The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[BrianH]

Joe
quick question. What happened to Acts 8:37 in this Catholic Bible?
catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=51

 

[joe370]

Joe
quick question. What happened to Acts 8:37 in this Catholic Bible?
catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=51

…

"And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:37

It looks like the omission is due to the fact that Acts 8:37 does not exist in the earliest extant manuscripts. That’s what it says in my catholic bible. I did not know that. I was familiar with the alternate ending of the gospel of Mark as well as the change made in 1 John 5:7, but not Acts8:37.

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Great analogy! Problem is it is completely unrelated to the history of the Catholic Church.
If some churches left the United Methodist and started their own organization, I can’t remember if it is a presbytery or a diocese or a synod in the Methodists. Let’s say some leave, does the UMC stop being the UMC?

I was thinking about this same illustration as an example…or close to it.

Of course John Wesley is known as the starter of the Methodist chrch. But over time the Methodist church that John Wesley started became the Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, and I suppose several other organizations that bear the name Methodist.

Now one organization continued to be named Methodist, until they changed their name to United Methodist relatively recently.

Nevertheless, without compelling evidence to the contrary, I will assume that all of these are logical descendants of the Methodist church of John Wesley.

Now maybe on study, I could eliminate a couple from the list if for example they became nonChristian. But that would not be the assumption going in…or the default position. The person making the claim that a certain organization is not Methodist would have the burden of proof in this case.

 

[AmateurPianist]

If you think you were plain about the following then just disregard the following:

I asked:

Could you please provide the names of all those descendent non-Catholic churches that spanned the centuries (4th century to the 10th century for example) - alongside the CC to which the early second century bishop Ignatius belonged?

Your reply:

That did not answer the question. Would you maybe give me the name of all of those divided independent churches (specifically those independent churches that existed from the 2nd century to the 16th century) - which you claim are all logical descendants of the original “Catholic” church to which the 2nd century bishop, Ignatius belonged?

I asked:

Are you suggesting that the church to which Ignatius (a pupil of an apostle) - belonged has been lost to history forever, leaving us with nothing but descendant man-made churches of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged?

Your reply:

That did not answer the simple question. Are you suggesting that the church to which Ignatius belonged has been lost to history forever, leaving us with nothing but descendant man-made churches of the original “Catholic” church to which Ignatius belonged, or, do you believe that the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged can still be located in a world with so many descendant churches of that one Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged?

Please see my previous answer to John Wesley and the Methodist church of his time and apply the same reasoning to Ignatius and the Catholic church of his time. I do not have the time or energy to repeat myself.

 

[BrianH]

…

"And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:37

It looks like the omission is due to the fact that Acts 8:37 does not exist in the earliest extant manuscripts. That’s what it says in my catholic bible. I did not know that. I was familiar with the alternate ending of the gospel of Mark as well as the change made in 1 John 5:7, but not Acts8:37.

Thanks for the heads up.

So can YOU answer the same question you directed at me?

“how could you and I know, with certainty, … passages were in fact, authentic”?
Take the Jerusalem Bible link and find the following passages missing that were once in Catholic Bibles.
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
There are tons more but you get the idea.

 

[Mickey]

May I join you in your opinion in your great cloud of witnesses.

Indeed!

 

[Mickey]

Why would I need a vehicle to reject these things?

Ummm…because you reject many of the issues that St Ignatius refers to in his letters?

Someone might need a vehicle to make them appear ancient than what they are.

LOL! Except for Scripture, you can’t get much closer to apostolic times than these letters.

Polycarp’s polity differs from that of Ignatius.

Explain with references please.

After all, it has to start somewhere.

It began with Christ and the Apostle…I am sorry that you are in denial about that.

 

[BrianH]

Ummm…because you reject many of the issues that St Ignatius refers to in his letters?
LOL! Except for Scripture, you can’t get much closer to apostolic times than these letters.
Explain with references please.
It began with Christ and the Apostle…I am sorry that you are in denial about that.

Mickey
But I don’t need a vehicle to reject something. I simply disagree.
Let me give an example we both agree on. We do not need a vehicle to reject Islam, Mormonism, Eckankar, or any other view. Your language presupposes that someone who disagrees with you believes something different but needs a reason to believe something else. Perhaps that is true in some cases. I am not sure how anyone would know unless they knew the person relatively well.
But such is life on the internet. People puffing out their cyber chests…
Lets look at scripture. If scripture were clear on any of the things you stated, we would have widespread agreement on polity for example. I believe that the reason that people disagree with people about polity is that the Bible gives different examples. For example, Paul’s letters show plural elder rule. In general, Acts 15 shows James acting in a monarchial bishop.
Polycarp and Ignatius contains the same sort of disagreement. I googled it and found any number of articles on it. I am not familiar with your library. I would imagine any book on history and polity would suffice as well. You have been around as long as me and I believe it has been discussed. I did not try a search of this site.

