The supreme irony of history is that it was by authority of the Catholic Church that the canon of the scripture was assembled and approved sometime in the late 3rd century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

This means that the same body that LDS and others claim had fallen into total apostasy was the only authority by which the bible they take as their sole guide came to be declared the word of God to begin with!

If the church founded by Jesus through the 12 apostles fell into total apostasy after the death of St. John, then there's a real problem inasmuch as it was this Church that declared by its teaching authority which books were divinely inspired and which were not.

The other ironic thing is that 1000 years after the canon was decided, the "bible alone" crowd decided on their own to reduce the number of total books....thus as counter intuitive as it seems, the folk who claim to hold to the bible alone are the ones among Christians who accept as divinely inspired the fewest number of books in scripture.

Now, if you push the date of the great apostasy back until the 4th century, after the canon was determined, there's another problem: by then all the marks of the Catholic Church's dogmas were established. The same Church that decided what was and was not 'scripture' also determined that there were 7 sacraments, a hierarchy, relics of martyrs and saints could heal the sick and cast out demons, and other Catholic things. All these things were already ancient in the 4th century....meaning that pre-great apostasy, the early Church had these things in addition to the scripture.

The implication thus being that "bible alone" falls apart inasmuch as the very church that ratified the bible believed in more than the bible - it believed in tradition (oral and written, liturgy, etc.) as well as a teaching authority in the Popes and bishops.

Now to be fair to Luther et. al, they didn't know this history very well in the 15th century as it was assumed then that the canon was closed in 100 AD so the reformers assumed they could condemn the Catholic Church of 313 without obliterating the bible itself. They assumed all the Catholic things were novelties of the Medieval or at the least developments of centuries after the bible was assembled and accepted. That it was the other way around never occurred to them.

Thus the very intellectual pre-suppositions of the reform were historically flawed. The 'great apostasy' a pious 'tradition of men' handed down to justify the revolt ex post facto.

YHVH (the letters yod heh vav hey, in Hebrew) alone is responsible for providing the world with inspired writings, writings of which He alone is the author.  “All scripture is given by inspiration of YHVH, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of YHVH may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”  (2 Timothy 3:16 and 17)

No church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture.  No council somehow made a book “inspired.”  The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired writing.

Have you never hear of the gospel of Peter or Thomas? Have you never read in Paul's letters where he explains he's signing the letter in his own signature to differentiate from fake letters? Or the warnings of Paul or John to churches about letters or people claiming to come from them but preaching a different gospel?

It's not like there was no other books in the ancient world - there were plenty.

So it wasn't a heavenly printed and bound book dropping from the sky my friend, it was a Church - the Catholic Church led by bishops that met in council and determined what letters were indeed divinely inspired and which letters were not.

Furthermore Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew didn't command "go ye and write down all I've told you, print a million copies and hand them out because Lo, my Spirit will help each individual infallibly interpret the words till the end of time".

No, curiously, he actually commanded the apostles to go, make disciples, and teach. The Church thus had authority from Christ. The bible was a tool of the Church which pre-existed the New Testament. The hierarchy (deacons, priests, bishops), the sacraments, the liturgy that all existed before the first Gospel was put to paper.

Well said as always, JusAdBellum.

Regarding your statement that Luther thought the canon was settled in 100 AD, do you have any more info on this?  I have never heard this claim before. I seem to remember that Luther and Calvin were fairly well versed in the Church Fathers, but I could be wrong.

What I find interesting is that you can't find the Protestant canon anywhere in Christianity before the Reformation. There was always one Churh Father who rejected this book, one who rejected that, one who liked Baruch but not Revelation, etc., but never anyoneone who said "it's these 66 books."

ETA: Here is a good analysis debunking the claim that te Protestant canon can be found among the Church Fathers.
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com.br/2009/10/protestantism-and-early-church-fathers.html?m=1

Have we not had enough cath vs prot crap as of late?  How does this bring any glory to God?

Here's how it will go:
Caths or prots will post up a controversial issue between the two and then they will argue about it. The same issues have been argued over for hundreds of years. Nobody's mind will be changed and the nonbelievers that read these posts are just justified in their unbelief. We don't look any different than the rest of the world.



I mean no offense to anyone, but we really need to pay attention on how unbelievers will perceive the way we have discussions.

unbelievable.



