MAJOR COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH - 1st Council of Nicaea - 325 A.D. (1st in a series)

Daily Catholic ^

[NYer]

INTRODUCTION

This council opened on 19 June in the presence of the emperor, but it is uncertain who presided over the sessions. In the extant lists of bishops present, Ossius of Cordova, and the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius are listed before the other names, but it is more likely that Eustathius of Antioch or Alexander of Alexandria presided. (see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J.)

The bold text in the profession of faith of the 318 fathers constitutes, according to Tanner "The additions made by the council to an underlying form of the creed", and that the underlying creed was most likely "derived from the baptismal formula of Caesarea put forward by the bishop of that city Eusebius" or that it "developed from an original form which existed in Jerusalem or at any rate Palestine". "A direct descent from the creed of Eusebius of Caesarea is manifestly out of the question." Vol 1, p2)

The figure of 318 given in the heading below is from Hilary of Poitier and is the traditional one. Other numbers are Eusebius 250, Eustathius of Antioch 270., Athanasius about 300, Gelasius of Cyzicus at more than 300.

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH OF THE 318 FATHERS

1. We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.

2. And those who say
   1. "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that
   2. he came to be from
      • things that were not, or
      • from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia],
      affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration

      these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

   CANONS

   1. If anyone in sickness has undergone surgery at the hands of physicians or has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy. But if anyone in good health has castrated himself, if he is enrolled among the clergy he should be suspended, and in future no such man should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this refers to those who are responsible for the condition and presume to castrate themselves, so too if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters, but have been found worthy, the canon admits such men to the clergy.

   2. Since, either through necessity or through the importunate demands of certain individuals, there have been many breaches of the church's canon, with the result that men who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith after a short catechumenate have been admitted at once to the spiritual washing, and at the same time as their baptism have been promoted to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it is agreed that it would be well for nothing of the kind to occur in the future. For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism, for the apostle's words are clear: "Not a recent convert, or he may be puffed up and fall into the condemnation and the snare of the devil". But if with the passage of time some sin of sensuality is discovered with regard to the person and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, such a one will be suspended from the clergy. If anyone contravenes these regulations, he will be liable to forfeit his clerical status for acting in defiance of this great synod.

   3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.

   4. It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop.

   5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or the laity, who have been excommunicated, the sentence is to be respected by the bishops of each province according to the canon which forbids those expelled by some to be admitted by others. But let an inquiry be held to ascertain whether anyone has been expelled from the community because of pettiness or quarrelsomeness or any such ill nature on the part of the bishop. Accordingly, in order that there may be proper opportunity for inquiry into the matter, it is agreed that it would be well for synods to be held each year in each province twice a year, so that these inquiries may be conducted by all the bishops of the province assembled together, and in this way by general consent those who have offended against their own bishop may be recognised by all to be reasonably excommunicated, until all the bishops in common may decide to pronounce a more lenient sentence on these persons. The synods shall be held at the following times: one before Lent, so that, all pettiness being set aside, the gift offered to God may be unblemished; the second after the season of autumn.

   6. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

   7. Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan.

   8. Concerning those who have given themselves the name of Cathars, and who from time to time come over publicly to the catholic and apostolic church, this holy and great synod decrees that they may remain among the clergy after receiving an imposition of hands. But before all this it is fitting that they give a written undertaking that they will accept and follow the decrees of the catholic church, namely that they will be in communion with those who have entered into a second marriage and with those who have lapsed in time of persecution and for whom a period [of penance] has been fixed and an occasion [for reconciliation] allotted, so as in all things to follow the decrees of the catholic and apostolic church. Accordingly, where all the ordained in villages or cities have been found to be men of this kind alone, those who are so found will remain in the clergy in the same rank; but when some come over in places where there is a bishop or presbyter belonging to the catholic church, it is evident that the bishop of the church will hold the bishop's dignity, and that the one given the title and name of bishop among the so-called Cathars will have the rank of presbyter, unless the bishop thinks fit to let him share in the honour of the title. But if this does not meet with his approval, the bishop will provide for him a place as chorepiscopus or presbyter, so as to make his ordinary clerical status evident and so prevent there being two bishops in the city.

