were added to the vulgat as an appendix they are not considered as scripture in the classic sense but are good for private reading sort of the same way protestants view the deuterocanonical books.

 

[youngsaint]

If the Bible comes from the Catholic church, then why can’t that be found in the Bible? This should be a no brainer but yet nobody can answer that.

Thats because the catholic church wasn’t even called catholic until 160 something ad. Actually, where did you find “its ok to break off from the catholic church, and start our own church, made by man, that fits our needs”? I would like to know where the bible says that. It IS a no brainer, yet none of you non-catholics can figure it out.

 

[Hisalone]

I was trying to find a non catholic view of the Deuterocanonical Books (The Apocrypha) and ended up on lots of evangelical, presybeteryian and other non catholic christian web sites. Whilst there i noticed that virtually none of them made any mention of how we got the bible even though on the same sites you would see references to John Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin etc.

The intersting thing was that whenever a site did mention the origins of the bible they referred to the “early Church Fathers”. The thing is they would include the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Nicea in the list of early church fathers but fail to say WHICH church they were in. My thoughts were that the thought of their flocks knowing the truth about the origins of the bible must be so frightening for many church leaders that they either gloss over it or are deceptive.

We view those Christians that lived in the first hundred years to be Christian, Catholics as Catholics. Lets be honest ---- the Church of 33AD was different than the Church of 353 AD and much different than 1563.

 

[Justy90]

Yes, at least if they were honest about it they would admit that these were Orthodox church Councils and Fathers.

I would say that your statement is just as fair as someone who is Roman Catholic laying claim to the origin of the Bible. The fact remains that the Bible was comprised before East and West ever became East and West as it was to be known circa 1054AD.

 

[Justy90]

We view those Christians that lived in the first hundred years to be Christian, Catholics as Catholics. Lets be honest ---- the Church of 33AD was different than the Church of 353 AD and much different than 1563.

Absolutely true.

 

[youngsaint]

Absolutely true.

No, actually not true, what so ever.

There is a document, I forget the author, that was written in 90 ad. When your “Christians” were there. The document explained all that went on in ancient masses, it exactly corresponds with the mass today, including the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Explain how that got there, almost 2000 years ago, cause I know I don’t have a time machine (dang that would be useful )