Remnant worshipping?

[Mickey]

Matt14:

When Constantine took over and institutionalized the church, was that really the apostolic church, or a sublte divergence from it?

The dreaded Constantine apostacy theory has been covered many times on this forum. You should do a search.

Matt14:

When the Great Church split into the Roman Church and the Greek Church, was the church really the same one?

And why does the Greek church make the same claims to trueness as the RCC does? Can both be correct?

Orthodox and Catholics both have Apostolic succession. One stresses a more eastern mystical theology and the other stresses a more western scholastic theology–it’s all good! The schism was unfortunate, but I am confident of a re-union.
I am Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic. Simply put, this is Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome. So what was your question again?

 

[Matt14]

Steven Merten:

Hello Matt,

Do you agree that is was the Catholic Church who decided which books, like the Gospel of John, would be put into the bible four hundred years after the death of Christ? Do you agree that the bible you read in any Christian church, though it may have been distorted by Luther later, was initially put together by the Catholic Church four hundred years after Jesus death? Would you not say that the Holy Spirit preserved the truth through the Catholic Church four hundred years after Jesus death.

Do you agree that if there is any truth to a “remnant church” and the “Roman Catholic Church straying away”, it would have to have happened after the Catholic Church put together the bible and preserved the books of the bible that all Christian bibles are based off?

No, I don’t agree. Here’s why:

When Peter was writing his epistles around mid 60’s AD, he said this about Paul’s writings:

2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation;** just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures**, to their own destruction.

This is clear evidence that as early as mid 60’s AD, probably earlier, the writings of the apostles were being circulated.

This speaks to the fact that Christians at this time already knew what writings were scripture, else Peter would not have deemed Paul’s writings as scripture.

The canon only formally stated what was already generally known among Christians.

 

[Matt14]

Mickey:

The dreaded Constantine apostacy theory has been covered many times on this forum. You should do a search.

Orthodox and Catholics both have Apostolic succession. One stresses a more eastern mystical theology and the other stresses a more western scholastic theology–it’s all good! The schism was unfortunate, but I am confident of a re-union.
I am Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic. Simply put, this is Eastern Orthodox in communion with Rome. So what was your question again?

:lol:

I don’t know, but you bring up another one. Catholics universally say protestants are splintered in their faith and practice. And yet, saying you are Byzantine Catholic means you are a different “flavor” of catholic than others. Is this a “sect” within the church?

And does the Roman Church really accept the Greek church, and vice versa?

 

[Mickey]

Matt14:

This is clear evidence that as early as mid 60’s AD, probably earlier, the writings of the apostles were being circulated.

This speaks to the fact that Christians at this time already knew what writings were scripture, else Peter would not have deemed Paul’s writings as scripture.

The canon only formally stated what was already generally known among Christians.

No. I don’t agree. Here’s why.

There were many spurious writings circulating that were non-inspired and gnostic in nature. (many claiming to be written by the Apostles and accepted by the people).

The Catholic Church decided which writings were divinely inspired and hence decided the canon.

 

[gracelife]

Matt14:

2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation;** just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, **
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

These verses show Peter giving recognition to Paul & his writings (Peter giving approval) and caution in interpreting Paul’s writing. Ask yourself, who is your authority in interpreting scripture.

Another thought …

Who did Paul go see after 3 years of ministry?
Peter. He did not go to the other Apostles. He sought out Peter.
Gal. 1:18-19

Why Peter? Primacy among the Apostles perhaps?

 

[Mickey]

I don’t know, but you bring up another one. Catholics universally say protestants are splintered in their faith and practice. And yet, saying you are Byzantine Catholic means you are a different “flavor” of catholic than others. Is this a “sect” within the church?

[/quote]

The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.

Think before you laugh Matt–it’s not very charitable.

 

[Matt14]

Mickey:

No. I don’t agree. Here’s why.

There were many spurious writings circulating that were non-inspired and gnostic in nature. (many claiming to be written by the Apostles and accepted by the people).

The Catholic Church decided which writings were divinely inspired and hence decided the canon.

What evidence do we have that the gnostic gospels were really ever accepted by first century Christians?

 

[Matt14]

Mickey:

Think before you laugh Matt–it’s not very charitable.

Hey Mickey, I was not laughing at any of the substance of your post! I was laughing at the joke you made when you said, “So what was your question again?”

I took the main part of your post very seriously, and in my mind we are getting very helter-skelter as far as the topic goes, and I thought it was nice and humorous for you to make that joke.

I hope we haven’t had a misunderstanding, and if we have, I apologize!

 

[Mickey]

Matt14:

What evidence do we have that the gnostic gospels were really ever accepted by first century Christians?

There are numerous references to the Gnostics in second century proto-orthodox literature. Most of what we know about them is from the polemic thrown at them by the early Church Fathers. They are alluded to in the Bible in the pastorals (spurious Paulines of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), for example 1 Tm 1:4 and 1 Tm 6:20, and possibly the entirety of Jude. Ignatius of Antioch writes against them as well as Docetism, a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism that stated that Christ was pure spirit and had only a phantom body. Second Clement is a document aimed at refuting early second century Gnosticism. Marcion was the most famous of the Gnostics, and he established a “canon” of the Pauline epistles (minus the pastorals) and a “mutilated” Luke (presumably considered so because it lacked proof-texts such as Lk 22:43-44). Justin Martyr mentioned him c. 150 CE, and Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against him extensively in the late second century (in Against Heresy and Against Marcion, respectively).

There is much more info on this. Do a search. Some people still accept them today!

