Who founded your Church?

[Cavaradossi]

Again the quote is “Leo and Cyril taught the same.” I said the Tome condemned the heresy of Eutyches. Dioscorus apparently prevented the Tome from being read at Ephesus II, “Why was this not read out at Ephesus? Dioscorus concealed it”

Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.

Eutyches’ heresy was called Monophysitism.

You don’t seem to understand the theological nuance involved here. Professing one incarnate and theanthropic nature is not heresy, or else St. Cyril is a heretic. The heresy of Eutyches was that he professed that the humanity of Christ was swallowed up by His divinity. The bishops of Illyrium and Palestine were not objecting to the condemnation of Eutyches, they were objecting to language which they believed to be heretical, not in light of Ephesus II, but in light of the condemnation of Nestorianism at Ephesus I (read again what I said about dual agency).

I apologize I wasn’t trying to do anything but accurately learn history together and wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth (you are still saying you are tired of it). But you saying the very thing that proves the point is out of context, is the pot calling the kettle black. I wasn’t questioning motives, just defending what I am saying and explaining just how much it actually was in context. I am tired of people not looking at the unity of the Church and not realizing the REASON these councils were taking place was for the unity of the church and the wanting to stop heretical teachings. That was everyone’s goal, or at least I hope that was their motives.

If you think one lonely paragraph from the hundreds of pages of acts from Chalcedon is in context, then so be it. I disagree. I think one would probably have to read at least the entry of the acts of the first and second sessions of Chalcedon to understand that quotation.

This comment was made following a statement read made by a Pope during an ecumenical council that condemned another that didn’t have that same Pope’s approval. **Your accusation of me (others) taking “Peter has spoken” out of context is false. How can you ever take the phrase “Peter has spoken” referring to his successors out of context? ** It is the context. As I said Leo’s Tome was condemning the heresy of Eutyches and the Bishops that were with Dioscorus were “critiquing” Leo, because these Bishops were hung up on the Nestorian heresy and were supporting Eutyches while Theodoret was on the opposite side (and these Bishops simply saw Theodoret as a Nestorian heretic nothing more). And actually later during Chalcedon, Theodoret fully agreed with the condemnation of Nestorius (though he may not have been convinced Nestorius actually taught what was being charged against him). The Bishops were also against Leo because he annulled the 449 Council and excommunicated them as I already said and the obvious objection to Leo’s Tome’s condemnation of Eutyches.

I disagree, the primary purpose of the tome of Leo was didactic, not as a condemnation. Furthermore, he did not excommunicate the bishops who attended Ephesus II. You seem to be misunderstanding the history behind Chalcedon.

What does Peter has spoken mean to you, then? You say it is out of context, what does it mean?

It is praising the orthodoxy and worthiness of Leo’s tome.

All I was doing was trying to explain my understanding of the council(s), that is all. Accepting both Ephesus II and Chalcedon doesn’t make sense; you seem to be doing that (sorry if I misunderstood you). Leo (his representatives) was ignored during and Leo was later “excommunicated” AFTER the council of Ephesus in 449 by Dioscorus who lead the 2nd Ephesus Council or “Robber Council”, and then Leo annulled Ephesus II. Leo’s letter was read at Chalcedon that was supposed to be read at Ephesus and Dioscorus was deposed.

So if you recognize Ephesus II which was mostly lead by Dioscorus (a Bishop not recognizing the Pope’s authority) you wouldn’t recognize Chalcedon because Dioscorus was deposed.

If you recognize the Pope’s authority you don’t recognize 2nd Council of Ephesus because Leo annulled the council and recognize the Council of Chalcedon because it condemned the heresy of Eutyches.

The Council of Ephesus (431) lead by St. Cyril, addressed and condemned the heresy of Nestorius, the Council of Chalcedon addressed and condemned the heresy of Eutyches 20 years later.

I do not accept Ephesus II, nor did I ever say that I did. You present a false dichotomy, however, because it is possible to reject Ephesus II and accept Chalcedon without accepting the anachronistic proposition that Leo had some special petrine authority like that which was wielded by late medieval popes. I recognize Chalcedon on the authority of the Holy and God-bearing fathers who approved of it (St. Leo being one of them).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Keeping the quote short here…

The fact is that what you quote runs contrary to Torah

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 37:26-28[/BIBLEDRB]

This parrticular passage makes it clear that the sanctuary (i.e. the Temple) will be rebuilt, and this shall serve as a permanent home to the Living G-d and as a place of worship for all the world.