 

Do you mean a different gospel like ignoring Sabbath, and replacing it with the day of the sun, ignoring our Father's 7 set apart Holy days, and replacing them with ancient sun worshipping solstice days, bowing to graven images, requiring priests to be unmarried, in opposition to Scripture? Even Peter was married.

You forgot the death cookies.  They always forget the death cookies.

Your response is a catalog of canards. Thank you Mr. Chick.



 

What do you believe is false in what I said, and who is Mr. Chick?

Fortunately, YHWH established a metric to determine if a prophet or a message is from Him.  It has nothing to do with a church, a council, a Pope, a king of men, a publishing house, or religious notion.  It is incumbent on any individual who seeks to closely examine and carefully consider the testimony and precepts of YHWH beyond the Torah, to use the following six attributes and exercise judgment regarding the validity of any additional testimony.  Items 1 & 3 are not singularly disqualifying.  Items 2, 4, 5, & 6, alone or in combination, negate validity, and in combination with 1 and or 3, denote a false prophet.  

1.       Is the person a naby’: someone who claims to speak on behalf of God?
2.       Is the person zyd: someone who oversteps their bounds, speaking presumptuously and contemptuously, with an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties to defy God, someone who arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while despising and demeaning perceived competitors, someone who rebels against that which is established and is prone to rage, who seethes with anger and is often furious, overbearing, rude, and conceited in their plans?
3.      Does the person dabar ba shem: openly and publicly preach to others, communicating his or her message in the name of God?
4.      Is the person’s message lo’ tsawah: inconsistent with what Yahowah has instructed and directed, does his or her message conflict with what God appointed, constituted, and taught, does it vary from His Instructions?
5.      Does the person dabar ba shem ‘aher ‘elohym: speak in the name of gods other than Yahowah?
6.      Are the individual’s written and spoken statements consistent with that which ishayah: existing and established, instituted by God, and with the test of time, does what this person says bow’: come to accurately reflect what has happened in the past, and what will transpire in the future?

This metric is based upon YHWH’s teaching to the children of Israel via:

(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:1-6)
“With regard to every word which beneficially I am instructing you with accordingly, observe it for the purpose of engaging in and acting upon it, not adding to it and not subtracting from it.

Indeed, if a prophet stands up trying to establish himself in your midst or an interpreter of revelations, and provides a sign or miracle to you, and the omen or miracle worker appears before you who has spoken thusly to you to say, ‘Let us go after other gods which you have not known and let us serve and worship them, do not listen to the words of that prophet or interpreter of revelations, because the test of Yahowah, your God, accordingly for you to know is whether this affirms your love for Yahowah, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

After Yahowah, your God, you should walk. And with Him, you should always and genuinely be respectful. And in concert with His terms and conditions, you should continually and actually be observant.  Concerning His voice, you should always and literally listen so that, with Him, you can consistently serve. And to Him, you should always choose to cling.

So therefore, that prophet or interpreter of revelations is deadly. For indeed he has spoken rebellious renunciations concerning and against Yahowah, your God, the One who led you out from the realm of the crucibles of Egypt and the One who redeemed you from the house of bondage and slavery.  His desire is to seduce and scatter you from the way which beneficially, Yahowah, your God, described, providing you with a complete set of directions for you to walk in.  And so you can choose to completely remove that which is disagreeable, displeasing, and evil from your midst.”

(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
“And if you actually say in your heart, ‘How shall we actually and consistently know accordingly if the statement which he speaks or writes is not Yahowah’s?’

If that which is deliberately spoken over time by the one who proclaims the message in Yahowah’s name is not literally and consistently present and established, or it does not actually come to be, the message which he, himself, has deliberately spoken to influence, is not Yahowah’s.  In arrogance and presumptuousness, the prophet has spoken and written.  You should not respect or revere him nor conspire to rebel with him.”

I never cease to be amused when someone with an historically Catholic avatar or username posts the most shrill sort of anti-Catholic revisionism.

It always gives me a smile.

Martel_C,

Just curious, what faith/denomination are you?  Is what you posted something taught in your tradition or is it your own?

Milsurpninja,

I am neither religious or a person of faith, belonging to no sect, order, or denomination. I self identify as Yisra'el, an individual who strives, contends, engages, persists with, and is liberated and empowered by God (from the compound of 'ysh, sarah, and 'el).  What I posted isn't mine.  It was summarized by my brother in a very unpopular polemic he self published regarding Paul.

