Is the Catholic church today the same church that codified the Bible in 400ad?

[jimmy]

brianberean:

I’m talking about contradictory opinions expressed by those who were members of the church, not heretics.

The Heretics were part of the church until they were anathematized or excommunicated. I think that many of the bishops were Arians at one point.

I don’t really want to get into a proof text war but, like I said before, I can provide evidence of contradictory opinions on what are now considered dogmatic teachings. In the church of 400AD one could hold and teach views that contradict purgatory, indulgences, mandatory confession to a priest (with exceptions), papal infallibility and universal jurisdiciton, Marion doctrines, and still be a member of the church in good standing.

A large percentage of the bishops taught this stuff though, its not like these were minority beleifs.

 

[Thepeug]

Ghosty:

Let’s not forget the very basic fact of Apostalic Succession, that we can trace the pedigrees of Bishops going back to that time.

Are there records of such pedigrees? If so, where can one look at them? From a Catholic perspective, is Apostolic succession a maintenance of Apostolic beliefs and teaching or a literal succession of authority?

God bless,

Chris

 

[Aris]

brianberean:

Jimmy,

As you know, I could provide quotes from fathers who disagree with the quotes from your fathers. What that would demonstrate is that disagreement on these future dogmas was alive and well and accepted. None of these future dogmas enjoyed “the unanimous consent of the fathers”, no matter how much you abuse the definition of “unanimous”. To address the subject of the thread, I think this evidence (not in and of itself proof) that the church of 400 AD is not the same church as the Catholic Church of modernity.

As I mentioned in another thread, my posting time will be scarce in the near future.

Brian

But that is not how Dogmas are decided. Unanimity or popularity has never been the deciding factor in divining which is dogma or not. Certainly you would find opposition to a certain belief.
For example, when the Council of Jerusalem met and decided that circumcision is not a requirement, did that change the Church?
Obviously you have evidence that prior to that event there were detractors of the no-circumcision policy.
So given your definition, the Church of the post-Jerusalem Council is not the same Church prior to the Jerusalem Council.
By extending your look of history and accepting the Teaching Authority of the Church, you would see that the Church has been faithful to one of its God-given prerogatives, “to bind and loosen”.

 

[Philthy]

brianberean:

Jimmy,

As you know, I could provide quotes from fathers who disagree with the quotes from your fathers. What that would demonstrate is that disagreement on these future dogmas was alive and well and accepted. None of these future dogmas enjoyed “the unanimous consent of the fathers”, no matter how much you abuse the definition of “unanimous”. To address the subject of the thread**, I think this evidence (not in and of itself proof) that the church of 400 AD is not the same church as the Catholic Church of modernity.**

As I mentioned in another thread, my posting time will be scarce in the near future.
Brian

Hey Brian - sorry to hear you’re not going to be around as much - we need your challenging contributions! Are you going to school or something?
As always, my contributions are analytical, not historical. I’ve bolded your conclusion from the early evidence of Church disagreement. Your conclusion is valid but very nonspecific and therefore virtually meaningless. In particular, we don’t have a firm understanding of what “same” means in the context you have chosen to use it in. Does it mean that there were Dogmatic teachings that no longer are held by the Church? Does it mean that the RCC (I never got offended by this abbreviation, BTW ) currently holds as dogmatic teachings that were specifically, dogmatically opposed to early teachings? I don’t think so. I do agree that the Church is different today than it was 1600 years ago, of course - all the members of it then are gone now, and in addition issues which were not specifically addressed have come to light and have been decided upon. These are accidentals, not essentials. Its like saying - are we still the USA even though slavery is now abolished? Of course we are. The analogy of the first Jerusalem Council (“For example, when the Council of Jerusalem met and decided that circumcision is not a requirement, did that change the Church?” -Aris ) is even more appropriate. This is what the Church does - guided by the holy Spirit it remains as the pillar and foundation of the Truth handed down and guides us in applying this same Truth to the perpetually changing realities of our dynamic world. The only other option is to falsely insulate ourselves from the realities of the world and pretend that the truth does not apply to them. I think that approach cheapens the Truth by placing artificial limits on it based on our own limited understanding of how it was meant to be applied.

 

[rich123456]

---

Here it is
The Line of Succession and a look at the Mass in 150 A.D
It has not changed.
[file:///C:/Program%20Files/Jesus_site/pages/Popes.html](file:///C:/Program%20Files/Jesus_site/pages/Popes.html)

---

***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in 165 at Rome Italy ***

“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”

St. Paul wrote: "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."1 Cor 11:26. He also wrote: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Cor 11:16-17 and 1 Cor 12).