 

[Mickey]

But I don’t need a vehicle to reject something.

Apparently not.

I simply disagree.

Of course you do.

We do not need a vehicle to reject Islam, Mormonism, Eckankar, or any other view.

We are not talking about Islam, Mormonism, or Eckankar…you are rejecting some aspects of Apostolic Christianity.

But such is life on the internet. People puffing out their cyber chests…

Ego and pride are terrible passions that we strive to overcome.

If scripture were clear on any of the things you stated, we would have widespread agreement on polity for example.

Scared Scripture is crystal clear…and Sacred Tradition interprets it for us.

"The Bible is the book of the Church. We therefore read Holy Scripture, not as isolated individuals, but as members of the Church. In order to keep Holy Scripture in the mind of the Church, we observe how Scripture is used in worship, and how it is interpreted by the Holy Fathers. Our approach then to the Bible is both *Liturgical *and Patristic. "
Father Demetrios Serfes

For example, Paul’s letters show plural elder rule.

There have been many holy Elders throughout Church history.

In general, Acts 15 shows James acting in a monarchial bishop.

St Iakovos (James) was the bishop of Jerusalem during that council and he made the judgement.

Polycarp and Ignatius contains the same sort of disagreement.

Huh? You have not shown disagreement within Sacred Scripture and you cannot show disagreement between St Ignatius and St Polycarp.

I googled it and found any number of articles on it.

I found absolutely nothing that indicates St Polycarp was at odds with St Ignatius on anything!

 

[vsedriver]

You and I do not resolve this. Translators solve this.

Why would you expect a translator to resolve a difference in interpretation of scripture? Translators have no authority to interpret scripture.

Either the meaning of scripture was properly taught by the Church or it wasn’t. Modern Christians seem to view the Bible as a 'How to" book. But it is the Church that held the authority and understanding of Apostolic teaching. That is how the Church knew which of the scriptures were to be held as sacred and inspired by God. It is the Church that has the “How To” info and the Bible is the Church’s reference book. That is why when two Christian Churches had disagreements or questioned doctrine, the Church held councils of bishops to determine what was understood as doctrine.

 

[Newsy]

Please see my previous answer to John Wesley and the Methodist church of his time and apply the same reasoning to Ignatius and the Catholic church of his time. I do not have the time or energy to repeat myself.

Please note, you have been asked twice to cite specific examples of “descendant churches”. This would give proof to your theory. I have asked for the time/ date of origin of the Catholic Church we know today, you have ignored my request also. Please respond by giving concrete examples, not ideas and theories.

Can you please give us examples of the descendant churches from the 4-10 centuries?

There is a huge difference between the Protestant denominations from the 16th century and the Church of the first 15 centuries. Thank you for addressing my previous post!

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Please note, **you have been asked twice to cite specific examples of “descendant churches”. This would give proof to your theory. I have asked for the time/ date of origin of the Catholic Church we know today, you have ignored my request also. Please respond by giving concrete examples, not ideas and theories. **

Can you please give us examples of the descendant churches from the 4-10 centuries?

There is a huge difference between the Protestant denominations from the 16th century and the Church of the first 15 centuries. Thank you for addressing my previous post!

Resistance is futile.

 

[joe370]

So can YOU answer the same question you directed at me?

“how could you and I know, with certainty, … passages were in fact, authentic”?
Take the Jerusalem Bible link and find the following passages missing that were once in Catholic Bibles.
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
There are tons more but you get the idea.

I now have faith in the Catholic church and believe with all my heart soul and mind that the CC speaks truth (not fallibly) - which is why I will always defer to the teaching office of the Catholic Church on all matters of faith, morals, doctrinal differences, what is and is not authentic, etc. etc… and I would not have such faith if I did not believe that God is still with His church guiding His church into all truth until the end of time.

Others prefer to defer to one of the Protestant churches or Eastern Churches, or their own private judgment, and that’s cool. Everyone has their reasons…

 

[BrianH]

I now have faith in the Catholic church and believe with all my heart soul and mind that the CC speaks truth (not fallibly) - which is why I will always defer to the teaching office of the Catholic Church on all matters of faith, morals, doctrinal differences, what is and is not authentic, etc. etc… and I would not have such faith if I did not believe that God is still with His church guiding His church into all truth until the end of time.