 

[Mickey]

Matt14:

Hey Mickey, I was not laughing at any of the substance of your post! I was laughing at the joke you made when you said, “So what was your question again?”

I took the main part of your post very seriously, and in my mind we are getting very helter-skelter as far as the topic goes, and I thought it was nice and humorous for you to make that joke.

I hope we haven’t had a misunderstanding, and if we have, I apologize!

I also apologize. This type of communication can sometimes be misconstrued.

There are 23 Eastern Catholic Churches sui juris–all in communion with Rome. I would be happy to participate in further discussion if you care to start a thread at some point. Right now you have your hands full with a bunch of ravenous Catholics. :bigyikes:

Blessings to you,
Mickey

 

[Matt14]

Mickey:

There are numerous references to the Gnostics in second century proto-orthodox literature. Most of what we know about them is from the polemic thrown at them by the early Church Fathers.** They are alluded to in the Bible in the pastorals (spurious Paulines of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), for example 1 Tm 1:4 and 1 Tm 6:20, and possibly the entirety of Jude**.

That’s right, and that’s what I’m getting at. If the writing apostles knew about the gnostic heresy and wrote against it, doesn’t that mean that they knew how to separate the true apostolic writings from the false ones?

IMO, yes.

 

[Matt14]

Mickey:

I also apologize. This type of communication can sometimes be misconstrued.

There are 23 Eastern Catholic Churches sui juris–all in communion with Rome. I would be happy to participate in further discussion if you care to start a thread at some point.

Sounds like a very interesting study. I’ll have to take you up on that in the near future.

Right now you have your hands full with a bunch of ravenous Catholics. :bigyikes:

And I don’t think they’ve been fed in a while.

 

[Mickey]

Matt14:

That’s right, and that’s what I’m getting at. If the writing apostles knew about the gnostic heresy and wrote against it, doesn’t that mean that they knew how to separate the true apostolic writings from the false ones?

But that’s my point. With so many writings circulating, the Christians were confused. What was divinely inspired? What was not? Of course the Apostles knew which writings were true. Apostolic succession, Oral Tradition and the Holy Spirit enabled the Catholic Church to bring these writings together cohesively. voila! The Bible is complete!

 

[LSK]

Matt14:

Was Peter the pope during the Jerusalem council in Acts 15?

Yes - he was our father even then. the word pope was not used, but the word pope means father…so yes.

 

[Mickey]

Matt14:

And I don’t think they’ve been fed in a while.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

 

[LSK]

Matt14:

Sounds like a very interesting study. I’ll have to take you up on that in the near future.

And I don’t think they’ve been fed in a while.

Oh don’t worry, honey. We are fed with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of The One True Lord ever time we celebrate the Eucharist. We only pray for the day when you too can join us at the Banquet Table.

 

[LSK]

Matt14:

That’s right, and that’s what I’m getting at. If the writing apostles knew about the gnostic heresy and wrote against it, doesn’t that mean that they knew how to separate the true apostolic writings from the false ones?

IMO, yes.

Yes, and Peter, the first leader of the Church knew it when he warned against Simon Magnus. In fact that is why he went to Rome…to do ‘battle’ against him.

 

[LSK]

Mickey:

There are numerous references to the Gnostics in second century proto-orthodox literature. Most of what we know about them is from the polemic thrown at them by the early Church Fathers. They are alluded to in the Bible in the pastorals (spurious Paulines of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), for example 1 Tm 1:4 and 1 Tm 6:20, and possibly the entirety of Jude. Ignatius of Antioch writes against them as well as Docetism, a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism that stated that Christ was pure spirit and had only a phantom body. Second Clement is a document aimed at refuting early second century Gnosticism. Marcion was the most famous of the Gnostics, and he established a “canon” of the Pauline epistles (minus the pastorals) and a “mutilated” Luke (presumably considered so because it lacked proof-texts such as Lk 22:43-44). Justin Martyr mentioned him c. 150 CE, and Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against him extensively in the late second century (in Against Heresy and Against Marcion, respectively).

There is much more info on this. Do a search. Some people still accept them today!

A lot of LDS doctrine is similar to the gnosticism of Marcion and of Simon Magnus

 

[Mickey]

LSK:

A lot of LDS doctrine is similar to the gnosticism of Marcion and of Simon Magnus

:yup:

 

[Pax]

Matt14:

That’s right, and that’s what I’m getting at. If the writing apostles knew about the gnostic heresy and wrote against it, doesn’t that mean that they knew how to separate the true apostolic writings from the false ones?

IMO, yes.

You might consider the possibility that while Peter gave recognition to the truth in Paul’s writings, he may not have been considering the assemblage of letters into the NT. Peter simply makes no statement about this. If your theory were correct then we would have seen a concrete list and assemblage of the scriptures much sooner.

It is obvious, however, that Peter would indeed recognize that which was authentic teaching and that which was not. Since you agree with this you have created another problem for yourself. Scholars agree that the OT scriptures quoted by Jesus and the apostles are taken from the Greek Septuagint. Interestingly enough the Greek Septuagint contained the same OT books found in Catholic translations of the bible. Yes, Jesus, and Peter and the other apostles did know which scriptures were and were not authentic. Now ask yourself why they used the scriptures of the OT still used by the Catholic Church while Protestant bibles are short seven OT books.

If it were not for the Catholic Church preserving the scriptures over the many years of persecutions, there would be no canon and there would be no bibles available. You are over looking the history concerning where and how we got the bible and you are theorizing without the historical facts to assist you.