Through the centuries, the Mass has remained fully intact. The Mass takes place every 2 minutes somewhere on the earth, 7 days a week, all year long except on Good Friday
(1 Cor 11:26).

***St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)

***He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist (Jn 6:66) is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
It is the Mass that has brought Christ into the present. It is the sign given as you contemplate all of chapter 6 in John’s gospel.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in 165 at Rome Italy ***

“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”

Wow, that’s just as we do today! That’s inspiring!

 

[flameburns623]

The typical Protestant response would be that the “Church” in 400 AD DID NOT ‘canonize’ the Scripture because churches have no authority to determine what Scripture “is” or “is not”. God alone determines what His Word is, and Christians already knew what Scripture was. Peter was affirming Paul’s epistles as Scripture, for instance in Peter’s own epistles. What you would deem the Catholic Church of 400 AD and which sectarian Protestants deem an apostate church ‘canonized’ a partially-apostate canon of Scripture (recollect that Protestants in general reject a number of the Old Testament deutero-canonicals); translated it to favor their own theological views so far as possible (Jerome’s Vulgate); and shut away even that apostate version of Scripture in a language that was fast ceasing to be extant even among educated people (Latin). That apostate “church” then demonstrated itself to in truth be the mortal enemy of God’s Word for the next thousand years.

I am NOT endorsing this view. I’m probably not even articulating it as well as a sectarian Protestant would. I am pointing out just how far differently some Protestants view history from the assumptions being made by one-and-all in this thread.

 

[Thepeug]

rich123456:

He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter.

Rich,

I remember seeing a list of Papal succession that indicated some guy whose name starts with an L (St. Linus or something) as Peter’s immediate successor. Do you have links to any more of these lists? The link that you gave above doesn’t work on my computer for some reason.

God bless,

Chris

 

[DianJo]

For Apostolic Succession look in the front of your bible. Many have the list of popes from the beginning.

Of course, I don’t guess a Protestant bible would have that, would they? Oh, well, just a suggestion to those who do have a catholic bible.

 

[Lance_O]

rich123456:

St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in 165 at Rome Italy

“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”

I love this letter from St Justin! Your link didn’t work. Just in case people want to know, they can look in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at number 1345 under Mass of the Ages.

rich123456:

Through the centuries, the Mass has remained fully intact. The Mass takes place every 2 minutes somewhere on the earth, 7 days a week, all year long except on Good Friday (1 Cor 11:26).

  What a nice thought.

Have a good day everyone,
Lance

 

[Ghosty]

St. Justin’s letter is one of the most amazing pieces of Church history next to the Didache, IMO. What a wonderful way to show others, even non-Christians, why we do what we do at Mass, and that we’ve been doing it for 2000 years without fundamental change.

 

[Britta]

Originally Posted by rich123456 *
Through the centuries, the Mass has remained fully intact. The Mass takes place every 2 minutes somewhere on the earth, 7 days a week, all year long except on Good Friday (1 Cor 11:26).*

Malachi 1:11 “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”
Amen

 

[richardeekw]

Quote:
posted by p90
It is an assertion that assumes that the Catholic Church of today is the same church that complied the Scriptures. Many Protestants, including myself, reject this assertion.

The above Forum participant has posted a statement.
I have not seen a response of what the
“MANY PROTESTANTS, INCLUDING MYSELF REJECT THIS STATEMENT”

Can we have p90 state What exactly they think that the Catholic Church of today is Different to the Church that compiled the Scriptures.

All I seem to read is what Catholic with good intention attempting to defend the Churh Today as the same Churh that wrote the Scriptures…but what exactly is p90ls exact claims all about? other than a general statement and I see the Catholics get all excited!!!

I hope p90 will respond or someone will summarise… if I have missed p91;s detqiled comments of why the Catholic Church Today is NOT the Church that gae us the Scriptures.

Thanks

 

[Athanasiy]

I have to start to study the History of the Church.
I am not the person who can give the proper answer for this question.
But as the man who has its own opinion I can say that;
-The Church is not the same as she was in the beginning , because the church is changing by dynamism.
But if the question is, if the Church has saved the faithfulness.
I think the time has proved , that it does.
This faithfulness is very costly to the Church, and will be very costly in the future.

