How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

[PRmerger]

The further they are from faith, the more I wish to evangelise

So perhaps you can understand that feeling we have regarding those who are not Catholic?

That which you feel towards those who are “far from faith”, simply apply it to us here.

We simply draw the circle in a bit more closely than you may.

 

[joe370]

By that I mean that in the Protestant churches I’ve attended that give credence to the early councils (typically the first three or four ecumenical councils), these have not been considered decisions of the Roman Catholic Church (which is commonly what is referred to in these forums as the CC), but of the early, undivided church.

If not the Catholic Church, with its headquarters in Rome, then perhaps you could identify the early, undivided, historical church that was responsible for the decisions of those 3 ecumenical councils?

We know it must still be here today, as per scripture, so perhaps you could identify that one undivided, historical church, in the world today, that was responsible for the decisions of those early councils that you mentioned? Keeping in mind, by your own admission, that there was only one church, for the simple fact that the 11th century east - west schism and the 16th century protestant reformation had not yet occurred.

 

[CopticChristian]

Some specifics might be helpful, and I find your terminology a bit odd, as well. By that I mean that in the Protestant churches I’ve attended that give credence to the early councils (typically the first three or four ecumenical councils), these have not been considered decisions of the Roman Catholic Church (which is commonly what is referred to in these forums as the CC), but of the early, undivided church. Protestants are usually careful to state that it is the errors of Romanism, typically doctrines that have been added, that they were protesting and trying to correct by saying that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Whatever differences Protestants may have on the usefulness of early church writings, I know of none that considers the early, undivided church to be what is now known as the Catholic Church./

 

[Linusthe2nd]

'zactly. It is a testament to the authority of the CC. And each and every time a non-Catholic Christian quotes from the NT he is giving tacit submission to this authority.

Actually, the main reason would be because what it proclaimed was not consonant with the kerygma.

That is, it is Sacred Tradition, which came before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ, that determines whether a book will be part of the canon.

And even if someone were a Scripture scholar, would that individual have the authority to declare, even for himself, “I have read the Gospel of Barnabas and have concluded that it is indeed inspired!” :nope:

No, in matters of declaired Dogma, belief must also be held in the heart.

 

[adf417]

PRmerger… I’m curious. If you had a close friend who was thriving and ministering in the Gospel in a far removed Protestant church - something like the Quakers, and they are raising up strong and beautiful children in the faith, are you apt to pry them away from their church home? Or do you pause?

For me, I’m not so sure. Certainly I have no urge to drawn in Catholics, Anglicans or Orthodox into my church as the transfer may cause a diminishment of faith. But my good Baptist friend I am on the fence with - his church is “wrong” in doctrine, but no soul can walk into his church and not freely admit that his church is filled with the Gospel and that he is BOLDLY sharing the Gospel with others and drawing them closer to Christ.

Just curious on your thoughts.

Hello Ben. I think you raise a very good question we should all ask ourselves. I certainly can’t speak for all Catholics but I’m sure most of them would agree…

While prying Protestants or any other non-Catholic group/person away from their faith may seem like the goal for Catholics, I prefer to think we are more passionate about clearing up any/all misunderstandings there are about our faith. We feel confident once the misunderstandings are cleared up, the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those who are otherwise seen as “pried” away. The passion is simply to clear up the misunderstandings (and there are many) that have been communicated for many years.

The question for me is how can I be sure that hypothetical person you described truly knows what the Catholic Church teaches and/or not teaches?

Peace!!!

 

[jrtrent]

I too want to know what this early undivided Church was…maybe I am missing out on something…

If not the Catholic Church, with its headquarters in Rome, then perhaps you could identify the early, undivided, historical church that was responsible for the decisions of those 3 ecumenical councils?

You had asked a similar question in post 43, which I finally got around to trying to answer in post 127. Here’s part of one sentence:

. . . once the church is divided, there can no longer exist an undivided church, so there is no organization I can point to which is the undivided church today . . .

