Foundation

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Why do you accept that the Church had the authority to set the Canon but yet you reject the Church’s authority in every other way?

I accept that early Christianity was very consistent about what books were acceptable with the obvious Revelation, 2nd Peter, and some of Pauls letters debated.
I absolutely accept that God used early Christians for his purpose like he does now. Historically, I certainly reject that 'The Church" is what Catholicism defines it as. It was much more contentious then that according to even most Catholic historians. I recognize the element of** faith** and I actually think Catholicism does as well. When Christianity progressivly slipped away from its roots IN SOME CASES it became further away from what the Apostles taught. We would never contend that the first 900 years or so of Chrstian history is completly full of error. That would be indefensible.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

I accept that early Christianity was very consistent about what books were acceptable with the obvious Revelation, 2nd Peter, and some of Pauls letters debated.
I absolutely accept that God used early Christians for his purpose like he does now. Historically, I certainly reject that 'The Church" is what Catholicism defines it as. It was much more contentious then that according to even most Catholic historians. I recognize the element of** faith** and I actually think Catholicism does as well. When Christianity progressivly slipped away from its roots IN SOME CASES it became further away from what the Apostles taught. We would never contend that the first 900 years or so of Chrstian history is completly full of error. That would be indefensible.

What I’m asking is, if the Church was able to define the Canon (entrusted with doing this and guided by the Holy Spirit) why do you believe it does not have the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit today?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

What I’m asking is, if the Church was able to define the Canon (entrusted with doing this and guided by the Holy Spirit) why do you believe it does not have the authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit today?

We disagree that early Christian history is a the “Church” in the uniform sense that Catholicism defines it today.
I would not say that the Holy Spirit does not work through Catholics today. I do not think Catholics think the Holy Spirit does not work through Protestants either.
I am trying to answer this question but we define things differently so that makes it quite difficult.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

We disagree that early Christian history is a the “Church” in the uniform sense that Catholicism defines it today.
I would not say that the Holy Spirit does not work through Catholics today. I do not think Catholics think the Holy Spirit does not work through Protestants either.
I am trying to answer this question but we define things differently so that makes it quite difficult.

Do you agree that the Canon was set at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage but you just disagree that at that time the bishops belonged to the same Catholic Church as today? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Do you agree that the Canon was set at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage but you just disagree that at that time the bishops belonged to the same Catholic Church as today? Is that what you are saying?

Sure.
Let me try to condense history, greatly greatly condense.

Individual congreations of Jewish believers to local congregations, several per city, under a bishop of that church ,to one bishop per city around 150 CE, that continues to develop along ethnic boundaries, until Rome overasserts itself to cause the Great Schism and Roman Catholicism in its present form really starts to take shape.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Sure.
Let me try to condense history, greatly greatly condense.

So, when you say “sure” you mean what with regards to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage?

I’ll get back to your condensed history after I clarify where you stand with these councils.

Do you believe that the bishops at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were bishops in the Catholic Church? This is what I am trying to clarify. Were the bishops Catholic or something else?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

So, when you say “sure” you mean what with regards to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage?

I’ll get back to your condensed history after I clarify where you stand with these councils.

Do you believe that the bishops at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were bishops in the Catholic Church? This is what I am trying to clarify. Were the bishops Catholic or something else?

They were members of the catholic church, universal. They were in charge of their regions. This developed post New Testament, the monoarchial system develops in some cases 120 years after the death of Christ. It is not biblical. Back to what I was saying. These bishops, some of which held Roman primacy, in different forms I will add. So in a sense, Catholic, Orthodox, and because of divergent theological views, others. I do not hold radical historical views on this, while Catholic scholars might find my implications to be faulty, I do not think they question that even secular scholars would explain it as such.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

They were members of the catholic church, universal. They were in charge of their regions. This developed post New Testament, the monoarchial system develops in some cases 120 years after the death of Christ. It is not biblical. Back to what I was saying. These bishops, some of which held Roman primacy, in different forms I will add. So in a sense, Catholic, Orthodox, and because of divergent theological views, others. I do not hold radical historical views on this, while Catholic scholars might find my implications to be faulty, I do not think they question that even secular scholars would explain it as such.

The Great Schism with the Orthodox did not occur until 1054.

There was no such thing as “Orthodox” at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 3rd-early 4th centuries. The Eastern churches were also called Catholic.