During the History it was like with Israel , there were different times, different periods.
The Church did not save its Unity.
The History could be different if the Church wouldn’t split apart .
What we see today is that many western countries are already atheistic countries.
The Evangelical Christians have different opinions.
The Evangelical Christians insist that only they have saved the faithfulness to the Gospel, and Primitive Early Christianity practice.
But I think , it is because of misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘’Faithfulness’’, and misunderstanding of the meaning of the Church.

 

[flameburns623]

That kind of depends. I’m sitting in Ben Franklin’s chair as I write this:

us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/meritline_1936_387990151

It’s an old family heirloom that has been passed down from generation to generation. Originally, Ben’s grandfather made this chair, along with several others and a large dinner table. The other chairs and the table have been lost to posterity, and this chair is the only surviving member of the set.

I must confess that Ben’s chair has undergone some changes over the years. Originally it was an oaken, four-legged, straightback chair. It was rather uncomfortable, or so I’m told, and so my great, great, great, great great grandfather tacked on some small rugs to the seat and the back, as cushioning. My great, great, great grandfather removed the rugs and had the whole chair upholstered. My great, great grandfather had casters attached to the legs of the chair, since he used the chair in his office and found that scooting the chair on the floor marred his floor. My great grandfather had an especially difficult time with his spine, and so he modified the chair so that the chair-back was adjustable. My grandfather thought the casters weren’t working very well and so he removed the legs and supported the chair on a pedestal with rollers. My dad and I have found that the cost of oaken lumber has grown prohibitively high and so as parts of the wooden chair dry-rotted or wore out, we replaced everything with plastic parts, one-by-one. I I added on the lumbar support and hence–VOILA!–we have the desk chair you see above. Neat huh? So, whaddya think of old Ben Franklin’s chair?

us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/meritline_1936_387990151

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It’s the exact same church.

Some things do change–some never do. And some do both.

The Catholic Church does both!

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is the same in the essence of faith and moral teachings since it is part of the deposit of faith.

 

[Bishopite]

[brianberean;187319]I’m talking about contradictory opinions expressed by those who were members of the church, not heretics.

If a theological issue has not been formally defined i.e., the Trinity (hommousious), members can have what’s known as theologumena which means theolgical opinion.

I don’t really want to get into a proof text war but, like I said before, I can provide evidence of contradictory opinions on what are now considered dogmatic teachings. In the church of 400AD one could hold and teach views that contradict purgatory, indulgences, mandatory confession to a priest (with exceptions), papal infallibility and universal jurisdiciton, Marion doctrines, and still be a member of the church in good standing.

Brian

If a doctrine isn’t dogmatically pronounced, then contrdictory opinions are allowed as some early church fathers had differing opinions on a number of issues, however we can many who wholeheartedly affirm all Catholic dogma.
According to you a person HAD to know presicely how each person of the Trinity was in realation to the other prior to 325 AD at the council of Nicea in order to be in “good standing” with the Catholic Church.
Or that in order for a Catholic to be in good standing in the 300’s they HAD to know Jesus had two natures and know that His natures were both 100% God and 100% man before it was dogmatically pronounced at Chalcedon 451 AD.

A Catholic Christian has the freedom to conduct theology (theologumena)

 

[joe370]

**A question for any Protestant takers to the following claim by the banned member at this thread:
**
I do believe that catholicism is corrupted and exists only for it’s own benefit and that catholic teachings have been rewritten and twisted…all historical validity to catholic teachings are questionable.

**If this claim is true then why would any non-Catholic believe that the bible is the infallible word of God? If the CC teachings have been rewritten and twisted…all historical validity to catholic teachings are questionable, surely this includes the correct inclusion/exclusion of the books in the bible? How can a Protestant know with certainty that the CC didn’t corrupt the “infallible” bible, as they reputedly did with “all” or even a couple teachings? The same CC that codified the bible is the same church that did not believe in sola scriptura. How can a non-Catholic reconcile the claim that the CC got it wrong regarding teachings such as sola scriptura or the Immaculate Conception, with the unquestionable claim that the CC got it right regarding the correct inclusion/exclusion of the books in the bible? **

 

[tmancath]

This discussion started on another thread. I thought it deserves it own thread. Here is the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1160 and the statement that sparked my interest. As the post, I feel would derail the historical nature sought in the previous thread, I thought a new thread could investigate this area. Original topic:

So I decided to start the thread so not to detract from Little Mary’s thread. I must go but will be back with Scripture on this topic. Anyone else?

God Bless,
Maria

Yes. The Catholic has and always will have the fullness of truth