 

[CopticChristian]

You had asked a similar question in post 43, which I finally got around to trying to answer in post 127. Here’s part of one sentence:

Jr,

You said…

once the church is divided, there can no longer exist an undivided church, so there is no organization I can point to which is the undivided church today . .

Once the Church is divided…Ok

point to me in time with names and beliefs the Church that was undivided and when it divided and over what issue.

There can no longer exist and undivided Church,

Ok, then therefore there must exist something, what is it…?

There is no organization I can point to that is the undivided Church today.

Ok then if there is no undivided Church there must be something and that would be what if there is no representative of an undivided Church, what is the alternative that must exist?

 

[jrtrent]

. . . point to me in time with names and beliefs the Church that was undivided and when it divided and over what issue. . . Ok, then therefore there must exist something, what is it…?

Again, let me just refer you to my answer in post 127. I know it’s not a complete or satisfactory answer, but it’s what I have to offer right now.

 

[CopticChristian]

Again, let me just refer you to my answer in post 127. I know it’s not a complete or satisfactory answer, but it’s what I have to offer right now.

Jr,

It is what I would expect of a Mormon, Lutheran Anglican, they always dodge questions.

 

[jrtrent]

It is what I would expect of a Mormon, Lutheran Anglican, they always dodge questions.

I may well be the only Mormon, Lutheran, Anglican on this forum, but I don’t think I dodged the question. I referred you to post 127 because I think it is there that I addressed the questions you posed in post 146. If you don’t find my response there to be satisfactory, let me know what is still unclear and I will try to do better.

 

[CopticChristian]

I may well be the only Mormon, Lutheran, Anglican on this forum, but I don’t think I dodged the question. I referred you to post 127 because I think it is there that I addressed the questions you posed in post 146. If you don’t find my response there to be satisfactory, let me know what is still unclear and I will try to do better.

JR,

Give me a valid explanation of posting 146 and I may join you in becoming Mormon/Lutheran/Anglican…if you found something I don’t know then I am in…

 

[joe370]

You had asked a similar question in post 43, which I finally got around to trying to answer in post 127. Here’s part of one sentence:

Originally Posted by jrtrent
. . . once the church is divided, there can no longer exist an undivided church, so there is no organization I can point to which is the undivided church today . . .

Jesus’ one undivided church no longer exists today in your opinion? OK. If not the Catholic Church, with its headquarters in Rome, then perhaps you could identify the early, undivided, historical church (that no longer exists today) that was responsible for the decisions of the 3 ecumenical councils you mentioned?

 

[benjohnson]

The question for me is how can I be sure that hypothetical person you described truly knows what the Catholic Church teaches and/or not teaches?

Peace!!!

That’s a great point! Perhaps I should let the Holy Spirit make that decision rather that try to make it myself.

I sometimes find that I also benefit when I evangelize to those that are unchurched - I grow in charity, and I also learn my own faith better.

If every Catholic wen’t out in the world to share the Gospel with their neighbor, not only would there be more Catholics, but each Catholic would understand their own faith better. That would even make this Lutheran happy!

Peace to you too!

 

[jrtrent]

Jesus’ one undivided church no longer exists today in your opinion? OK. If not the Catholic Church, with its headquarters in Rome, then perhaps you could identify the early, undivided, historical church (that no longer exists today)

And again, I will refer you to what I said in post 127:

The term “undivided church” is most often used as a reference to the time before Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split. The year 1054 often comes up, though there had been divisive issues cropping up for several hundred years prior to that. There was political separation and doctrinal separation, the two most important of which were with respect to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and the insertion of the Filioque (first adopted in Spain in 589).

Some might also want to consider the separation of the non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) churches in 451, though this event does not seem to be what is meant when writers refer to the undivided church.

. . . that was responsible for the decisions of the 3 ecumenical councils you mentioned?