   9. If any have been promoted presbyters without examination, and then upon investigation have confessed their sins, and if after their confession men have imposed hands upon such people, being moved to act against the canon, the canon does not admit these people, for the catholic church vindicates only what is above reproach.

   10. If any have been promoted to ordination through the ignorance of their promoters or even with their connivance, this fact does not prejudice the church's canon; for once discovered they are to be deposed.

   11. Concerning those who have transgressed without necessity or the confiscation of their property or without danger or anything of this nature, as happened under the tyranny of Licinius, this holy synod decrees that, though they do not deserve leniency, nevertheless they should be treated mercifully. Those therefore among the faithful who genuinely repent shall spend three years among the hearers, for seven years they shall be prostrators, and for two years they shall take part with the people in the prayers, though not in the offering.

   12. Those who have been called by grace, have given evidence of first fervour and have cast off their [military] belts, and afterwards have run back like dogs to their own vomit, so that some have even paid money and recovered their military status by bribes -- such persons shall spend ten years as prostrators after a period of three years as hearers. In every case, however, their disposition and the nature of their penitence should be examined. For those who through their fear and tears and perseverance and good works give evidence of their conversion by deeds and not by outward show, when they have completed their appointed term as hearers, may properly take part in the prayers, and the bishop is competent to decide even more favourably in their regard. But those who have taken the matter lightly, and have thought that the outward form of entering the church is all that is required for their conversion, must complete their term to the full.

   13. Concerning the departing, the ancient canon law is still to be maintained namely that those who are departing are not to be deprived of their last, most necessary viaticum. But if one whose life has been despaired of has been admitted to communion and has shared in the offering and is found to be numbered again among the living, he shall be among those who take part in prayer only [here a variant reading in Les canons des conciles oecumeniques adds "until the term fixed by this great ecumenical synod has been completed"]. But as a general rule, in the case of anyone whatsoever who is departing and seeks to share in the eucharist, the bishop upon examining the matter shall give him a share in the offering.

   14. Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, this holy and great synod decrees that, after they have spent three years as hearers only, they shall then be allowed to pray with the catechumens.

   15. On account of the great disturbance and the factions which are caused, it is decreed that the custom, if it is found to exist in some parts contrary to the canon, shall be totally suppressed, so that neither bishops nor presbyters nor deacons shall transfer from city to city. If after this decision of this holy and great synod anyone shall attempt such a thing, or shall lend himself to such a proceeding, the arrangement shall be totally annulled, and he shall be restored to the church of which he was ordained bishop or presbyter or deacon.

   16. Any presbyters or deacons or in general anyone enrolled in any rank of the clergy who depart from their church recklessly and without the fear of God before their eyes or in ignorance of the church's canon, ought not by any means to be received in another church, but all pressure must be applied to them to induce them to return to their own dioceses, or if they remain it is right that they should be excommunicated. But if anyone dares to steal away one who belongs to another and to ordain him in his church without the consent of the other's own bishop among whose clergy he was enrolled before he departed, the ordination is to be null.

   17. Since many enrolled [among the clergy] have been induced by greed and avarice to forget the sacred text, "who does not put out his money at interest", and to charge one per cent [a month] on loans, this holy and great synod judges that if any are found after this decision to receive interest by contract or to transact the business in any other way or to charge [a flat rate of] fifty per cent or in general to devise any other contrivance for the sake of dishonourable gain, they shall be deposed from the clergy and their names struck from the roll.

   18. It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter. Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to rank. If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be suspended from the diaconate.

   19. Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the catholic church, it is determined that they must be rebaptised unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptised and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if on inquiry they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed. Similarly with regard to deaconesses and all in general whose names have been included in the roll, the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity.