So, again, you are accepting the idea that the Holy Spirit was still guiding the Church (the one that has the Pope in Rome that we all know today) and that that Church had the authority from God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to set the Canon at the Councils.

So, then I am asking, when do you believe the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Catholic Church? When the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church, to what church/people/institution was the guidance transferred?

 

[Fredricks]

The Great Schism with the Orthodox did not occur until 1054.

all that led up to this occured long before 1054 as well

There was no such thing as “Orthodox” at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 3rd-early 4th centuries. The Eastern churches were also called Catholic.

But their ancestors, with in most cases their views, were around at this time as well. To say this group of people is the Catholic Church as many Catholics define it flies in the face of history, secular and Catholic.

So, again, you are accepting the idea that the Holy Spirit was still guiding the Church (the one that has the Pope in Rome that we all know today) and that that Church had the authority from God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to set the Canon at the Councils.

Its not “that Church”. It is not “the Church”. It is early Christians with some very divergent views on many issues. To say that these groups had the Pope in Rome in the 3rd century as we see it today, or that bishop had anywhere near the authority it does today is not historical. Yes, some held that view, they are often quoted, but this is a very splintered group along ethnic and geographical lines.

So, then I am asking, when do you believe the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Catholic Church? When the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church, to what church/people/institution was the guidance transferred?

The Holy Spirit has always guided Christians since Pentecost.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

all that led up to this occured long before 1054 as well

But their ancestors, with in most cases their views, were around at this time as well. To say this group of people is the Catholic Church as many Catholics define it flies in the face of history, secular and Catholic.

They used the term orthodox in the Eastern churches as the antithesis to the heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysites. But they belonged to a Church called the Catholic Church. (You will find the proof of this in documents of the Early Church Fathers who refer to the Church as “the Catholic Church”)

Its not “that Church”. It is not “the Church”. It is early Christians with some very divergent views on many issues.

They were a united Church at the time of the Councils. There was the Church and then there were the heresies. Nothing else.

To say that these groups had the Pope in Rome in the 3rd century as we see it today, or that bishop had anywhere near the authority it does today is not historical.

If you look at the Council records, you will see that the Pope (also known as the Bishop of Rome) had primacy regarding the results of the Council. (To be put in the next post).

The Holy Spirit has always guided Christians since Pentecost.

All Christians belonged to the Catholic Church until the Great Schism. It was the only Christian Church. There was only one. Are you denying that Christ founded a visible Church?

 

[Eden]

The Council of Carthage

newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua the Son of Nun
• The Judges
• Ruth
• The Kings (4 books)
• The Chronicles (2 books)
• Job
• The Psalter
• The Five books of Solomon
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezechiel
• Daniel
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• Ezra (2 books)
• Macchabees (2 books)

The New Testament:

• The Gospels (4 books)
• The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
• The Epistles of Paul (14)
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
• The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
• The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
• The Revelation of John (1 book)

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Does this look like your Bible? If not, why not?

Was your bishop representing your church at this Council? If not, why not?

 

[Eden]

The Boniface named was the 42nd Pope. You can see his position in the List of Popes here:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

They used the term orthodox in the Eastern churches as the antithesis to the heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysites. But they belonged to a Church called the Catholic Church. (You will find the proof of this in documents of the Early Church Fathers who refer to the Church as “the Catholic Church”)

They were a united Church at the time of the Councils. There was the Church and then there were the heresies. Nothing else.

If you look at the Council records, you will see that the Pope (also known as the Bishop of Rome) had primacy regarding the results of the Council. (To be put in the next post).

All Christians belonged to the Catholic Church until the Great Schism. It was the only Christian Church. There was only one. Are you denying that Christ founded a visible Church?

Please see my response.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

The Council of Carthage

newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua the Son of Nun
• The Judges
• Ruth
• The Kings (4 books)
• The Chronicles (2 books)
• Job
• The Psalter
• The Five books of Solomon
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezechiel
• Daniel
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• Ezra (2 books)
• Macchabees (2 books)

The New Testament:

• The Gospels (4 books)
• The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
• The Epistles of Paul (14)
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
• The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
• The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
• The Revelation of John (1 book)

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Does this look like your Bible? If not, why not?

Was your bishop representing your church at this Council? If not, why not?