Also, a Isaiah passage for you:

4 For this is what the LORD says:

“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to minister to him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Sovereign LORD declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
**“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.” **

Bolding is mine. This makes it clear there’s a physical temple to give offerings in, a physicaln altar to make a sacrifice and that ALL people shall come to Torah.

I wasn’t aware that Ezekiel was part of the Torah. When did they add a sixth book to the Torah?

 

[afiala2]

That would be impossible as I’m female (excluding me from some mitzvot), not a Levi, Cohen or priest (again, limiting which mitzvot I can follow, or should follow) and the Temple no longer exists, meaning I cannot offer guilt or sin offerings, or any sort of sacrifice. I also live nowhere near Jerusalem or even Israel, which poses a problem. And BTW, it doesn’t matter what anyone professes to be throwing out, because the premise on which Christians do so is false.

You don’t have guilt or sin offerings, or any sort of sacrifice. What has taken its place? Do you believe everyone became perfect at the destruction of the 2nd Temple? Why isn’t it demanded to make atonement to God for offenses? Or is this done in another way?

Christ is the New and Eternal Sacrifice to God. Christ (His Body) is the New Temple. Jesus said He could destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in 3 days. He died on the cross and rose from the dead on the 3rd day. Christ is the NEW Passover Lamb.

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be “The Messiah.”

People’s Free will is the only deterrent. God gave us **free will **that is we choose, it isn’t forced upon us.

1. Jesus is the New Temple; the Eucharist is the New Temple.
   The Church, which houses the New bread of the presence, which we believe is Christ the bread from heaven, the new manna, in the Tabernacle, has a candle burning (like the Menorah -tabernacle lampstand), and a priesthood that offers the Eternal Sacrifice on the Alter (priests are men as a matter of doctrine and most are celibate as a matter of discipline), and possesses God’s Moral Law. At mass we say, “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the World.” Our bodies are also Temples of the Holy Spirit. Christ gave us a New Exodus from sin and death. The Passover Lamb saved the first born and delivered them out of Egypt; Christ, the Lamb of God takes away our sins.
2. Heaven is the promise land. The Eucharist is a pledge of our bodies being resurrected on the last day. A Jewish boy asks His Father, “why is this night different than any other night?”
   A Catholic Mass is recalling the One Eternal Sacrifice of the Lamb of God (Christ’s Crucifixion, He is the New Passover Lamb) making it present, which can only be done by a priest, as if you were there and remember Christ died on the Cross so that I could go to heaven (you and everyone).
   The New Israel is the Church, the People of God. This includes everyone, gentile or Jew, you just have to be willing to listen. Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you do not have life within you. You have to eat the lamb to be saved from death, just like the first Passover.
3. Christ’s message is peace and brings about peace if listened to and observed.
4. Christ brought a deeper knowledge of Truth to the world. His message isn’t just for the Jews (but he came for them first) but also the whole world. He is the only begotten Son of the God of Israel, so knowing Him spreads knowledge of God the Father, because the one who sees Christ sees the one who sent Him (the Father sent Him). Christ is the King of Heaven and Earth in the line of David and His Kingdom will have no end. If David calls the Messiah Lord how can the Messiah be David’s son? Jesus is a descendant of David, but God is His Father. Jesus wanted His followers to be One, Jesus died for everyone. The Catholic Church has spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel with the message of unity, but we can’t force everyone to listen.

These will be perfectly fulfilled in heaven and after the resurrection on the last day, on judgment Day God makes our choice permanent.

Christ conquered sin and death. Ezekiel 37:12-14. Christ is the King, not everyone knows it or recognizes it, yet.

Suggested reading, Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.
brantpitre.com/documents/printable_outlines/jewish_roots.pdf

 

[afiala2]

I’m not sure what your point is here…I believe in the physical rebuilding of a physical building in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount to be exact.

It has been almost 2,000 years, what has replaced the Temple Sacrifices?

This parrticular passage makes it clear that the sanctuary (i.e. the Temple) will be rebuilt, and this shall serve as a permanent home to the Living G-d and as a place of worship for all the world.

Bolding is mine. This makes it clear there’s a physical temple to give offerings in, a physicaln altar to make a sacrifice and that ALL people shall come to Torah.

Christ is the fulfillment of what we call the Old Testament (Torah, Jewish Prophets). The Catholic Church is throughout the whole world and has multiple physical buildings (Churches, Temples, houses of prayer for all the nations, Sanctuary) throughout the world. Call it what you will it is God’s House and Sanctuary that is available to all the nations and the God of Israel is our God and we are His people.

If it was just one building (only one Temple), how would it house all the nations? And as you said earlier you live nowhere near Jerusalem. So even if a single Temple was rebuilt how would all the nations of the world fit inside or live close enough to it for your interpretation of literally only being one building to work.