   20. Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one's prayers to the Lord standing.

   THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD IN NICAEA TO THE EGYPTIANS

   The bishops assembled at Nicaea, who constitute the great and holy synod, greet the church of the Alexandrians, by the grace of God holy and great, and the beloved brethren in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.

   Since the grace of God and the most pious emperor Constantine have called us together from different provinces and cities to constitute the great and holy synod in Nicaea, it seemed absolutely necessary that the holy synod should send you a letter so that you may know what was proposed and discussed, and what was decided and enacted.

3. First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God,
   • saying
     • "he is from things that are not", and
     • "before he was begotten he was not", and
     • "there once was when he was not",
   • saying too that
     • by his own power the Son of God is capable of
       • evil and
       • goodness,
   • and calling him
     • a creature and a work.

   Against all this the holy synod pronounced anathemas, and did not allow this impious and abandoned opinion and these blasphemous words even to be heard.

   Of that man and the fate which befell him, you have doubtless heard or will hear, lest we should seem to trample upon one who has already received a fitting reward because of his own sin. Such indeed was the power of his impiety that Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais shared in the consequences, for they too suffered the same fate.

   But since, when the grace of God had freed Egypt from this evil and blasphemous opinion, and from the persons who had dared to create a schism and a separation in a people which up to now had lived in peace, there remained the question of the presumption of Meletius and the men whom he had ordained, we shall explain to you, beloved brethren, the synod's decisions on this subject too. The synod was moved to incline towards mildness in its treatment of Meletius for strictly speaking he deserved no mercy. It decreed that that he might remain in his own city without any authority to nominate or ordain, and that he was not to show himself for this purpose in the country or in another city, and that he was to retain the bare name of his office.

   It was further decreed that those whom he had ordained, when they had been validated by a more spiritual ordination, were to be admitted to communion on condition that they would retain their rank and exercise their ministry, but in every respect were to be second to all the clergy in each diocese and church who had been nominated under our most honoured brother and fellow minister Alexander; they were to have no authority to appoint candidates of their choice or to put forward names or to do anything at all without the consent of the bishop of the catholic church, namely the bishop of those who are under Alexander. But those who by the grace of God and by our prayers have not been detected in any schism, and are spotless in the catholic and apostolic church, are to have authority to appoint and to put forward the names of men of the clergy who are worthy, and in general to do everything according to the law and rule of the church.

   In the event of the death of any in the church, those who have recently been accepted are thereupon to succeed to the office of the deceased, provided that they appear worthy and are chosen by the people; the bishop of Alexandria is to take part in the vote and confirm the election. This privilege, which has been granted to all others, does not apply to the person of Meletius because of his inveterate seditiousness and his mercurial and rash disposition, lest any authority or responsibility should be given to one who is capable of returning to his seditious practices.

   These are the chief and most important decrees as far as concerns Egypt and the most holy church of the Alexandrians. Whatever other canons and decrees were enacted in the presence of our lord and most honoured fellow minister and brother Alexander, he will himself report them to you in greater detail when he comes, for he was himself a leader as well as a participant in the events.

   The following is not found in the latin text, but is found in the greek text :

   We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes and in the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy, welcome our fellow minister, your bishop Alexander, with all the greater honour and love. He has made us happy by his presence, and despite his advanced age has undertaken such great labour in order that you too may enjoy peace.

   Pray for us all that our decisions may remain secure through almighty God and our lord Jesus Christ in the holy Spirit, to whom is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

   ---

   Translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner

[pjr12345]

That all sounds lofty, but it makes little sense.

First, it doesn't align with the role played by Peter in the early days of Christianity. Peter was clearly an evangelist and a missionary. Certainly he carried the God-given Apostolic authority. Yet I know of no record showing he acted in a leadership capacity for any congregation. Quite contrary, during the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter provided evidence. It was James whose opinion carried the day and which was handed down by "apostles and elders, with the whole church".