The Council of Carthage was a regional conference for bishop, priests, etc from the North African church, which through their contentious history had lots of dealings with Rome.

“Was your bishop representing your church at this Council? If not, why not?”

Unless your bishop was from Northern Africa, none of them were there.
Were you not familiar with this before you posted?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

The Boniface named was the 42nd Pope. You can see his position in the List of Popes here:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

I know my Popes fairly well.
Because you have tried to paint a rosy picture of this era of history, allow me.

At he death of Pope Zosimus, the Roman Church entered into the fifth of the schisms, resulting from double papal elections, which so disturbed her peace during the early centuries. Just after Zosimus’s obsequies, 27 December, 418, a faction of the Roman clergy consisting principally of deacons **seized the Lateran basilica and elected as pope the Archdeacon Eulalius. ** The higher clergy tried to enter, but were violently repulsed by a mob of adherents of the Eulalian party. On the following day they met in the church of Theodora and elected as pope, much against his will, the aged Boniface, a priest highly esteemed for his charity, learning, and good character. On Sunday, 29 December, both were consecrated, Boniface in the Basilica of St. Marcellus, supported by nine provincial bishops and some seventy priests; Eulalius in the Lateran basilica in the presence of the deacons, a few priests and the Bishop of Ostia, who was summoned from his sickbed to assist at the ordination. Each claimant proceeded to act as pope, and Rome was thrown into tumultuous confusion by the clash of the rival factions. The Prefect of Rome, Symmachus, hostile to Boniface, reported the trouble to the Emperor Honorius at Ravenna, and secured the imperial confirmation of Eulalius’s election. Boniface was expelled from the city. His adherents, however, secured a hearing from the emperor who called a synod of Italian bishops at Ravenna to meet the rival popes and discuss the situation (February, March, 419). Unable to reach a decision, the synod made a few practical provisions pending a general council of Italian, Gaulish, and African bishops to be convened in May to settle the difficulty. It ordered both claimants to leave Rome until a decision was reached and forbade return under penalty of condemnation. As Easter, 30 March, was approaching , Achilleus, Bishop of Spoleto, was deputed to conduct the paschal services in the vacant Roman See. Boniface was sent, it seems, to the cemetery of St. Felicitas on the Via Salaria, and Eulalius to Antium. On 18 March, Eulalius boldly returned to Rome, gathered his partisans, stirred up strife anew, and spurning the prefect’s orders to leave the city, seized the Lateran basilica on Holy Saturday (29 March), determined to preside at the paschal ceremonies. The imperial troops were required to dispossess him and make it possible for Achilleus to conduct the services.
newadvent.org/cathen/02658a.htm

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

Of course the Holy Spirit worked through people and continues to. That is very scriptural.

I am aquainted with “Bible - Only” Christians who believe that revelation stopped with the last book of the Bible by using the quote from Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I take it from your response that this is not your position.

 

[imroc]

I have reisted posting in this topic, because I think that there is plenty of information written from both sides. I just have a couple problems with a couple remarks and I cannot let them go:

I intend to show that Sacred Tradition cannot be proven to go back to the Christ or the apostles.

If Sacred Tradition cannot be proven, then one must consider the Bible as null and void, for the Bible is tradition. I’ve seen alot of debate over how the Bible stands as THE authority and how it stands as AN authority. But the fact of the matter is, here in this situation we can see what came first, the chicken or the egg. Figuratively speaking, the chicken gave us the egg. The egg cannot contain the whole of the original chicken. Our Bible would be much larger than we could even imagine if it were the fullness of the Truth. I cannot and will not ever accept that the Bible is THE single authority of our faith, especially from any protestant, because the contradiction in the claim is so completely overwhelming. How can ANYbody who claims Sola Scriptura use a protestant Bible, when it is so thoroughly obvious that somebody by the name of Martin Luther took it upon himself to be a HIGHER authority of even the Bible to make changes and deletions? HOW?!

And if they claim that Martin Luther was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make these changes, then they are opening another can of worms that can easily put their belief into a corner.

