Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
Various Bishops developed lists of inspired books:
Mileto, Bisop of Sardis c 175AD
St. Ireaneus, Bishops of Lyons 185AD
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea c AD325
Pope Damasus AD 382
Council of Hippo AD393
Council of Carthage AD397
Pope St. Innocent AD405 approved and closed the canon.
SHHHHHH!!!
Remember, that's supposed to be one of the harlot of Babylon's deepest secrets...sheesh...now you've gone and done it.... ;)
Thanks.
It seems to me that there is, generally, an unspoken understanding here that threads and side-issues between Catholics and Orthodox are conducted with a little more decorum and palpable mutual respect. This comes from the fact that we have much more in common with each other than found in any Catholic/Protestant or Orthodox/Protestant scenarios. In short, there's much less to get hot under the collar about and, relatively speaking, the issues that do divide us are on a second tier compared with some of the docrtinal debates here between us and the Protestants. It also derives, I believe, from an understanding that we have at least some real chance at reunification during our natural lifetimes.
Let's not muck things up between us with such harsh language and cheap-shot attacks. Believe it or not, there ARE comparable things that Catholics could bring up. I know for a fact that I and several others here try to act with respect and restraint here on the Catholic side, and nearly everyone on the Orthodox side of the ledger seems to be equally respectful and disinclined to use invective. Couldn't you do the same?
Historically Rome/The Pope hasn't been the one to call councils.
That's it! BOTH of you report immediately to the Holy Office, basement level four, Vatican Secret Archives Building. See the guard named Tomas. You DARE to betray our super-secret canon fudging methods! It's the rack and iron maiden for you! Now, GO!!
Maybe, but I am not sure if it wouldn't improve the thread :)
Seems like everyone is going in circles again.
How about Nicea I? Constantinople I? (The first was called by Constantine I, emporer of Rome. The second by Theodosius I)
Chalcedon was not called by Rome, but was presided by Paschanius, who was the Pope's legate.
Constantinople is generally regarded as the eastern empire. Constantine was never the bishop of Rome. In fact the Catholics still don't accept all the canons of some councils specifically because the Bishop of Rome had so little involvement.
(Constantinope I from NewAdvent.org)
"The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.
The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."
How about "Josephus".....would he be given your consideration also?
"Christ brothers and sisters were his half brothers and sisters. Is that hard for you to understand. The trinity can be established in several ways but I like the scene of all three members of the Godhead being present at the Baptism of Jesus. As to Ecumenical councils, they are an invention of the Catholic church with no basis in scripture. Don't point me to the council at Jerusalem concerning circumcission. That was attended by apostles (Plural). Thought totally in error, the catholic church claims only one successor to the apostles, the Pope and he was not present at ano of the Councils decididing on the contents of the Bible. Incidently the seven extra books contained in the Catholic Bible were not there until placed there by the Catholic Church in 1521."
Wow. There's so much stuff in here that's blatantly wrong I don't have time to address it all. Let's pick out one thing for now and let it serve as representative of how completely ignorant you are of the Church you rail-on against.
"Thought totally in error, the catholic church claims only one successor to the apostles, the Pope"
ALL Catholic bishops are successors to the Apostles. That's what we've said as a Church all along. Nothing could be clearer, even if you don't agree with it.
The rest of this stuff I don't have time for. But the "Christ's brothers issue," the "Trinity," "Ecumenical Councils," and the "Canon of Scripture," are all fully laid out for your edification by Catholic members of this board - myself and many others - in posts just spanning the last few weeks. If you're "really" interested in learning what we *really* believe, and you do not simply want to go by the caricature of our beliefs you seem to consider a primary source, dig into the FR Religion archives and start reading.
Anyone posturing as a great critic of the Catholic Church who doesn't even know that we consider our bishops successors to the apostles has a LOT of reading to do to gain any credibility.
Neither was Theodosius I (Constantinople I), Theodosius II (Ephesus), Marcian (Chalcedon), Justinian (Constantinople II), Constantine IV (Constantinople III) nor Irene (Nicea II). In other words, none of the Ecumenical Councils were called by a Patriarch at all.
While I'll agree that the last five of the councils were called by the rulers of the East, my purpose was to challenge your initial assertion that Rome (not the Patriarch, but Rome) historically did not call ecumenical councils.
With due respect, of course...
Rome the CITY did not, Rome the EMPIRE included both EAST AND WEST.
I agree with all you have said, but many historical events must be brought up. When did the Eastern Church sack Rome? When did the Eastern Church ignore Rome's cries for help? Did the EOC abandon the RCC to islam? We are to speak the truth in love, but first we need to speak the truth!
Joe....I thought you lived in the southwestern desert somewhere. How can you root for those "Northern" teams?
Good to read your posts my friend.
Diego
Thank you. I just think that your response to Cronos' orininal post 462 was not directed to what he said, and simply used it as an excuse to hurl invective. I thought he was trying to be balanced; what he said was hardly some kind of anti-Orthodox screed.
If his subject matter pertained to what you wound-up saying, then what you said would be relevant, and (while I disagree with its slant) you certainly would be within your rights to defend your Church. But this seemed to come out of nowhere.