Since in this post you specifically mention 3 ecumenical councils, and since the non-Chalcedonian churches did not accept the findings of the 4th ecumenical council, we could call that the end of the undivided church. I wonder, though, if the Arians might not have constituted an earlier break in the undivided church. I’ll have to do more study on that issue; my understanding at present is that they were never a separate church organisation but were simply people within the church with a different doctrine of the person of Christ who eventually either capitulated to the decisions of Nicea I and Constantinople I or were excommunicated and exiled.

As I also mentioned in post 127, even if the early councils were made by an undivided church, that does not mean that their decisions were necessarily correct.

Another thing to consider is that even before a time when we can point to distinct organizations separating/dividing from one another, differences and divisions already existed; hence the need to gather in council to deal with different takes on theology such as Arianism. Also, just because a church is undivided in terms of not yet having separated into different groups doesn’t mean that that “undivided” church got everything right. As a page on the Reformed Episcopal site states with reference to the ecumenical councils, "The historic Anglican position maintains that no council of the Church- general or otherwise - can claim immunity from error or corruption, and indeed that all councils 'may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God."

 

[joe370]

jrtrent;10196920]And again, I will refer you to what I said in post 127…Since in this post you specifically mention 3 ecumenical councils…Since in this post you specifically mention 3 ecumenical councils, and since the non-Chalcedonian churches did not accept the findings of the 4th ecumenical council, we could call that the end of the undivided church…As I also mentioned in post 127, even if the early councils were made by an undivided church, that does not mean that their decisions were necessarily correct

Post 40, you said:

Some specifics might be helpful, and I find your terminology a bit odd, as well. By that I mean that in the Protestant churches I’ve attended that give credence to the early councils (typically the first three or four ecumenical councils), these have not been considered decisions of the Roman Catholic Church (which is commonly what is referred to in these forums as the CC), but of the early, undivided church.

Which was why I asked:

Jesus’ one undivided church no longer exists today in your opinion? I understand. If not the Catholic Church, with its headquarters in Rome, then perhaps you could identify the early, undivided, historical church (that no longer exists today, and as you mentioned in post 127, those early councils could have been wrong regarding teachings such as the Trinity) - that was responsible for the decisions of the 3 ecumenical councils that you mentioned in post 40?

Hope I am not bothering you. Just attempting to solicit an answer that resembles historical fact.

 

[jrtrent]

Jesus’ one undivided church no longer exists today in your opinion? I understand. If not the Catholic Church, with its headquarters in Rome, then perhaps you could identify the early, undivided, historical church (that no longer exists today, and as you mentioned in post 127, those early councils could have been wrong regarding teachings such as the Trinity) - that was responsible for the decisions of the 3 ecumenical councils that you mentioned in post 40?

Hope I am not bothering you. Just attempting to solicit an answer that resembles historical fact.

You’re not bothering me, I guess I’m just not understanding your question. In post 127, I wrote:

“Well, once the church is divided, there can no longer exist an undivided church, so there is no organization I can point to which is the undivided church today; however, there are some groups that could be said to have once been a part of that undivided church and have continued to the present day (such as the afore-mentioned Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches).”

The undivided church would have been the Christian churches that existed prior to when they started dividing from one another. To “identify the early, individed, historical church” would be to point out everywhere they existed. Looking just at the first century, a Wikipedia article says:

“Early Christians gathered in small private homes, known as house churches, but a city’s whole Christian community would also be called a church – the Greek noun εκκλησια (or Ecclesia) literally means assembly, gathering, or congregation but is translated as church in most English translations of the New Testament. . . Over 40 such communities were established by the year 100, many in Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor, such as the Seven churches of Asia. By the end of the first century, Christianity had already spread to Rome, India, and major cities in Armenia, Greece and Syria . . .”

And, of course, many more churches continued to be founded as the years went by. All of these made up the undivided church, which was undivided until such time as some churches decided they were right and others were wrong and separated themselves. The first such separation I know of was that of the non-Chalcedonians in 451 AD, but maybe you know of some earlier breaks.