Second, when Peter was released from prison by the angel (Acts 12), he directs those in the house to “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” (Acts 12:17). Clearly James is a distinguished leader in the church at Jerusalem.

If there truly were an earthly leader of the early church, predecessor to your pope, James is a far better candidate for the job than Peter. But no worries, the entire idea is fiction.

I notice you focus your attention completely on verses 16-19, but disregard entirely the content of verses 21 through 23, But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Isn't it wonderful that the Holy Spirit saw fit to place these verses so closely together! It puts the reader in the position of having to question either the mental stability of the Son of God, or the RCC interpretation of Scripture.

One other bit of evidence (but certainly not the final piece) lies in Hebrews. Throughout the entire epistle the author goes to great lengths to prove that the need for priests no longer exists because the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. He argues that the Aaronic priesthood is ended, being replaced by the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the book does the author even remotely hint that the old Levitical priesthood was to be replaced by a new priesthood. Far from it! He states unequivocally that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, and that there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin, and hence no need for an earthly priesthood.

Sorry Rutles, your priesthood is a creation of man and not God, and the authority of the papistry rests on an obvious flawed interpretation of Scripture.

[OLD REGGIE]

Yes, but “under Constantine” sounds like Constantine ruled over it, which is a slander commonly made by restorationists (who then use Constantine’s ambiguous faith to assert that post-Nicene Christianity is pagan).

It was the Bishop of Rome whose authority was granted to Nicea, and that is no small point to be brushed aside as you have: many popes were martyred because the emperors coveted that authority and could not wield it; your careless statement gives them the authority that they martyred countless souls for.

Do you have any evidence, not speculation, that Pope Sylvester I was even invited to the council let alone granted authority or approved of it's canons?

[OLD REGGIE]

...since Apostolic Authority ended or was suspended on Earth with the death of the last apostle of Christ, ...

What nonsense. Judas, one of the original Twelve, was replaced by (I think) Timothy - a fact well documented in Scripture.

Methinks you have misread the comment of MHGinTN. Matthias was appointed an Apostle by the by the remaining 11 live Apostles.

Whether you agree or not with MHGinTN it is clear that the "last" Apostle had not yet died.

[Alex Murphy]

Maybe, Iscool is simply agreeing with the "esteemed" Jack Chick.

Wagglebee, you just invoked Irving's Law. Iscool wins the round by default.

Irving's Law: once a comparison is made between [Pharisees/anti-Semitism/Jack Chick tracts] and someone's theology, the discussion is immediately finished - and whoever makes the comparison automatically "loses" whatever debate was in progress, forfeiting all points previously scored.

[Rutles4Ever]

How about responding to the verses I quoted instead of changing the debate? If it doesn't make sense, why don't you address it instead of cherry-picking other verses that are less problematic for you?

If you can't reconcile Matthew 16:17-19, nothing else really matters. There is zero evidence that Jesus' words are in reference to anyone other than Peter, thereby leading to the only possible conclusion that the "rock" upon which Christ would build His church was Peter himself, whom He just coincidentally renamed "Rock" in the previous verse.

Quite contrary, during the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter provided evidence. It was James whose opinion carried the day and which was handed down by "apostles and elders, with the whole church".

No it wasn't. Peter spoke up and settled the dispute. James' opinion only re-iterated what Peter said, and did not come until after he (James) reflected on what he (Peter) said.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (See verse 28)

11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. 12 And all the multitude held their peace; (Including James) and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: (James is merely seconding Peter here. This is an echo of Peter's declaration, nothing more.)

16 After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. 18 To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. 19 For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. 20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath. 22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. 23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: 25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:

26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. 28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: (Re-iterating Peter's main point) 29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. 30 They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle.

Second, when Peter was released from prison by the angel (Acts 12), he directs those in the house to “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” (Acts 12:17). Clearly James is a distinguished leader in the church at Jerusalem.