Both of us have a hard enough time trying to defend the Apostolic Faith against the invective-laced, non-sequitur filled, doctrinally and historically misinformed avalanche of posts directed at us by our Protestant brethren daily on this forum. Neither of our groups hijacks their threads as they often do ours, or has more than a trace of the malice or disingenuous feigning of "misunderstanding" they so often demonstrate to stir the pot. Let's not do the same to each other. What I say to you I also ask of all of your fellow-Orthodox and all of my fellow-Catholics. Let's rise above the undercurrent we swim in.
So what's your point?
The ROMAN Emporers Constantine and Theodosius I called the first two councils. The EASTERN Emporers (the empire was divided by that time) called the last five. The Church, prior to its split, universally accepted the primacy of the the Patriarch of Rome, followed in second place by the Patriarch of Constantinople...in a collegial fashion (i.e., the first and second among equals).
Each Patriarch was responsible for his own territory and doctrinal issues that impacted areas outside of each territory were decided by Ecumenical Councils. That, my FRiend, is the point.
If you want to scratch around digging for ants as to whether or not Constantine was a Serbian or whether or not Theodosius I was a Spaniard, feel free to do so. It's really not that important to me.
Recall that Jesus counseled another group to search the scriptures (for evidence of Him) ... but that they, too, were more interested in condemning Him.
That is true. But I think in each case, men are blinded by their own opinions of interpreting the Scriptures, don't you agree? People often see things through a very limited point of view and will not accept anything that is "outside the box". Thus, the "scandal to the Jews". Many could not see that the Christ had to suffer. They saw Deuteronomy's point that "those who hang from a tree are cursed". The Scriptures, then, could be used to argue EITHER point of view - that Jesus was the Christ, or Jesus was NOT the Christ. It is only the belief in the witnesses and their explanations, coupled with the Holy Spirit's imbuing one with faith, that will bring one to believe in the Word of God, Jesus the Christ.
In some sense I would agree.
For it is certainly possible to cherry-pick through the scriptures ... in order to find support for any of a variety of beliefs.
However, the christian who is open to the message of God ... will be disposed to look at all of the scriptural evidence ... and so, can be brought to faith (or a deeper understanding) through study of the scriptures, IMHO.
The Jews at Thessalonika certainly "knew" the Scriptures that they were going to use as proof-texts against Paul. Thus, they "searched" the Scriptures through their own paradigms and ideas of what the Christ would be - a glorious savior. Jesus didn't fit that description, thus, they and the Pharisees were blinded. It wasn't the Scriptures that blinded them, nor was it the Scriptures that opened the eyes of the Bereans. It was God, working with a responsive man, that enabled the faith to enter into the Bereans, but not the Thessalonicans.
And God used Paul's preaching ... and the existing scriptures ... to bring the Bereans to faith.
It is not my belief that the scriptures will have any 'magical' effect ... and convert the resistant soul.
I do believe that the scriptures ... which we both believe in BTW ... set the example for the use of the scriptures (certainly Jesus made much use of them, Himself) ... in conveying the truth of God ... to the soul which is open to hear it.
I think that the majority of the Jews of Paul's day ... were not disimilar to the majority of Christians today ... in that they do not know the scriptures as well as they should.
Consequently ... they know what they have been taught ... by their leaders. In some cases, that works out to the good, ... in others, it is a detriment.
I certainly do not get the impression that those who heard the message of Jesus, and saw His works and evident love, ... and yet, continued to oppose Him ... were, in any way, open ... to believe what God was saying at that time ... whatever the source.
I do not get the sense that these Thessalonican Jews ... who traveled to Berea to stir up sentiment against Paul ... were, in any way, ... truly searching for the truth of God.
Recall Luke 24 and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? It was only AFTER Christ had opened their eyes to the Word in Scripture and how it applied to Jesus were they able to see all that we now take for granted. Correct?
Well ... first I think that we must agree ... that these disciples would already have possessed some undertanding and acceptance of Jesus' message.
I would then go on to say that ... the revelation which these two disciples received ... specifically regarded the recognition of the risen Christ ... and of how the Old Testament scriptures were fulfilled in Him.
Thus, the Scriptures were NOT what opened the minds of the Bereans or closed the minds of the Thessalonicans - and why I disagree with some Protestants' use of it in such a way.
In this case, no, ... and, I would say that in no case ... is it the 'scriptures alone' which effect any increased knowledge of God's truth, ... but rather, God's use of the scriptures.
Scripture is, clearly, ... a tool in the hand of God ... as is any other method of revelation which He chooses.
My view on this issue is one which is much more in line with regarding Scripture as the primary source of God's truth (i.e. in the sense of it being the final arbiter in one's search to obtain the truths of God).
And I certainly would say that God can (if He so chooses to ... and that He likely has) ... used the scriptures solely to bring one to a better understanding of His truth.
Certainly he has done so with me.
I came to Christ through the teaching ministry of those whom God placed in my life ... but I have come to a deeper knowledge of His truth by the study of the scriptures.
Brother in Christ
I was born and raised near Buffalo, but I moved before before the "glory years" of the 1990's. I was there during the 1970's - and I was getting tired of the Steelers!
Take care, brother
We Catholics in East Texas had a saying: Where two Baptists are gathered in Christ's name, there is the potential for a fight. Neither Jews nor Christians are "peoples of the book." First there was the convenant amd then there was the book. You have more in common with Muslims than you think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.