 

[joe370]

jrtrent;10197506]You’re not bothering me, I guess I’m just not understanding your question. In post 127, I wrote:

"Well, once the church is divided, there can no longer exist an undivided church, so there is no organization I can point to which is the undivided church today

…however, there are some groups that could be said to have once been a part of that undivided church and have continued to the present day (such as the afore-mentioned Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches)."

Which of these churches existed in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century?

The undivided church would have been the Christian churches that existed prior to when they started dividing from one another. To “identify the early, individed, historical church” would be to point out everywhere they existed. Looking just at the first century, a Wikipedia article says:

“Early Christians gathered in small private homes, known as house churches, but a city’s whole Christian community would also be called a church – the Greek noun εκκλησια (or Ecclesia) literally means assembly, gathering, or congregation but is translated as church in most English translations of the New Testament. . . Over 40 such communities were established by the year 100, many in Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor, such as the Seven churches of Asia. By the end of the first century, Christianity had already spread to Rome, India, and major cities in Armenia, Greece and Syria . . .”

Agreed. Those early Christians were not npn-catholics for the simple fact that the east - west schism and the protestant reformation had not occurred - right? That leaves us with the Catholic Church alone, which had to deal with competing sects on occasion, hence the term catholic, to make the distinction. Ignatius of Antioch did not invent the word catholic, However, his letters contain the earliest known uses of the word. Clearly it was in general use before Ignatius because Ignatius writes in such a way that he already expects his readers to be familiar with this term and its meaning. He also uses the term in more than one of his letters, meaning, logically speaking, that he expects early Christians, located in more than one place within the Roman Empire, to be familiar with the term. This indicates that in his day (latter part of the 1st century, into the second century) the term, catholic, was already in widespread use. For it to be used in such a broad manner would require some time to pass in the early Christian communities, meaning that the term probably was coined sometime in the second half of the first century. Much to my surprise, the word “catholic” had become a universal term used to identify Jesus’ Church.

Ignatius wrote the following::“But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

The first such separation I know of was that of the non-Chalcedonians in 451 AD, but maybe you know of some earlier breaks.

I am no historian but I think you are right.

Here are just a couple of examples; there are many more:

**The Martyrdom of Polycarp - **When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on a (donkey) and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus** - Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church,** in the church of Rome** under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 A.D.200])Clement of

 

[joe370]

You’re not bothering me.

That’s cool. It can be difficult to discern via an on-line forum. This is a pretty interesting quote from Cyril, who was a distinguished theologian of the early Church, circa 350 AD, and he even mentions Saint Paul as a member of the catholic church:

Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350). *

 

[PJM]

=adrift;10179543]I also am interested

simple

IF GOD HAD WANTED IT INCLUDED; IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.

This from the bible “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work”

And FAITH

 

[jrtrent]

Which of these churches existed in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century?

[Asked in response to my having written, “there are some groups that could be said to have once been a part of that undivided church and have continued to the present day (such as the afore-mentioned Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches)”]

An interesting question in that we could answer either all of them or none of them. Some churches that later belonged to each of those groups were already around in the early centuries, so they all existed, yet those distinctive names were not needed till after separation occurred, so you could also say that none existed.

Those early Christians were not npn-catholics for the simple fact that the east - west schism and the protestant reformation had not occurred - right? That leaves us with the Catholic Church alone, which had to deal with competing sects on occasion, hence the term catholic, to make the distinction.

This is where labels get confusing. Many groups refer to themselves as either the Catholic Church or as being a catholic church, but the term is also used to describe the Roman Catholic Church; however, the church headed by the Bishop of Rome was never, by itself, the undivided church. It was either part of the undivided church (along with the groups headed by other bishops at Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc.), or it was one of at least three different churches that made up the divided church (hence the designations Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic).