Orthodoxy makes the most sence. protestantism is just man made division. the question is latin or eastern Church?

[Mickey]

Ok how about the Orthodox and Roman Catholic bibles, they are different right?

If they are that means eather Orthodox or Roman Catholic have added or subtracted from the faith.

So who is the guilty party?

Is there anyway to find out for sure who’s bible books are not correct?

What Is the Christian Old Testament?
This distinction between the Jewish version of the Old Testament (Hebrew Masoretic text) and the Christian version of the Old Testament (Greek LXX) would not have been a serious concern for the Church if it hadn’t been for the growing separation of the Latin-speaking Church in the Western Roman Empire from the Greek-speaking Church in the East. In the fifth century, St. Jerome produced what became the standard Latin version of the Old Testament. However, instead of basing his translation on the LXX, St. Jerome moved to Jerusalem, lived with a Jewish family to learn Hebrew, and translated the Old Testament based on an early version of the Masoretic text.
Jerome’s translation, together with a translation of the New Testament into Latin, came to be called the Vulgate and included most of the Deuterocanonical, or Apocryphal, books of the Old Testament, but separated them from the rest. It also preserved many of the Christological prophecies which later versions of the Masoretic text omit. But because it was based on a text tradition different from that of the LXX, significant differences between the Vulgate Old Testament and the LXX are evident.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Latin Vulgate was the standard translation of the Old Testament used in the West, while the LXX remained the standard in the East. While the New Testament of the earliest versions of the Vulgate is very similar to the Greek New Testament used by the Eastern Churches, the Old Testaments differed somewhat. But this did not present a significant problem for the Church at that time.
The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the New Testament canon, and it accepted the twenty-seven–book canon that we have today, allowing only these books to be read in church under the name of ”canonical writings.“ The discussion of the limits of the New Testament canon continued for centuries, but by the early sixth century, nearly all Christians recognized only the twenty-seven books in our current New Testament as canonical. (To this day, the Nestorians recognize a twenty-two–book subset and the Ethiopians a superset of the New Testament.)
The canon of the Old Testament books, on the other hand, has never been clearly decided or closed by the Church. It is clear from the quotations from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and other very early Christian witnesses that the preferred and almost exclusive version of the Old Testament for the earliest Christians was the LXX. However, the books cited as Scripture vary widely even among the New Testament writers. For example, St. Jude, the stepbrother of the Lord, in his canonical New Testament letter cites the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Today, the only Christian group to include Enoch in the canon of the Old Testament is the Ethiopian Coptics.
In fact, differences in Old Testament canons exist among most major Christian groups in spite of a common New Testament canon. Most Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical books completely. The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox lists of accepted Deuterocanonical books differ (the Greek list is longer). There are even slight differences between the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. However, these distinctions are irrelevant to most English-speaking Christians, because most Bibles published in English omit the Deutero-canonical books completely.
saintsilouan.org/orthodoxy/scripture/who-decides/

 

[Mickey]

at most we can condemn him for being a private heretic

I see—the pope was a private heretic. Good one!

Your responses show a lack of understanding of what papal infallibility entails.

No. Your responses are trying to retroactively read infallibility and papal supremacy back into history. You are trying to defend something that did not exist!

Moreover, Pope Agatho states in the very same council of Constantinople (the fifth one) wherein Honorius was branded a heretic that no ERROR had touched the apostolic see which was the seat of Peter, that is, Honorius never taught heresy authoritatively (ex-cathedra).

Is that an infallible statement from pope Agatho?

In the controversy between East and West…the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)

 

[excaliber]

I see—the pope was a private heretic. Good one!

No. Your responses are trying to retroactively read infallibility and papal supremacy back into history. You are trying to defend something that did not exist!

Is that an infallible statement from pope Agatho?

In the controversy between East and West…the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)

Mickey

How do you explain the keys of the kingdom given to St.Peter?

That confuses me. As soon as Orthodoxy makes total sence, that scripture comes up in discusion and I don’t know what to think. It obviously ment something…but what?

 

[humble_maid]

Is that an infallible statement from pope Agatho?

In the controversy between East and West…the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)

He did not say anything ex-cathedra, i.e., he was silent on the matter, for this he was condemned.

Firstly, it is plain that Pope Honorius endorsed the notion of Monoenergism as defined by Patriarch Sergius, as written in his reply to the Patriarch. His consent has led to much debate, but it is clear that Honorius, with a traditional Latin dislike for dialectics, did not truly comprehend the issues.”[28] It seemed to him to be a matter of grammar rather than theology. Though he used the expression “one will”, it is clear that he was no Monothelite, for he placed “one energy” and “two energies” on exactly the same footing.

…it becomes evident that the intent of the council was not to criticize Pope Honorius for his error of belief, but rather his "imprudent economy of silence”[29]

source: ^ Bury, pg 252: see Venerable Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, Book IV, Chapter XVII (XV), B. Colgrave & R. Mynors (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1969), pp. 384-387.Council of Hæthfeld

It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. **The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra. **

newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

 

[humble_maid]

Mickey

How do you explain the keys of the kingdom given to St.Peter?

That confuses me. As soon as Orthodoxy makes total sence, that scripture comes up in discusion and I don’t know what to think. It obviously ment something…but what?

Recall that Matthew a Jew was writing to a Jewish audience, and so when Jesus, the Son of David, singles out Peter to hand him the keys he is therefore establishing the Kingdom again. He is making him steward/ prime minister as previous kings of Israel/Judah had done before him. There is no doubt that this action on the part of Jesus was meant to convey this, otherwise, it would be pointless for Jesus to have done what he did, i.e., single out Peter. Also, Jesus gave the power to loose and bind in a singular/unique manner to Peter but also as part of a group (Matthew 18). So one can say that Peter had the power to loose and bind separately from the others as well as together in a group.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Mickey

How do you explain the keys of the kingdom given to St.Peter?

That confuses me. As soon as Orthodoxy makes total sence, that scripture comes up in discusion and I don’t know what to think. It obviously ment something…but what?

It’s quite simple really. Here is the verse in question.

Matthew 16:18-19
*
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."*

Jesus says I will give you the keys and then He gives them to Peter by giving him the power to bind and loose. That is what the keys to the Kingdom are.

And now this verse.

Matthew 18:18

*“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” *

Here Jesus gives the rest of the Apostles the same authority to bind and loose. The keys of the Kingdom were possessed by all of the Apostles and those same keys are still held today by the bishops of the Church who have Apostolic Succession.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[humble_maid]

Thou art Peter, etc… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, John 1:42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[humble_maid]

In the passage Revelation 3:7 alludes to, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, **authority over the kingdom. **

Peter was singled out, as I already mentioned in my previous post #204, and was told first. In Matt 18:18 the other apostles were given the power to ‘loose and bind’ as it was with Peter but Peter had the keys of Primacy/Authority.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=excaliber;6354336]Ok how about the Orthodox and Roman Catholic bibles, they are different right?

If they are that means eather Orthodox or Roman Catholic have added or subtracted from the faith.

So who is the guilty party?

Is there anyway to find out for sure who’s bible books are not correct?

Two things one should factor in when understanding the books of the bible and their process of canonization; Before simplifying it here; I find a presedence for an example from this time period;

Pope Honorius banished two Eastern “Orthodox” heretics from the western empire “Pelagius and Coelestius” who fled to another Eastern Church heretic Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople who were all condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 a.d.

What Orthodoxy mysteriously oversee is that Honorius was a greek speaking
Pope, who was trying as was the Eastern Emperor to reconcile Monothelete heresy from the Eastern Church through letters of exchange, which never implicates Honorius. His condemnation comes 40 YEARS after his death. Why? Because his letter exchange did not speak “ex-cathedra” infallibly, so his successors were able to clarify and condemn this Eastern Church heresy of which Honorius was addressing by letter exchange with the Eastern Heretical church and its Emperor.

To safeguard the Apostolic Faith, it was fitting that the Popes who succeeded Honorius, free from any tyrany from the Eastern emperor to condemn this Eastern Church heresy of Monothelete to which Honorius short history does not show him disapproving this heresy, leaving his successors to finish what Honorius should of already had done. So they condemn him 40 YEARS LATER without him ever being present. The conclusion is; the Catholic councils and Popes who directly succeeded Honorius defeated this Eastern Church heresy once and for all.

This brings up a question to the next topic? Which bible would one follow, the Earliest bible Canon approved by the Early Church Fathers and councils for the past 2000 years. Or a canon of books from the East which was inundated with the first 400 years of heretics and heretical teachings.

In short, St. Jerome respected by non catholics alike including Jews, disagreed with the Pope on some books for his Translation of the “ALREADY CANON” of scripture books by the Catholic Church. Never the less St.Jerome obeyed the Pope and included the deuterocanonical books in question and “TRANSLATED THEM” he did not canonize the books of the bible.

The same books that the Early Church Fathers canonized is the same books of the bible that the Roman Catholic church still possesses today and has preserved and handed down this same canon today. Truthfully both Catholic and Orthodox have more books, but the definitions of what is “Canon” what is “Apocryphal” and what is “deuterocanonical” and what is “tradition” comes into the equation.

So to ask?, why does one bible has more books than the other? deals with the terminology one places on the books in question.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Peter was singled out, as I already mentioned in my previous post #204, and was told first. In Matt 18:18 the other apostles were given the power to ‘loose and bind’ as it was with Peter but Peter had the keys of Primacy/Authority.

Peter walked on water and raised the dead to life;
Matthew 14:28
Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”
29
He said, “Come.” **Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water **toward Jesus.

Acts 9:36
Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). 10 She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.
37
Now during those days she fell sick and died, so after washing her, they laid (her) out in a room upstairs.
40
**Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up.
41
He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive. **42
This became known all over Joppa, and many came to believe in the Lord.
43
11 And he stayed a long time in Joppa with Simon, a tanner.

But we know Peter does not do these infalllible things alone, because Jesus promises to never leave Peter and his Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, Gabriel. Honorius is the only “heretic” pope the Orthodox cite over and over whenever they try to disprove infalibility and make the Church look hypocritical. They don’t have a long list of popes that fit the bill. Honorius gets a lot of play. There’s nothing like condemning a guy 40 years after he’s taken a dirt nap.

Gabriel_of_12:
Two things one should factor in when understanding the books of the bible and their process of canonization; Before simplifying it here; I find a presedence for an example from this time period;

Pope Honorius banished two Eastern “Orthodox” heretics from the western empire “Pelagius and Coelestius” who fled to another Eastern Church heretic Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople who were all condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 a.d.

What Orthodoxy mysteriously oversee is that Honorius was a greek speaking
Pope, who was trying as was the Eastern Emperor to reconcile Monothelete heresy from the Eastern Church through letters of exchange, which never implicates Honorius. His condemnation comes 40 YEARS after his death. Why? Because his letter exchange did not speak “ex-cathedra” infallibly, so his successors were able to clarify and condemn this Eastern Church heresy of which Honorius was addressing by letter exchange with the Eastern Heretical church and its Emperor.

To safeguard the Apostolic Faith, it was fitting that the Popes who succeeded Honorius, free from any tyrany from the Eastern emperor to condemn this Eastern Church heresy of Monothelete to which Honorius short history does not show him disapproving this heresy, leaving his successors to finish what Honorius should of already had done. So they condemn him 40 YEARS LATER without him ever being present. The conclusion is; the Catholic councils and Popes who directly succeeded Honorius defeated this Eastern Church heresy once and for all.

This brings up a question to the next topic? Which bible would one follow, the Earliest bible Canon approved by the Early Church Fathers and councils for the past 2000 years. Or a canon of books from the East which was inundated with the first 400 years of heretics and heretical teachings.

In short, St. Jerome respected by non catholics alike including Jews, disagreed with the Pope on some books for his Translation of the “ALREADY CANON” of scripture books by the Catholic Church. Never the less St.Jerome obeyed the Pope and included the deuterocanonical books in question and “TRANSLATED THEM” he did not canonize the books of the bible.

The same books that the Early Church Fathers canonized is the same books of the bible that the Roman Catholic church still possesses today and has preserved and handed down this same canon today. Truthfully both Catholic and Orthodox have more books, but the definitions of what is “Canon” what is “Apocryphal” and what is “deuterocanonical” and what is “tradition” comes into the equation.

So to ask?, why does one bible has more books than the other? deals with the terminology one places on the books in question.

 

[Mickey]

He did not say anything ex-cathedra, i.e., he was silent on the matter, for this he was condemned.

You are reading something into history that did not exist. “Ex-cathedra” was invented in about 1870.

He was condemned as a heretic! What more do you need?

 

[Mickey]

It’s quite simple really. Here is the verse in question.

Matthew 16:18-19

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Jesus says I will give you the keys and then He gives them to Peter by giving him the power to bind and loose. That is what the keys to the Kingdom are.

And now this verse.

Matthew 18:18

*“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” *

Here Jesus gives the rest of the Apostles the same authority to bind and loose. The keys of the Kingdom were possessed by all of the Apostles and those same keys are still held today by the bishops of the Church who have Apostolic Succession.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Amen.

 

[Mickey]

In the passage Revelation 3:7 alludes to, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

I have never seen a Church Father say that the Isaiah passage refers to papal supremacy/infallibility. I think it was Scott Hahn who made this interpretation.

n Matt 18:18 the other apostles were given the power to ‘loose and bind’ as it was with Peter but Peter had the keys of Primacy/Authority.