Of course they're going to tell James. He's their bishop. And obviously he was a distinguished leader since he was a bishop. How does this disprove the office of Peter?

But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Fact: Peter tempted Jesus away from the Cross.

Fact: Peter is not yet pope. Jesus has not yet commissioned Him to "feed my sheep", nor has Jesus breathed upon Him the Spirit. He was certainly subject to error until that time, and Jesus made sure he knew in no uncertain terms that his place as the "rock" was still vulnerable to Satan (esp. as a forewarning of the three denials).

Isn't it wonderful that the Holy Spirit saw fit to place these verses so closely together! It puts the reader in the position of having to question either the mental stability of the Son of God, or the RCC interpretation of Scripture.

Why does it cause you to question either? Peter's tempting of Jesus away from the cross is a repeating of Satan's tempting of Jesus away from the cross in the desert. It makes complete sense for Jesus to reference Satan directly as He did in the desert.

As for the RCC interpretation of Scripture, as explained above, Peter was not yet Pope. He was not imbued with the Holy Spirit by the breath of Christ. When Christ says to Peter, "Upon this rock...I will build my Church," the tense is future, not present. Peter would not enjoy infallibility until the Church was actually born on Pentecost Sunday.

Throughout the entire epistle the author goes to great lengths to prove that the need for priests no longer exists because the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. He argues that the Aaronic priesthood is ended, being replaced by the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the book does the author even remotely hint that the old Levitical priesthood was to be replaced by a new priesthood. Far from it! He states unequivocally that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, and that there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin, and hence no need for an earthly priesthood.

If this is the case - if Christ is the only mediator - why did Jesus give the Apostles the ability to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sins? Also, why on earth would he give Peter the keys to the kingdom if there is no mediator? Your interpretation presents Jesus as a self-contradicting rambler. You're placing Paul above Jesus, himself.

Secondly, if your interpretation is correct, then Paul, himself, is a self-contradicting rambler. Paul is the first to speak of and wholly endorse the holy Eucharist, which was performed by priests.

Thirdly, if your interpretation is correct, the Bible itself is irrelevant since it was written through the mediation of human authors.

Sorry Rutles, your priesthood is a creation of man and not God, and the authority of the papistry rests on an obvious flawed interpretation of Scripture.

Cherry-picking is not evidence to the contrary. Do-it-yourself exegesis, by definition, has no point of reference but one's own logic. Since the Holy Spirit deals only in Truth, either the Holy Spirit has given just you (out of billions of human beings who have heard the word of God) the Truth, or the Holy Spirit has entrusted it to a body that serves all as protector and guarantor of that Truth. Since no two individuals will come to the same conclusion regarding the Truth (see "denominational chaos"), there must be an institutional guarantor which serves all for all ages, as the interpreting authority. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit is nothing but a sham. So, is it just you? Or is it a body unified by its teaching from the time of Peter, the Rock?

[wagglebee]

Good one!

Is there a snakehandler exception?

[dangus]

What kind of evidence would you accept? I’d say the ball was on your court to cast doubt on some element of the history:

The canons were approved by all but two of the attendees, which likely numbered 318 bishops from across all of Christendom, including bishops from outside of the Roman Empire (such as Persia), and two personal representatives of Pope Sylvester, who remained pope for about 20 more years. Further, the Nicene council took up similar issues as the Alexandrian council of just four years earlier, which was conducted without influence from Constantine.

So what authority would Constantine have over Persian bishops, that could justify it being said that the council was held “under Constantine”?

[OLD REGGIE]

What kind of evidence would you accept? I’d say the ball was on your court to cast doubt on some element of the history:

If there were any historical evidence I'd give it serious consideration. "Legend" counts for naught.

The canons were approved by all but two of the attendees, which likely numbered 318 bishops from across all of Christendom, including bishops from outside of the Roman Empire (such as Persia), and two personal representatives of Pope Sylvester, who remained pope for about 20 more years. Further, the Nicene council took up similar issues as the Alexandrian council of just four years earlier, which was conducted without influence from Constantine.