Another issue I have with Sola Scriptura is the implication that the Church does not follow the Bible and even contradicts it. I pretty much attend Mass daily, except Saturdays. I see everyday that the Church venerates the Word of God (Liturgy of the word) just as much as it venerates the Body of Christ (Eucharist). In this Mass I also hear a homily. All of which are Tradition of the Church. From my understanding, this form of liturgy is pretty much the same as it was since the first generations of the Church. Instead of the Bible being read in the Liturgy of the Word, letters from the apostles were used. Are we to believe that the apostles generated texts or oral statements for EVERY church for EVERY worship/Mass? It is even possible? Absolutely not! The Bible contains the truths that are so beautiful in our faith, but cannot possibly contain all of the acts of the apostles and teachings. This is probably one of the reasons why Christ founded a teaching and authoritative Church. A Church that the Holy Spirit will guide through ALL times.

I will not take away the Bible from any protestant, because quite honestly, they NEED that Bible. But I will tell you that Sola Scriptura is not possible to uphold the truth and foundation of all Christians. The various cults that exist because of Sola Scriptura are an obvious symptom. Groups like the United Pentecostal look to the Bible as their sole authority, but have a very twisted theology because of this. It is so plainly obvious that over the years, churches seperate from churches and grow further from their root Church, the Catholic Church, that their theology gets distorted and people are lead further from the truth. Rapture theologies, denial of infant baptism, denial of the Trinit, acceptance of abortion and contraception are just a few teachings of churches that show the ramnifications of Sola Scriptura.

One can easily see how a departure from the Church has eventually lead to a “I don’t need to go to a church to be a Christian” ideology. This has obviously lead to an idea of, “God is everywhere, I can be with God in the woods.” And now we see, “Yeah, there’s some type of higher being, but we shouldn’t hinder others with our God, beacause they believe in a god too.” And even worse we see, “There’s no god. Live life to the fullest, beacause we only have a few years to enjoy it!”

 

[imroc]

(continued)

For me, I will serve God through his Church which he established. I will follow the Church, because for 2000 years it has upheld and preserved the Truth. I will listen to the readings of scripture daily and live by my sacraments (my oaths with God). If I fall, I know that I will be able to confess to the Church as prescribed by scripture and be reconciled with God through the Church as prescribed by the Bible. I will not be worthy, but by Christ’s grace, I will partake in communion of our Lord with my brothers and sisters here on earth and in heaven. I will pray for my brothers and sister here on earth and those who have departed. I will indulge in helping those alive and departed, for I am a Christian and will follow Christ’s way, for he is THE ULTIMATE INDULGENCE as he suffered for us. Yes, I will vow to uphold the baptismal promises I made and raise my children as Christians. And yes, I will baptise my expected child as an infant. I will recognize that baptism replaces circumcision and just as circumcision was done in proxy by the parents to bring the child into a sacramental oath under the Old Covenant, I will baptise my child in proxy to bring him or her into a sacramental oath under the New Covenant. I will ask the saints of the Church here on earth and in heaven to pray for my family. I will do all of these things, because I cannot find where the very Church that gave us the Bible contradicts that same Bible.

If you were teaching your billion people things that were leading them to damnation, would you compile literature that “proves” you guilty? I wouldn’t think so. And yes, people from within the Church have questioned the Church since the earliest of days. But the Church, just as in Acts, has held councils to discuss these questions and come to an agreement, a universal agreement and teaching for all Christians at all places. These are true reforms. You do NOT reform the Church by departing and taking what you like from it and editing it to fit your theology. I am saddened by what Martin Luther did, but I pray for his soul at times. Does this mean that protestants, by following the basics of Martin Luther are damned? God forbid anybody to make such claims! And may God bless all of you.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

The Council of Carthage was a regional conference for bishop, priests, etc from the North African church, which through their contentious history had lots of dealings with Rome.

“Was your bishop representing your church at this Council? If not, why not?”

Unless your bishop was from Northern Africa, none of them were there.
Were you not familiar with this before you posted?

Yes. But they sent the results back to my Bishop of Rome for confirmation. He didn’t need to be there. In other words, he had the final say on the matter. But it appears the representative from your Protestant church was not invited. I wonder why he wasn’t asked to confirm the Canon?

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

I know my Popes fairly well.
Because you have tried to paint a rosy picture of this era of history, allow me.

newadvent.org/cathen/02658a.htm

Painted a rosy picture? I said the Church was one. That is a fact. There was no other Christian Church.

But it’s interesting. You have proven something you had not intended to. This is again witness to the fact that the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

From “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.



Somehow we still managed to set the Canon and preserve the Word of God until Luther came around. How? The Holy Spirit.