The Catholic Church is One as God is One. Even though there are different buildings (and Parishes) and different regions/nations (Dioceses), we are still all One Church, still united to the successor of Peter who Jesus left in charge almost 2,000 years ago.

I think you are looking at just Israel and not remembering that it will encompass ALL NATIONS. It is just Israel you are concerned about, so humanity won’t be united as one because we aren’t all Jewish (or descendents of Jacob), and everyone else doesn’t factor into your expectations. Salvation comes from the Jews, but it is for all. The New Israel includes gentiles.

 

[afiala2]

It is praising the orthodoxy and worthiness of Leo’s tome.

Yeah, they said that too, but they specifically said “Peter has spoken thus through Leo” as well. Leo was Peter’s successor. It was said after Leo’s Letter was read and it was referring to him as the Successor of Peter. The Council of Chalcedon adopted the Tome. You can’t be mistaken about this, it is very clear.

If you think one lonely paragraph from the hundreds of pages of acts from Chalcedon is in context, then so be it. I disagree. I think one would probably have to read at least the entry of the acts of the first and second sessions of Chalcedon to understand that quotation.

You need to look at the whole council and the surrounding history. You clearly haven’t read the Councils, nor grasp the surrounding history of the time. Here are the facts: these were Councils of the Catholic Church, the head of the Church or leader of the Church was the Bishop of Rome who is the Successor of St. Peter, and the divisions only occurred when people stopped recognizing the Chair of Peter’s Authority.

When the tome of Leo is read out, we can see in the acts that the actual reading of the tome was interrupted by the bishops of Illyria and Palestine who objected to some statements made by the tome on several points.

Leo’s Tome was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon.

I’m tired of seeing this one excerpt …….We see here that the bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine who anathematized Theodoret at Ephesus II did not view that Pope St. Leo ……

The robber council was annulled.

Dioscuros of Alexandria, who was St. Cyril’s successor and presided over the robber council, wasn’t allowed to attend and was stripped of his episcopate by St. Leo.

Theodoret was restored to his See at Chalcedon (after agreeing with condemnation of Nestorianism).

The Bishops, who attended the robber council and agreed with it, CLEARLY have no authority.

The objectors you point out were instructed because they objected. (see #33 on your post #54 of this thread)

You keep arguing the objectors had more or equal authority as Leo. How is this demonstrated? Your argument is baseless. It is also confusing you seem to be for and against Leo simultaneously and it is hard to understand what you are trying to say.

Bishops have authority but only when they are in union with the Pope (Peter’s Successor). That is why the Robber Council wasn’t recognized and why only what St. Leo ratified at Chalcedon was recognized.

Council of Chalcedon

Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the council Fathers] and said, “We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope St. Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” [Session I (A.D. 451)].

[T]he most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate [Session 3 (A.D. 451)].

Council of Ephesus

Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: “We offer our thanks to the holy venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you…. you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle” [Session 2 (A.D. 431)].

Council of Ephesus
Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors” [Session 3 (A.D. 431)].

 

[CopticChristian]

The only distinction I am making is Christians united to the Successor of Peter (Church Christ started) and those who are not. The Church, united with Peter, is in one column, while schismatics & heretics are in another column, not united to Peter. There is only one OHCAC and the door to the house is open; people have to come in to be a part of the Catholic family. Consider this your invitation. I am defending Christ’s Church, but you can’t force people to do anything they don’t want too. Usually my biggest problem is simply getting someone to listen, read Matthew Chapter 7.

I was using the word denomination in the sense of church/religion/system of belief/denomination as I have been in this thread or an entity that recognizes an authority even if that authority is just the Bible and whoever first said that the Bible was enough in some cases. So you are agreeing with me I meant it as one Church or we would all belong to the ONE and ONLY Church Jesus started/OHCAC/Catholic Church. But I agree with you it is better put by replacing, we would all be one denomination, with we would all be members of the universal society founded by Jesus Christ (be members of His Catholic Church) or all be a part of the OHCAC.

Post #44.

You seem to need to convince yourself FIRST. You seem like you are trying to kill the thread and you are SUPPOSEDLY Catholic. It is the ONLY apologetic question needed, what is more important than WHO STARTED YOUR CHURCH? Then if God didn’t found your Church why are you a member of your church? Then why is that reason(s) you have for belonging to another more important than obeying God and respecting His Authority on Earth? It is a ONE and DONE situation, **you have to be open-minded or unbiased **to see it.