Others prefer to defer to one of the Protestant churches or Eastern Churches, or their own private judgment, and that’s cool. Everyone has their reasons…

In what capacity or manner has the Catholic Church spoke on these verses that are no longer part of Catholic Bibles? I do not seem to find anything.

 

[BrianH]

Why would you expect a translator to resolve a difference in interpretation of scripture? Translators have no authority to interpret scripture.

Either the meaning of scripture was properly taught by the Church or it wasn’t. Modern Christians seem to view the Bible as a 'How to" book. But it is the Church that held the authority and understanding of Apostolic teaching. That is how the Church knew which of the scriptures were to be held as sacred and inspired by God. It is the Church that has the “How To” info and the Bible is the Church’s reference book. That is why when two Christian Churches had disagreements or questioned doctrine, the Church held councils of bishops to determine what was understood as doctrine.

I never said I did. Why do you think I said that? Look through the posts, maybe you are thinking of someone else

 

[joe370]

Please see my previous answer to John Wesley and the Methodist church of his time and apply the same reasoning to Ignatius and the Catholic church of his time. I do not have the time or energy to repeat myself.

Well, that didn’t answers my questions, but I won’t bother you about them anymore.

 

[CopticChristian]

In what capacity or manner has the Catholic Church spoke on these verses that are no longer part of Catholic Bibles? I do not seem to find anything.

Finding something is part and parcel of knowing what it is you are looking for. Defining what you are looking for determines the height and breadth and width you will go to find it. The first priority is to know and be sincere in what you look for…take for instance the notion that the Aprocrypha were taken out of the Bible by Protestants because of Canonical reasons…when you look here is what you find…Was it a Holy Synod? Was it Protestant Scholars? Was it a noble group of Protestants that decided…nope these gotta go?

Originally it was effectively against the law to print the Bible in America, because the Crown held the copyright on the King James Version (it still does in England) but did not license any printers in their American colonies. The American Revolution made the United States an independent country. Since there were no international copyright treaties at the time, it was possible to print an English Bible in the United States. Shortly after the Revolution, the First Great Awakening created a big demand for Bibles.

For the first time, it was both profitable and legal to print English-language Bibles in America.
American printers discovered that they could leave out the Apocrypha and sell the Bible for the same price, and no one would care because it wasn’t used much. So they left out the Apocrypha to increase their profits. Some of the homegrown religious groups naïvely assumed that whatever was not in their Bible was not in the canon. Later, when Catholics became a significant segment of the population, a non-Catholic would say, “That’s not in my Bible” to a Catholic, completely unaware that it was the printer who left it out.

A Lutheran pastor told me that one of his parishioners was insistent that the Lutheran Church did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. The parishioner was astonished when he saw the church by-law that says it is. The parishioner had assumed that his copy of the Bible was complete when it wasn’t.

Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians use the Apocrypha and it is part of the Bible for them. Many independent churches and low-church denominations are only aware that it is not in their printing of the Bible, and think it is a Catholic addition when it is really a printer’s subtraction.

The 1611 King James Bible had all the books of the Bible that the Protestants of today just refuse to read due to ignorance of why they are not there. Check it out it is available online.

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

In other words, printers removed the Apocrypha from the Bible, not any church.

 

[joe370]

In what capacity or manner has the Catholic Church spoke on these verses that are no longer part of Catholic Bibles? I do not seem to find anything.

Regarding Acts 8:37, definitively via council or papal declaration? In no capacity other than a footnote in my catholic Bible, which is also found in my protestant bible and it state the following:

The omission is due to the fact that Acts 8:37 is missing from most extant Greek manuscripts.

Looks like it is missing from many bibles, but it is found in my New Jerusalem bible.

Regarding the following why don’t you tell me; save me some time; sounds like you already have the answer:

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36

 

[joe370]

Hey CopticChristian, you said:

American printers discovered that they could leave out the Apocrypha and sell the Bible for the same price, and no one would care because it wasn’t used much. So they left out the Apocrypha to increase their profits…

I did not know that; thanks for the lesson.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

This thread got me thinking about how faithful we think we are:

1 |||||||||_____| 10

So, I introduce my new faithometer…

How true one is to the truth is not based on their own feelings or beliefs, but the actual truth. However, God seems to provide us a built in actuator called “conscience” that can trigger more or less culpability. I used to ponder this for days, weeks on end. It nearly drove me crazy. Ultimately, we have to trust God that He will lead us home in the end. That’s why we should be peaceful and ecumenical. But just like some people like to get in the ring and box, so there will always bee those who like to put on their apologetics gloves. it’s goo to exercise once in a while, but its not something to do all the time. Time for my sleep.