All had the keys of authority. Oftentimes St Peter was the spokesman for the others. You have not proven that St Peter had anything to do with the modern day Latin understanding of a supreme/infallible pontiff.

 

[Mickey]

Honorius is the only “heretic” pope the Orthodox cite over and over whenever they try to disprove infalibility and make the Church look hypocritical.

We do not need to disprove the “doctrine” of papal infallibility. It did not exist then…and it does not exist to the Orthodox now.

There are many other popes who committed many questionable actions…that would be a good thread to start. However, Honorius was the only one who was officially condemned as a heretic.

 

[Mickey]

in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them,and the rock was Christ.)

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

(Rev. 21:14)
“….and the wall of the city with its twelve foundations, upon which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb…”

 

[josephdaniel29]

There are many other popes who committed many questionable actions…that would be a good thread to start. However, Honorius was the only one who was officially condemned as a heretic.

And when one group has gone back and retroactively proclaimed their patriarchs were infallible one heretic is enough.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Mickey]

And when one group has gone back and retroactively proclaimed their patriarchs were infallible one heretic is enough.

Indeed!

 

[josie_L]

It’s quite simple really. Here is the verse in question.

Matthew 16:18-19
*
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."*

Jesus says I will give you the keys and then He gives them to Peter by giving him the power to bind and loose. That is what the keys to the Kingdom are.

And now this verse.

Matthew 18:18

*“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” *

Here Jesus gives the rest of the Apostles the same authority to bind and loose. The keys of the Kingdom were possessed by all of the Apostles and those same keys are still held today by the bishops of the Church who have Apostolic Succession.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Nowhere in that verse are the keys mentioned, in fact, one has to wonder why Matthew didn’t? Moreover, when Jesus extends the authority to loose and bind to the other apostles (albeit Peter was part of that group in Matthew 18) it is done only after Peter was uniquely set aside as the keybearer (this is because Matthew is trying to convey to his Jewish audience that Peter was being appointed by Jesus as the steward/prime minister of the kingdom that would come, read Isaiah 22:22). In other words, Peter was given the keys and the power to loose and bind separately and also as part of a group (no other apostle had the privilege of being set aside in order to receive the authority/power to loose and bind). Furthermore, Simon’s name was changed to “rock” (and of the original twelve he is the only one for which this happened), and at that very point which it was changed, Jesus says “upon this rock I will build my church”. The Orthodox like to say that the rock was Peter’s faith/confession, and in this they are only partly correct. It was because God chose Simon to confess that Jesus was the son of the living of God that Jesus proclaimed he was the “rock” (note that the only other person in the Bible that was refered to as “rock” was Abraham, the father of all nations). I would like to add this as well:

Before turning to other Scripture passages about the primacy of Peter, we need to make two more observations about Matthew 16 and about papal primacy in general. Biblical scholars generally agree that the key issue in the Gospels is the identity of Jesus. The definitive statement of who Jesus is was given by Peter at Caesarea Philippi: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus declared that God had revealed this to Peter: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17).

**This basic Christian dogma was proclaimed by Peter with the grace of infallibility, as Jesus’ words to Peter indicate. What we normally call Peter’s profession of faith is in fact, as Vladimir Soloviev puts it, “the first dogmatic decree of St. Peter.” [Vladimir Soloviev, Russia and the Universal Church **(London: Geoffrey Bles, 1948), 97.] (Later we will look at another fundamental dogma decreed by Peter as a result of God’s revelation to him.) **

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp

 

[Mickey]

Peter was uniquely set aside as the keybearer

No.

In other words, Peter was given the keys and the power to loose and bind separately

Nowhere does sacred Scripture say this.

Furthermore, Simon’s name was changed to “rock”

“Rock” is his confession of faith.

[Peter] is not the only one among the disciples who is worthy of pasturing the Lord’s sheep. If Christ speaks only to one, it is to emphasize unity. Indeed, so that you may know that it is the Church who has received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord has said elsewhere to all the apostles: ’ Receive the Holy Spirit.’ And later, ‘Anyone whose sins you have forgiven, they are forgiven: anyone whose sins you retain, they are retained’ (Jn 20:22-23).
St Augustine**, Sermo 295, 2-8.**

Remember that the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, keys which each one carries with him if, when asked, he confesses the faith.
**Tertullian, Scorpiace, 10, PL 2, 142 **