Also note when Constantine was alive and when the books of the Bible were determined by the Catholic Church, they would be relying on “Constantine’s Church” for their NT if that was the case. But the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, it is in the Bible. Then remind them when their Church started, that is if anyone even takes credit for starting their Church.

When someone states a false claim like Constantine founding His own Church, you need to say show me your proof. Then, they need to be reminded the Church described in the Bible is the Catholic Church. Ask them why does your church not have THE successor to St. Peter? Why doesn’t your Church have the anointing of the Sick (James 5:14-15)? Who in their Church has the Power to forgiven sins (John 20:22-23)? Etc. Of course their answers to these questions are we are all our own pope, we can forgive our own sins, and we don’t get sick because we are godly. Then you say ooooooooooookay…….then please show me in the Bible where this is stated, and remind them even if they can magically distort a few verses to agree with what they are saying they have to look at the Bible in context and in its entirety, and then they still have to disprove 2,000 years of religious practices of the Church that have been in agreement with the Bible and are a historical fact. Then they will change the subject with another claim against the Church like saying we are idol worshippers, then you show them in the Bible……., etc. etc. etc. etc. Remind them there are plenty of false claims against the Church if you want to know the truth; you have to take an honest, unbiased look for yourself.

I have been reading Aeterni Patris and other such stuff and came across this…Protestants can’t get it straight as to which story to follow when the Catholic Church was founded…

en.goldenmap.com/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur

Ferdinand Christian Baur, the founder of the “Tübingen School” of New Testament criticism, rested his ideas about the New Testament on the Clementines, and his ideas about the Clementines on St. Epiphanius, who found the writings used by an Ebionite sect in the 4th century. This Judeo-Christian sect at that date rejected St. Paul as an apostate. It was assumed that this 4th century opinion represented the Christianity of the Twelve Apostles; Paulinism was originally a heresy, and a schism from the Jewish Christianity of James and Peter and the rest; Marcion was a leader of the Pauline sect in its survival in the 2nd century, using only the Pauline Gospel, St. Luke (in its original form), and the Epistles of St. Paul (without the Pastoral Epistles). The Clementine literature had its first origin in the Apostolic Age, and belonged to the original Jewish, Petrine, legal Church. It is directed wholly against St. Paul and his sect. Simon Magus never existed; it is a nickname for St. Paul. The Acts of the Apostles, compiled in the 2nd century, have borrowed their mention of Simon from the earliest form of the Clementines. Catholicism under the presidency of Rome was the result of the adjustment between the Petrine and Pauline sections of the Church in the second half of the 2nd century. The Fourth Gospel is a monument of this reconciliation, in which Rome took a leading part, having invented the fiction that both Peter and Paul were the founders of her Church, both having been martyred at Rome, and on the same day, in perfect union.

 

[afiala2]

I disagree, the primary purpose of the tome of Leo was didactic, not as a condemnation. Furthermore, he did not excommunicate the bishops who attended Ephesus II. You seem to be misunderstanding the history behind Chalcedon.

Do you know who St. Flavian is and how he was involved?

…I suggest reading about St. Flavian…

You have to look at the surrounding Councils and history, you are missing a lot. I am not an expert either but St. Leo excommunicated those involved and exonerated those excommunicated at the robber council (with one exception) and declared the council null. The Tome confirmed the doctrine of the Incarnation, and the union of the Divine and human natures in the one Person of Christ, it was written in 449 to St. Flavian.

What did you think the Tome is about? It condemns Eutyches and what he taught.

You don’t seem to understand the theological nuance involved here. Professing one incarnate and theanthropic nature is not heresy, or else St. Cyril is a heretic. The heresy of Eutyches was that he professed that the humanity of Christ was swallowed up by His divinity. The bishops of Illyrium and Palestine were not objecting to the condemnation of Eutyches, they were objecting to language which they believed to be heretical, not in light of Ephesus II, but in light of the condemnation of Nestorianism at Ephesus I (read again what I said about dual agency).

You need to look into the robber council and what happened.
Theotokos and the Tome is really all you need to know.
One more time, this paragraph says a lot if you know what it is saying:

Again the quote is “Leo and Cyril taught the same.” I said the Tome condemned the heresy of Eutyches. Dioscorus apparently prevented the Tome from being read at Ephesus II, “Why was this not read out at Ephesus? Dioscorus concealed it”

The difference between Catholics and Monophysite heretics, which is the number of natures, Catholics have in common with Nestorian heretics, two natures. If they were arguing Leo was making Nestorian comments it was also probably the case that they were so blinded by their condemnation of Nestorians they refused to admit Christ’s humanity or human Nature despite the Scriptural evidence that it is necessary (meaning they were monophysite heretics, even though some were only temporarily; or were defending a heretic, at which point makes them against the Church).

