- Status
S
SIA
Guest
But again I must push the point that must be pushed here for the truth to prevail; where does the Holy Scriptures depict that their origin is from Rome? We have danced around this every possible way that we can but the question remains unanswered.
S
SIA
Guest
I think that Orthodox Christians would have something to say about this subject in this regard as well.
A
anthony022071
Guest
The only true Christians belonged to the Catholic Church. There was no such entity called the Christian Church.
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment 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 also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
“All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).
…while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).
“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).
"The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).
A
anthony022071
Guest
There was no such entity called the Orthodox Church prior to the Schism. The faith of the Church was called orthodox,the Church was called Catholic.
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390).
“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).
“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…–not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.” Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397).
A
anthony022071
Guest
Who said that the scriptures were written by the Roman Catholic Church?
The scriptures were decided upon and canonized as sacred scripture by the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is older than the book we call the Bible.
Pope Damasus, Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382):
“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.”
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi SIA; Roman Catholicism is Orthodox. If you are referring to the Eastern Catholic Orthodox. Roman Catholicism is Orthodox by antiquity, the Eastern Catholics are Orthodox by title., Unless you are speaking about another orthodoxy?
If this orthodox christianity that you speak of: has anything different from the historical records and facts that prove that the Roman Catholic church canonized the bible books. I would like to hear what difference they have to say, and I am sure their bishops would too, Not to mention the early greek and latin Saints who all agree that the bible was canonized by the Roman Catholic church of St. Peter,and the Magesterium of Jesus Vicar on earth.
Ps. Did you know the last five Epistles of the New testament was written to the Catholic (universal) church?
You dont ask an easy question that gets answered in one sentence. The dialogue will consist of scripture and Tradition, and historical facts, from pagans, Jews, and Rulers who confirm the Roman Catholic canonized books of the bible, not to mention Luther himself. Why is it so hard to accept these facts that the bible was canonized by the Roman Catholic church? All the learned world knows this fact, why dont you?
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Simply because the Church compiled it. Now you may not like it and you may prefer to believe that was not the case. You may even chose to believe it was compiled by some Sect but the facts remain.
I take on board the criticism that the Torah was in existence long before the early Church but seeings 1 Ptr was scribed by a senior Bishop and 2 Ptr was authored by said Bishop, I do not see how you can object to what I have said.
There were as you will know, other writings by said Bishop which were not included into the New Testament but which the Church still regards as part of the canon, such is the emphasis the Church places on this contributor to Sacred Scripture.
Blessings and peace be with you.
J
JRKH
Guest
I can dance as long as you can.
The councils which determined tha canon of the Bible, regardless of where the councils took place, and regardless of where the individual books were written, were councils of the Bishops of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that Church was, and is based in Rome.
As far as the Orthodox are concerned, I would simply point out that they would agree with the Bible being Catholic. The canon was decided before the eastern split took place.
You seem to think that I started this thread saying that the Bible was “written” in or by Rome. But such is not the case. The Bible is not a “book” in the normal sense but rather a collection of books into a single volume. The people responsible for the collection, compiling, copying, protecting and defending the Bible for 1000 years were Catholics. They were Catholics because they were members of the One, unified and universal (Catholic) Church Founded by Christ and passed down through the Apostles and guided by the Holy spirit.
P
Protestant101
Guest
The Bible declares this to be a falsehood, a common misbelief propogated by the shadowy shibboleth of Roman Catholic apologetics.
Acts 11:26 does not mean the first church here; the text applies only to the label of “Christian.” There obviously was a “Christian Church.” And it wasn’t Roman Catholic. It was Protestant.
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Why does Sacred Scripture have to depict this?
What is the drive for this reductionism?
Why does Scripture have to depict anthing not relevant to its contents?
The Church is universal. The Scriptures were written compiled and translated by said Church. ‘Where’ they were written compiled or translated is I think pretty irrelevant. Does it really matter? The fact remains they happened. That is as far as I can see, all we need be concerned about.
Blessings and peace
A
anthony022071
Guest
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Ok if you want to be pedantic, the writings were collected and compiled by ‘The Way’ which was the first name for The Church.The Bible declares this to be a falsehood, a common misbelief propogated by the shadowy shibboleth of Roman Catholic apologetics.
Acts 11:26 does not mean the first church here; the text applies only to the label of “Christian.” There obviously was a “Christian Church.” And it wasn’t Roman Catholic. It was Protestant.
The ‘early’ Church and the ‘late’ Church is still ‘the Church’. What are you trying to prove or disprove?
On the subject of Antioch which Church did the Bishop belong who brought this Church back into the fold when it strayed?
Arguably of greater importance: what was his position relative to the other Bishops?
A
anthony022071
Guest
L
Lilyflower
Guest
If said Church did not exist until third century as some would have it and if the Real Presence is denied on the mistaken belief the early Church did not believe in it, to which Church did Pope St Sixtus belong and why did he in AD 120 declare that 'only consecrated hands were to touch the vessels that contained the Sacred Elements?
This was in AD 120 that he also introduced the Sanctus into the Mass, which is still prayed to this day!
The SAME Church was there following the traditions of the Apostles long before the Sacred Scriptures were canonised some 200 years later.
It’s all there but Protestant 101 you just do not want to believe it.
Blessings and peace
This was in AD 120 that he also introduced the Sanctus into the Mass, which is still prayed to this day!
The SAME Church was there following the traditions of the Apostles long before the Sacred Scriptures were canonised some 200 years later.
It’s all there but Protestant 101 you just do not want to believe it.
Blessings and peace
A
anthony022071
Guest
Here’s a quote from an early sola scriptura protestant,albeit an Arian heretic.
“If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’ (Mt 5:19)” Maximinus, Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c. A.D. 428).
L
Lilyflower
Guest
Against whom were the original Protest-ants protesting?
The claim just does not make sense…unless of course they were protesting against the early Church…
Blessings and peace
J
JRKH
Guest
Well - after nearly 24 hours, my friend, Protestant101, refuses to tell me, -
a person ignorant of anything christian, -
how two copies of the inerrant “The Word of God” can have different numbers of books in them.
He has left me sitting at the table with no guidance.
Just an expectation that I should accept this book on his say so.
I guess I just have to take the Bible I got from my friend (the one with more books in it) back to him and see if he can explain the difference.
Does anyone think he can?
Peace
James
R
Ronald_E
Guest
James, If your friend reads what Catholics have posted here and compare them to what Protestants have posted here or if you somehow had access to this thread and looked at every post what would you decide?
I would look at the posts on a theological level, a historical level and a spiritual level. He would see everything pointing to the Catholic faith based on theology and history and expressed with the gift of charity that is evident of the Holy Spirit.
I have loved how each of you in the thread presented your statements of fact for the Catholic position of the Bible being put together by the Catholic Church.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
James this was a very good thread to follow, one thing that I found missing is protestants101 founder of his denomination, and who started his christian belief system or theology? I hope he is not a non denominational because these have no authority to attest to, not to mention no doctrinal belief which from my experience will take everywhere but never getting anywhere.
peace be with you
- Status