So what authority would Constantine have over Persian bishops, that could justify it being said that the council was held “under Constantine”?

Evidence please. Real evidence, not legend.

Who called this Council? The First Ecumenical Council. It certainly wasn't the Pope was it?

Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335)

This was the era of Constantine the Great, when the public position of the Church so greatly improved, a change which must certainly have been very noticeable at Rome ; it is consequently to be regretted that there is so little authoritative information concerning Sylvester's pontificate. At an early date legend brings him into close relationship wtih the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact.

Still it is not certain whether Constantine had arranged beforehand with Sylvester concerning the actual convening of the council, nor whether there was an express papal of the decrees beyond the signatures of the papal legates (cf. Funk in "Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen", I, 95, 501 sq.).

Catholic Encyclopedia - Pope Sylvester I

Your argument is with the Catholic Encyclopedia, not me.

[pjr12345]

How about responding to the verses I quoted instead of changing the debate? If it doesn't make sense, why don't you address it instead of cherry-picking other verses that are less problematic for you?

My apologies for assuming you already knew what my response would be.

The second "Rock" word Jesus uses refers to Peter's statement, which was revealed to him by the Father. The first "rock" word Jesus used in renaming Simon. The second is the foundation stone -- the boulder. The first is a pebble.

It's clear that Jesus is calling Peter blessed for his profession of faith. It is the content of the profession upon which Jesus will build His Church, and Peter is a part of that Church.

As to the "three blessings" you dig up; Scripture only shows a single blessing.

Certainly in verse 19 it appears that Jesus is conferring certain, special privileges on at least Peter. And I would concede that, in this case, it was promised to Peter alone. However in context the rest of Scripture, with His sending out the 70 and the Great Commission, it appears a reasonable inference that the blessing was meant for all the Apostles. Certainly all Apostles received this blessing eventually.

Peter spoke up and settled the dispute.

Why don't we let the verses speak for themselves?

Acts 15:

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Peter rose and spoke in support from verses 7 through 11.

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Paul and Barnabas spoke in support.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

James answers, starting from verses 13 and culminating in his advise in verses 19 through 21.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The apostles and the elders with the whole church rendered a decision. This decision is exactly the advice given by James.

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Peter gave testimony, as did Paul and Barnabas. And if you look to verse 5 you'll see that a group of believers of the sect of the Pharisees were the first to give their testimony. But they spoke against the testimonies of Peter, Paul and Barnabas.

It's also worthwhile to note that Luke distinguishes the Apostles from the elders of the church of Jerusalem.

Your version is mighty creative, but simply a contortion of Scripture so as to make it fit your preconceived ideas. While I'm surely not going to change your view, I truly hope you will seek the truth, and allow God to shape you into His image rather than continue shaping a god into yours.

[pjr12345]

As for the RCC interpretation of Scripture, as explained above, Peter was not yet Pope. He was not imbued with the Holy Spirit by the breath of Christ. When Christ says to Peter, "Upon this rock...I will build my Church," the tense is future, not present. Peter would not enjoy infallibility until the Church was actually born on Pentecost Sunday.

I almost missed this. You say that Peter got his "infallibility" at Pentecost. If that's the case, how do you explain Paul's comments in Galatians 2?

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

Peter, wrong on a doctrinal matter? There goes your infallibility theory!

Peter, afraid of the circumcision crowd? Would Paul deign to speak to the high and mighty vicar of Christ in such a manner? There goes your pope Peter theory, too.

There's more correction to be made in your post, I just don't have the time right now. Frankly, I doubt that it will matter. It's clear that a quest for the truth this isn't.

[dangus]

I didn’t cite legend; I carefully avoided, and I didn’t cite various sources that the Catholic Encyclopedia is rejecting... and if anything you have to allow that the Catholic Encyclopedia does try to be highly objective, and even frequently fails to contest the prevailing view in 1917, protestant-dominated America.