One more time, look closely at the theological nuances:

Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.

You have to admit they sure appear as heretics if they disagreed with Leo’s Tome, because it would make them against Leo and Cyril who taught the same. (But you can’t do that because that ruins your whole argument.) Just realize you are siding with bishops who are opposed to Cyril and Leo’s teachings in your argument (you don’t seem to be aware of it) and trying to say they had more authority than Leo. These Bishops’ combined authority is clearly less than Leo’s from what is demonstrated by the final results of the robber council and Chalcedon; and if they stuck to disagreement with St. Leo after Chalcedon, they left the Church. Again you are pointing to dissenters to justify yourself (just as I have already stated).

 

[afiala2]

Tome of Leo, 449
Adopted by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, 451
This is a small excerpt.

*Eutyches had no idea how he ought to think about the incarnation of the Word of God; and he had no desire to acquire the light of understanding by working through the length and breadth of the holy scriptures. So at least he should have listened carefully and accepted the common and undivided creed by which the whole body of the faithful confess that they believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.

These three statements wreck the tricks of nearly every heretic. When God is believed to be both almighty and Father, the Son is clearly proved to be co-eternal with him, in no way different from the Father, since he was born God from God, almighty from the Almighty, co-eternal from the Eternal, not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being. The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him.

But if it was beyond Eutyches to derive sound understanding from this, the purest source of the christian faith, because the brightness of manifest truth had been darkened by his own peculiar blindness, then he should have subjected himself to the teaching of the gospels. When Matthew says, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham,” Eutyches should have looked up the further development in the apostolic preaching. When he read in the letter to the Romans, “Paul, the servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for God’s gospel, which he had formerly promised through his prophets in the holy writings which refer to his Son, who was made for him of David’s seed according to the flesh,” he should have paid deep and devout attention to the prophetic texts. And when he discovered God making the promise to Abraham that “in your seed shall all nations be blessed,” he should have followed the apostle, in order to eliminate any doubt about the identity of this seed, when he says, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed . He does not say ‘to his seeds’–as if referring to a multiplicity–but to a single one, ‘and to thy seed’ which is Christ.” His inward ear should also have heard Isaiah preaching, “Behold, a virgin will receive in the womb and will bear a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel,” which is translated “God is with us”. With faith he should have read the same prophet’s words, “A child is born to us, a son is given to us. His power is on his shoulders. They will call his name ‘Angel of great counsel, mighty God, prince of peace, father of the world to come’.” Then he would not deceive people by saying that the Word was made flesh in the sense that he emerged from the virgin’s womb having a human form but not having the reality of his mother’s body.*

 

[christosdavid]

I have been reading Aeterni Patris and other such stuff and came across this…Protestants can’t get it straight as to which story to follow when the Catholic Church was founded…

en.goldenmap.com/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur

Just letting you know that FC Baur is out of date and should not be used to represent any kind of mainstream protestant thought on the complilation of the NT or the early history of the Church.

Same goes for Adolph Harnack who deplored the “Hellenisation” of Christianity from its Aramaic/ Semitic roots.

Even mid-twentieth Century figures such as R. Bultmann are now consigned to the scrap heaps as largely unhelpful.

The clearest evidence against any of these (or other Tubingen school “heretics”) is simply to note that P52 (Bodmyer Papyrus) is from 125 AD and is already a copy, thus it could not have possibly be wriiten 2-4th C as suggested.

 

[afiala2]

I do not accept Ephesus II, nor did I ever say that I did. You present a false dichotomy, however, because it is possible to reject Ephesus II and accept Chalcedon without accepting the anachronistic proposition that Leo had some special petrine authority like that which was wielded by late medieval popes. I recognize Chalcedon on the authority of the Holy and God-bearing fathers who approved of it (St. Leo being one of them).

You were trying to say the robber council had authority above St. Leo, though. It is hard to understand your argument, it appears it is illogical as it is even confusing you.

You are arguing St. Peter’s successor had little to no authority when St. Leo was the supreme authority as St. Peter’s Successor has always been. St. Leo clearly has authority and to not acknowledge it means you are blind to the obvious.

You really need to re-examine these councils and grasp the difference between Cyril and Dioscorus with the Ephesus councils. You don’t have a reason to not except 2nd C of E other than Papal Authority saying it was annulled. Why do you listen to Leo and not an entire Council of Bishops at 2nd C of E? More importantly why did these Bishops at Chalcedon listen to Leo and not the Bishops of the robber council? Why don’t you accept the robber Council? Why do you accept the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and not the robber council? You need to tell me why you accept some councils and not others and how you know your right; instead of making random vague comments with no clear explanation about something at a different point in history , which just sounds like anti-Papal/anti-Catholic nonsense. The Councils themselves were only recognized because the current Pope ratified them, so to recognize them and not the Papal Authority at the time sure seems illogical to me.

