S
stewstew03
Guest
Wait… Why are you asking your pastor? I thought Protestants subscribed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura…? It seems a Sola Scriptura proponent would simply search the scriptures for such answers…
- Status
S
stewstew03
Guest
What she said.
D
dronald
Guest
Man… so much history. I feel like I know the Bible so well and yet I’ve ignored the earliest writings by the earliest Christians. I called my giant Cathedral in my home city… but again, try to look surprised. Lol.Dronald,
This early Church had Bishops and the Eucharist. Keep in mind that St Ignatius was a disciple of St John, the apostle taught by Christ. And the Church was called “Catholic”
“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).
This Church had one faith, one belief.
“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; 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).
If you were not with the Bishop, you were not part of Christ’s Church. In other words, you were not part of the “true Church”.
”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).
Augustine clearly states the Christian Church.
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).
This same Catholic Church infallibly determined the canon of scripture, including 27 NT writings out of several hundred. How? Christ said he would lead his Church to all Truth. He’s done so now for 2000 years. But really though, to be consistent, as you reject the Eucharist and the other sacraments held by the apostles and this Catholic Church, you should reject the books in the bible and should feel free to add the Didache and say that the Church got it all wrong from the apostles. Well actually you’ve (Protestantism) done this already by removing seven books of the OT.
A
ajecphotos
Guest
Could it be that certain books were left out for reasons we don’t know? Reasons that would take people away from staying true to the new Catholic Church?
I have often wondered that the church either holds things back or hides them from the masses as if certain things were revealed the church as we know it would vanish!
For me, I just pray to god. I worship god. I live like he instructs to the best of my ability.
Maybe there are a lot of skeletons in the Catholic Church archives that they don’t want revealed! Who knows!
I have often wondered that the church either holds things back or hides them from the masses as if certain things were revealed the church as we know it would vanish!
For me, I just pray to god. I worship god. I live like he instructs to the best of my ability.
Maybe there are a lot of skeletons in the Catholic Church archives that they don’t want revealed! Who knows!
P
Porknpie
Guest
dRonald - I don’t know that you’ve ignored the writings of the early Church … most protestants that I know simply don’t know about them (more ignorance). This is true of many Pastor’s as well.
And…Ronald is my middle name.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Um… okay. What exactly is the basis for this conjecture that the Church is “hiding” books?
C
chero23
Guest
I agree is for example the Assumption of Moses or the Book Of Enoch. It is interesting
P
patrick457
Guest
Yeah, the ol’ “the Church is hiding some very juicy and very dangerous documents in the back room” idea.
A
ajecphotos
Guest
Thing is, we cant say for certain! I have always thought that the church always seems to be after its own interests on occasions. Who knows what revelations are lurking around a Vatican corner!Yeah, the ol’ “the Church is hiding some very juicy and very dangerous documents in the back room” idea.
P
pablope
Guest
How about Pope Damasus:
Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, 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 list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
P
pablope
Guest
May be this article will help you:
(skip over to part III and IV if you do not want to read the first parts)Ecclesial Deism: calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.
I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29
This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.
But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, Pablope
But does this preclude the fact that his decree, may have been skewed to leave out certain scripture at the behest of satans minions within the Church ?God Bless
onenow1
S
Steveabrous
Guest
It was discussed when the Canon was being assembled. The easter letter of St. Athanasius, the bishop of Alexnandria, 367 A.D. gives a canon list. This is the first time that the 27 books of NT we all use is listed as the NT list. Athanasius also gives a sub- canonical list that is not to be regarded as scripture, but not to be discarded, rather is to be read by new converts. The Didache is listed as one of these books. Athanasius also attests that these books (the sub list) have always been used by the church.
J
jimkhong
Guest
I was not aware of an Athansius sub-canonical list. Where can I get the list?
I would like to frame the question in this thread more specifically as to why Didache (and while I am at it, can I add 1 Clement as well) was rejected by the early church councils? If there were doubts among the bishops as to the canonicity, what were the doubts and why?
It is clear and understood that the books are non-canonical because the Church said so. This is a question on “why”, posted out of pure historical interest.
O
october_baby
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
J
jimkhong
Guest
Thanks pablope
I find the list very interesting ntcanon.org/table.shtml. From the table, I can see that there has been no objections to 1 Clement from anyone on that table, except that the non-orthodox Origen finding it doubtful despite quoting it 4 times. Also, Didache was only rejected by Eusebius but no reason given. Eusebius seems quite a stickler and if his views were followed, we will have a much thinner NT.
Does anyone know what Eusebius mean by “spurious”? Do we know why he finds Didache spurious or is this lost in the mist of time?
Does anyone know know why despite such strong support (Eusebius notwithstanding) Didache and 1 Clement were not included in the canon?
I find the list very interesting ntcanon.org/table.shtml. From the table, I can see that there has been no objections to 1 Clement from anyone on that table, except that the non-orthodox Origen finding it doubtful despite quoting it 4 times. Also, Didache was only rejected by Eusebius but no reason given. Eusebius seems quite a stickler and if his views were followed, we will have a much thinner NT.
Does anyone know what Eusebius mean by “spurious”? Do we know why he finds Didache spurious or is this lost in the mist of time?
Does anyone know know why despite such strong support (Eusebius notwithstanding) Didache and 1 Clement were not included in the canon?
P
patrick457
Guest
The funny thing is though, if we believe the people who claim that the books they are ‘publishing’ were supposedly hidden by the Church but were somehow discovered by some ol’ what’s-his-name after all these centuries, we can conclude that the Church must be very sloppy at keeping these works away from public sight. Come to think of it, why stop at hiding all the racy stuff in some secret section of the Vatican library? Didn’t anyone think of destroying all known copies? Why allow the rediscovery of a highly ‘dangerous’ work (that’s always the claim, ain’t it - document A is dangerous because its existence will “shake the very foundations of Christianity,” etc., I mean seriously) by preserving a single copy of it and stashing it among hordes of old tomes and stuff? That’s kind of dumb if you ask me.Thing is, we cant say for certain! I have always thought that the church always seems to be after its own interests on occasions. Who knows what revelations are lurking around a Vatican corner!
J
jimkhong
Guest
All conspiracy theories are based on the conspirators being the second cleverest people around, capable of hood-winking the dumbest people in the world, the audience, but never as clever as the smartest people on the block, those who have so cleverly uncovered conspiracy.The funny thing is though, if we believe the people who claim that the books they are ‘publishing’ were supposedly hidden by the Church but were somehow discovered by some ol’ what’s-his-name after all these centuries, we can conclude that the Church must be very sloppy at keeping these works away from public sight. Come to think of it, why stop at hiding all the racy stuff in some secret section of the Vatican library? Didn’t anyone think of destroying all known copies? Why allow the rediscovery of a highly ‘dangerous’ work (that’s always the claim, ain’t it - document A is dangerous because its existence will “shake the very foundations of Christianity,” etc., I mean seriously) by preserving a single copy of it and stashing it among hordes of old tomes and stuff? That’s kind of dumb if you ask me.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And, the corollary to the above questions would be:
Does anyone know why Philemon was considered canonical?
- Status