So, OK, you post how the Catholic Encyclopedia cites that hard, reliable documentation is lacking, because some of the documentation is unreliable. Fine. But the Catholic Encyclopedia also asserts, with the same objective sensibility:

* The characterization of the Council of Alexander as a fore-runner of Nicea, without any Imperial influence,

* The non-imposing invitations of Constantine

* The universal nature of the council, including cultures beyond the influence of the Emperor

* The lack of contest over the assertions of the council, and eventual universal acceptance, with only two dissident Bishops

* The domination of the council by non-Latins, whom Constantine would have less influence over

Given the immediate, universal acceptance of Nicea, including in areas beyond the reach of Constantine, it isn’t up to me to assert Rome’s approval of the Council, it’s up to you to cast doubt on it. Far from sowing discord with the imposition of novel doctrines, Nicea settled nearly any and all disagreement, and Aryanism, adventism, quattrodecennialism, all quickly and, in contrast to the pre-Nicene situation, peacefully waned.

[dangus]

How many thousands of times will that canard be thrown out?

Peter was NOT wrong on the doctrinal matter. Paul very plainly asserts that what he is upholding is Peter’s own doctrine. Peter was faulted for failure to ACT to uphold the doctrine. Rather, Peter was permitting others to act in a manner inconsistent with that doctrine.

[Colofornian]

I’m only aware of one. It amazes me how many people are so driven to “stake their claim” on Jesus Christ. “It’s my mountain! Get off!”

You misread the message. It's not "It's my mountain! Get off!" It's "Your on the wrong hill--the Hill Cumorah--come on over to what a real majestic peak looks like!"

I posted most of what follows to another poster recently (I've italicized the Mormon Christ to show contrast):

I can't speak to every person who sits in an LDS church and say for certain which Jesus they relate to--if they relate to any of 'em at all. So in that sense, I don't pretend to know which "Jesus" you reference. But I've got a decent framework of the Mormon Jesus.

Why do I say which Jesus? The apostle Paul says there is "another Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3-4). The Mormon "Christ" is a pre-existent spirit, they say, like you or me...whose difference is

(a) mere birth order--having been first;

(b) was twice made a son of God via Mary; and

(c) died for Adam's sin so folks could be resurrected (his role as Savior).

Other than that, he was not the Son of God from eternity past. He worked his way up to godhood status. He's not an exalted God-become-man, but an exalted man-become-God. He was an elder spirit bro of Lucipher. Had you been "first" in that pre-existent spirit world birth order, you could have been Christ!!!

This Jesus really didn't die for our personal sins or our rebellious nature...cause when we get to Mormon heaven men are subject to punishment for their own sins--not Jesus [LDS second article of faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." The flip side of this belief is that Jesus wasn't punished for our sins--men will be...Jesus was simply punished for Adam's sin to release us to "free agency."]

This Jesus is foreign to the Bible. The Messiah of the Bible shared the glory with the Father in the beginning (John 17). This Jesus is THE Son of God, not just a son of God. And THE Son of God did not consider equality with His Father something he couldn't let go of while becoming a man (see Philippians 2). Phil. 2 makes it clear He was already divine, not just a "wannabe" God like Dear Ole Dad.

This God created all things--including all angels...including even Lucipher (see Heb 1; John 1; Col. 1:16; see even D&C 93:9-10). This Jesus didn't atone for sins by sweating blood in the garden; He did it on Calvary as the Bible proclaims in Col. 1:20: "And, having made peace through the blood of the cross..."

This Messiah was born in Bethlehem as the Bible foretold and affirmed post-birth--not like the Mormon Jesus of Mormon Scriptures born in Jerusalem.