If these Bishops of these Councils had your opinion about Peter’s authority then there would have been a lot of objections to statements referring to the Pope as the head of the church or the living judge as the successor of St. Peter, and they would have demanded these Popes be excommunicated for such statements if the Bishops held your position. THINK ABOUT IT.

Check your timeline: The Church has been called Catholic at least as early as the beginning of the 2nd century (probably sooner). St. Ignatius was a student of St. John the Apostle. St. Ignatius and St. Augustine were Catholic Bishops.

St. Ignatius of Antioch

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 [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church [Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8 (c. A.D. 110)].

St. Augustine of Hippo

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.[The True Religion 7:12 (c. A.D. 390)].

See St. Jerome quotes post #49.

You have perfectly showed you have stopped recognizing Peter’s authority and that is the whole point. Eliminating the head or leader of the Church (Peter) from what you consider necessary, means you have stopped recognizing his authority and started your own church, that is what I am saying. You can deny Peter has authority but you have to ignore the Gospels and history.

Going back to your timeline:
Not wanting to read John Chapter 21 anymore isn’t what I mean, rather why was the authority of the people who wanted to stop following the Pope’s authority greater than the Pope’s authority? You started following Papal Authority and then now you don’t (otherwise you are denying Christ gave Peter a supreme authority). And at the point you stopped why is that time different than the 2nd C of E? They were sure they were right then too, weren’t they? Only Peter changed their minds (except the ones who left Peter).
If you don’t recognize Peter’s authority which Christ left in place that He promised wouldn’t fall into error, you are placing someone else’s authority above Christ, because Christ never came back to strip it from Peter’s Successor.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This debate ended a while back. Why exactly have you resurrected it? I have presented my interpretation of Chalcedon with primary evidence to back up my assertions. That you disagree is of no concern to me. Sometimes, silence is better than falling into sophistry (especially the misrepresentation of the opponent’s arguments), a lesson that many , myself included, would do well to learn.

If you have any new primary evidence from Chalcedon or secondary sources about the council, I’ll gladly look at it. Otherwise, I think we’re done here.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just letting you know that FC Baur is out of date and should not be used to represent any kind of mainstream **protestant thought **on the complilation of the NT or the early history of the Church.

Same goes for Adolph Harnack who deplored the “Hellenisation” of Christianity from its Aramaic/ Semitic roots.

Even mid-twentieth Century figures such as R. Bultmann are now consigned to the scrap heaps as largely unhelpful.
The clearest evidence against any of these (or other Tubingen school “heretics”) is simply to note that P52 (Bodmyer Papyrus) is from 125 AD and is already a copy, thus it could not have possibly be wriiten 2-4th C as suggested.

Thank you for validating my premise that Protestant thought is just that. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow and Protestant thought does not lend itself to that notion. Jesus Christ is never out of date. Protestant Western Philosophical constructs are not consistent with a stream of thought from Christ to now. Thank you again…

Now reflect on this. Recall the movie “Shawshank Redemption”…recall all that was done to Andy…recall all the suffering, all the abuse…and one thing that could not be done although he went through changes…no one could change his mind.

Now consider this. Aeterni Patri calls for a return to the thinking of Aquinas that was 400 years before Protestant thought…the mind of the Church is never out of date…reading encylicals, councils, all recall the writings of Old…the notion of Ancient, Midieval, and Modern are all Western philosophical inventions that have infected the Protestant construct thankfully to their detriment…

While Protestants speak of “Ancient Church” like something so distant and unable to be percieved…the OHCAC speaks of Ancient Wisdom…something to be retrieved.

I urge all to read Aeterni Patris…I urge all to read Lord of History and recognize that in any dialogue when the notions of Ancient, Midieval and Modern are used…that is the achilles heal of Protestant thought…infected with Western man made Philosophy…

You will not find this notion of time in the OT or NT. Look for it.

In the letter to the Hebrews…examine all the parallel verses for…

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,

Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets

How is time looked at in the OT and NT? The truth will set you free…

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Who founded your Church?
youtube.com/watch?v=ecx6b2FwqA0

Catholics believe Jesus started One Church and that He wanted His followers to be united. He gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter and Peter’s Successors have been the leaders of the One True Church which Christ established on earth. We recognize the Pope’s (Peter’s Successor) authority because it is God given authority. We believe Jesus is True God and True Man. So God started the Catholic Church. Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18) and He will be with us until the end of time (Matthew 28:16-20). The Pope, Benedict XVI, is Christ’s servant shepherd to Christ’s sheep (His followers) on earth. Peter is the shepherd to Christ’s sheep on earth (John 21:15-17).

What I can’t figure out is this, why would anyone think they have the authority to start another church?  Aren’t they claiming they are the true servant shepherd of Christ and denying the Pope’s God given authority in doing so?

Peter didn’t image it, Jesus told him in person and there were witnesses. Jesus started His Church with Peter and the Apostles. The Apostles were unified with Peter as they didn’t all start their own Churches. When Christ spoke in Matthew 16:13-20, the Apostles understood they were Jews and were familiar with Isaiah 22:20-23. Peter is Jesus’ servant who was given the Keys which is a symbol of authority, is the father (Pope) of the family in a sure spot, and when he opens no one shall shut and when he shuts no one shall open. Peter is the royal steward of Christ’s Kingdom.

Why are you a member of your church?  Is it because you think God started it and you know Jesus gave them authority to teach and it is ratified in heaven what they teach so you know if you follow what they teach you will go to heaven?  If a man started your church how do you know it was by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not his/her will?  How do you know your interpretation of the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit when it conflicts with someone else’s interpretation of the Bible who also claims they are guided by the Holy Spirit? Holy Spirit or human will that is the question (2 Peter 1:16-21).

Everybody is doing it, what is stopping you from starting a new church right now? Beware of false prophets….Matthew 7:15-20. 2 Peter 2:1-3, False teachers will introduce destructive heresies. If you start a Church you are saying the Church Jesus started fell into error and you are promising yours won’t the way His apparently did (in affect implying Jesus’ promise wasn’t kept). You are also claiming authority equal to Jesus or above Jesus. But since Jesus is the ONLY Son of God your authority doesn’t supersede His and that is what is stopping you from starting your own church because you don’t presume greater authority than Jesus. Jesus delegated authority to Peter. I am not aware of anyone else receiving such authority from Jesus, so I am a Catholic because the authority lies with the Catholic Church, the ONE holy catholic and apostolic Church. The Apostles as a whole in union with Peter have been guided by the Holy Spirit from Pentecost to today, from Peter to Benedict XVI.

How do you know who to listen too? How do you know which church is guided by the Holy Spirit? Which Church did Jesus start? Who did Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus’ Kingdom, too (Matthew 16:13-20)? Which Church has the Successor of Peter as its leader? Which Church has been around since the time of Christ? The Church Jesus started.

How do you know who to listen too? It is pretty simple, the Church Jesus started. Listen to teachings from the Church Jesus started or one of 10s of thousands that were started by men. Listen to God or man, listen the Holy Spirit or human will. What is it going to be?

Your word is not above His, JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD! Jesus wanted unity of believers (John 17:20-23). Please pray to the Holy Spirit for unity. The Holy Spirit doesn’t tell different people conflicting things; God the Holy Spirit brings about unity not division.

What we do matters, don’t let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.
Ephesians 5:6, 2:8-10
Romans 2:6-7
Psalms 62:12-13
Proverbs 6:16-19, 24:12
Galatians 5:6
James 2:24, 26
Matthew 19:16-17
John 14:21
1 Corinthians 13:2

My sheep hear my voice, says the Lord; I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27). If we are all hearing different voices (teachings), who is listening to Christ?

Matthew 7:21-23

……because of them the way of truth will be reviled (2 Peter 2:2).

Which is the true Church of Jesus Christ?
youtube.com/watch?v=r7W97ru024c&feature=related

1 Timothy 3:15

St. Ignatius of Antioch, pray for us.

Jesus Christ founded his Church (and my church) on himself (the Chief Cornerstone (Petras)) through the leadership of St. Peter (Petros) small stone and the Apostles.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Biblical definition of Church = The body of Christ

Define When, Where, and who is the body of Christ?

Determines the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Where ever you find the True body, blood of Jesus Christ you find the Church Jesus Christ founded which is His body and He never left His Church.

 

[afiala2]

This debate ended a while back.

I agree, it ended when I started the thread.

Why exactly have you resurrected it?

This was simply my first chance to reply to your post. [if you must know why it has been a while, I have had family health issues and like most people have had Christmas get-togethers.]

I have presented my interpretation of Chalcedon with primary evidence to back up my assertions. That you disagree is of no concern to me. Sometimes, silence is better than falling into sophistry (especially the misrepresentation of the opponent’s arguments), a lesson that many , myself included, would do well to learn.