This Jesus' blood was powerful enough not only to atone for Adam's sin, but mine. I have his rich blood streak running over every part of my sinful body, my sinful mind, my sinful soul, my sinful spirit. I am drenched in His blood; saturated in it; bathed in it. It cleanses me entirely of all past sins, my present sins, and every sin I'll commit (or action I'll fail to responsibly commit) because I entrust that His blood is sufficient for me.

His blood, His mercy, His grace makes me "worthy"--tho the fact that He went to the cross for me shows my ultimate value. Like any heir, I'm an heir by His death and His gift to me...NOT an heir based upon my works, my obedience, my worthiness, my commandment-keeping, my temple recommend, my Word-of-wisdom keeping, my exaltation checklist, who I marry, if I marry, and all the other plural "My-s" I can ever list--as if my life was to center on me and not the One I serve.

Not so with Brigham Young's Jesus. (And BY is not simply a yesteryear "nobody"; his very name is the hallmark of LDS' brightest and best in their young generation). The Jesus of Brigham's poured forth only anemic blood--blood so weak that it couldn't cover all men's sin...which is why Brigham developed the teaching of "blood atonement." (not an official doctrine of the LDS church)

This Jesus is the Head of the Body; He's the Living Prophet of the Church on both sides of the veil in these last days (Heb. 1:1-2; Acts 2:14-18; 1 Pet. 1:20). This Jesus is the Church's Lamb and the Church's Groom. He is the Only Spouse necessary in our Forever family.

This composite God is the Only One we'll ever need. We don't need to knock on the Lone Throne Door and say to Him, "Move Over. I'm moving in." We're not going to be at the Right Hand of Jesus. [see Isaiah 14:13-14]

Do you believe God knows everything? (I've never met a Mormon who said, 'No'). "Is there a God beside me? yea,there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8)

If God knows of no other true god, why would anyone want to acknowledge any other? Even this Book of Mormon verse should stand out for any LDS saint:

"And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 31:21)

[MHGinTN]

109 and 110 are quite instructive. Thanks so much for taking the time to explain and cite the scriptures.

May I ask you, specifically you, to explain Apostolic Authority for me ... was such authority passed to any who were made bishops and ministers in groups of believers built from receiving the message of Salvation in Christ?

[pjr12345]

Peter was faulted for failure to ACT to uphold the doctrine. Rather, Peter was permitting others to act in a manner inconsistent with that doctrine.

Galatians 2:11-14

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

The Bible clearly disagrees with your assertion.

[pjr12345]

I’ll give you the best compliment I know (from my college days):

Can I copy that?

[pjr12345]

As far as I can tell, Apostolic Authority is simply what it implies: the authority of an Apostle. Since there are no more Apostles, there can be no more Apostolic Authority.

However, Scripture plainly confers certain authorities and responsibilities on elders, deacons, and believers in general. Some of which are identical to those given to the Apostles. For example, the Great Commission was given to the Apostles by Jesus. I do not believe Jesus commissioned everyone on that day. Yet the responsibility to spread the Gospel to all men was given generally to believers in other parts of Scripture. Hence, the equivalent responsibility of the Great Commission rests with all believers even though Jesus commanded it of His apostles only.

[dangus]

No, it states that he ACTED wrongly. It was Peter who first promulgated that doctrine. Hence, Paul says he was a HYPOCRITE: because he PROCLAIMED one doctrine and lived beneath it.

[pjr12345]

It was Peter who first promulgated that doctrine.

Please cite the Scripture that supports your assertion.

[dangus]

Acts 10-11; only the single longest post-resurrection passage in the entire NT. While Paul was still eating Kosher, Peter said Gentiles were fit to become Christian (10:45, 11:1), that God has cleansed all foods (10:28, 11:9), contrary to Peter’s Mosaic upbringing (10:14, 11:8).

The fact that Paul calls him a hypocrite plainly testifies to the fact that Peter promulgated such a doctrine, making obvious the fact that Peter’s actions can’t be reconciled with what he preached in Acts 10-11.