I apologize again, please tell me what you are trying to say, I am clearly having difficulty understanding your argument. You still haven’t explained it to me, your interpretation. I am having trouble understanding it. Why, how do you know your interpretation is correct? Why don’t you follow 2nd C of E (the robber council)? Why weren’t St. Celestine and St. Leo excommunicated for their representatives’ comments about them for them at these Councils?

If you have any new primary evidence from Chalcedon or secondary sources about the council, I’ll gladly look at it. Otherwise, I think we’re done here.

I have provided several; look into them, that is what I am suggesting. It is history, it is no secret. The Church has been visible since the time of Christ. If you are having trouble locating sources, I am sure Catholic Answers would be able to help you. I recommend starting by reading about the Saints involved.

 

[The_Lonely_One]

I’m part of the Maronite Church because I heard the Word of God from St Maron. Plus, my Church celebrates Mass in Arabic, which is my mother language. ( It is easier to pray in your mother language, as I can’t imagine myself praying in English ).
I will have to add here that my Church follows the Catholic Church, ever since the 1450’s.
St Maron founded my Church in Syria in the 450’s.
Hope I helped you !
God bless you all.

 

[afiala2]

Jesus Christ founded his Church (and my church) on himself (the Chief Cornerstone (Petras)) through the leadership of St. Peter (Petros) small stone and the Apostles.

What is your church?

Without Christ being the foundation it wouldn’t be His Church, Peter is the foundation in a different way. (Simon) Peter’s name is changed to Peter and Jesus didn’t change anyone else’s name to Peter.

Jesus founded the Catholic Church, it is HIS CHURCH, but gave the Keys to Peter. The Apostles together spread Christ’s message UNIFIED.

Petros/Petra are masculine and feminine versions of the same word in Koine Greek. If you refer to someone as petra(s), you are stating they are female. Both Jesus and Peter are men.

This passage in Matthew 16 is showing Christ giving Peter alone authority.

You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.
You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.

Jesus spoke the words in Aramaic, the original draft of Matthew’s Gospel was most likely written in Aramaic as well, greek was used because greek was the “bridge language” or lingua franca which linked different people with different primary languages of the region at the time.

suggest you read this article:
catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

 

[passer_by]

I would think a good definition would be; A group of people who have a common professed brlief, or at least a belief in the [divine] inspiration of the leader or leaders of such entity, who gather to worship or otherwise learn about a specific definition of the creator of all things, or at least an entity having supreme power over all things, in order to assimilate to said power in some fashion.

This leaves room for number of members, and a heirarchy of one or any number, and provides leaway for specific theories about the nature of the universe and whatever definition a church may have of a supreme power. Would all agree that the element of a “supreme power” is key to any definition of church? Seems that without this element, to form a group of any sort would be redundant?

That was a very well thought out definition.

 

[afiala2]

I’m part of the Maronite Church because I heard the Word of God from St Maron. Plus, my Church celebrates Mass in Arabic, which is my mother language. ( It is easier to pray in your mother language, as I can’t imagine myself praying in English ).
I will have to add here that my Church follows the Catholic Church, ever since the 1450’s.
St Maron founded my Church in Syria in the 450’s.
Hope I helped you !
God bless you all.

Maronites have always been united to Rome, or are a part of the the Catholic Church. This is were dioceses/churches are the same. There are many churches and rites within the one united Church.

 

[afiala2]

I’m part of the Maronite Church because I heard the Word of God from St Maron. Plus, my Church celebrates Mass in Arabic, which is my mother language. ( It is easier to pray in your mother language, as I can’t imagine myself praying in English ).
I will have to add here that my Church follows the Catholic Church, ever since the 1450’s.
St Maron founded my Church in Syria in the 450’s.
Hope I helped you !
God bless you all.

For St. Maron (also Maro and Maroun), I think in english we say St. Maro. Maronites have always remained faithful to the Catholic Church.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maron

According to the site below, it also claims Maronties never left communion with Rome. The One Church has many Churches and Rites, but are all faithful to the teachings of the One Church. ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

I agree with you on the mother language comment, only english is mine. There is some parts of the Mass in latin during the primarily English spoken Masses where I am from. Latin is the language of the Church because of its former common usage, though aramaic was the mother language of Jesus. Latin fills the need for a common language for the Church to communicate to its members regardless of primary language. Latin was actually the common language in the Roman Empire back in the days of the early church or was at least a primary bridge language, however no one speaks latin as a mother language today (or at least i am not aware of anyone doing so).

The Church and Latin
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q24

You helped, God Bless you too!