You can easily come to the same rendering with any number of freely available interlinears and lexicons.

Is it that time of the month again?

Saying that Catholics created the Bible is like saying Columbus created the New World.

Note that when Marcion made his canon it was rejected by every Church leader as being false.  

How did they know it was false?

Because people had pretty well established what was & what wasn't scripture by that point.

Martel_C,

Thanks. I think I'm even more confused. Is there an article on Wikipedia that describes a group of beliefs you would most identify with?

I'll IM you to limit he derailment.

 

By that wonderful list (made by who and under whose authority?) Ezekiel and Elijah as well as Moses could be judged to be false prophets inasmuch as they taught 'different' things, new things about God that had not been known to their fathers.

The New Testament is not in contradiction to God's revelation in the Old, but in continuity as an oak tree looks vastly different than an acorn but is the same thing or a man looks different than a baby but is the same person albeit grown up.

My point in 'stirring the pot" is that so much of Protestant 'problems' with Catholics seems to come from relatively recent but certainly no more than 500 year old traditions of men who made quite a number of a-historical assumptions about what came first, how things developed and thus what could be safely cut away without undermining everything. As it turned out, they were wrong - the Church came first and then the Bible. The Church that authoritatively assembled and approved the New Testament was already hierarchical, sacramental, liturgical, etc. so while a reform might have been possible, the choice to reject in toto the entire Church while rhetorically claiming to re-start at some original, pure Christianity that didn't have sacraments, clergy, liturgy, etc. is ultimately based not on reality but a fiction.

But why stir the pot?

Because Our Lord told us in no uncertain terms that the world would not believe if we were not united and we can't be united until people accept the authority of the men whom God in his providence has given the keys to.

At first blush many might blanch and declare they're not going to submit to sinful men....and yet they ALREADY DO in their doctors and pastors and bible preachers!
Others might say 'yeah, well, but our guys aren't as rot gut awful and evil as your guys.....all while claiming that it's faith alone that matters not works, not sin.... it doesn't matter until it does I suppose.

But that's the subjective side of things.

The objective is that Our Lord gave to his apostles and disciples real objective power to heal, to exorcise and to make disciples and people are dying for lack of Christ. The Protestant hegemony is cracking and disintegrating under the combined pincer movement of the secular-progressives and the hostile other religions offering alternative claims of authority and wonders, from wicca to Islam to Hinduism and new age.... all Christians need to avail themselves of the gifts which Our Lord promised to come to us at Pentecost. They need the grace that comes through the Church.

And we need them too. The parable of the wedding feast is what this is all about.... many who were called are not coming so we must go to the highways and byways and invite all those not immediately close to listen and come to the wedding feast. To stand up for marriage, to stand up for life, for the Incarnate God, and find life in His body.

Yawn.  How did I know that you would barge in high in confidence and low on facts?

Lets take just the work of Justin as an example.  He acknowledges the 4 gospels (memoirs of the Apostles), and either quotes or alludes to 20 New Testament documents as authoritative.  All before 150 AD.

Ever browse the Muratorian fragments?  Your own church puts its origin around 170 AD.  Do you know what is in it?  Almost everything that is in our modern New Testament.  

So by at least 200 AD, Christians had recognized the 27 books that we call the New Testament as authoritative scripture.

Well before anyone gathered in Carthage for their talk.

The list/ test I posted was simply an itemization of attributes God listed in his own testimony, given as stated, as the means to determine if a message is from Him. Moses was present as those words, as part of YHWH's Torah were recited aloud by God Himself, manifest as a column of fire atop Mt. Horeb, addressing the children of Israel.  If his message was in conflict with the Torah of YHWH, it would have been pretty plain at that moment. I would be interested to see an example of Ezekiel or Elijah violate those provisions. New information, by itself, doesn't cross the line of falsehood.

The day our Father spoke to the children of Israel from Mount Sinai was the same day of the year as Pentecost (Shavuot) on the Hebrew (our Father's) calendar, as opposed to the Gregorian sun based calendar.
On Mount Sinai, YHVH's presence was accompanied by fire, smoke, and the sound of thunder (Ex. 19:16-19). YHVH's presence during Pentecost was accompanied by the sound of wind, tongues of fire, and the gift of different languages (Acts 2:1-3).
When YHVH gave the TORAH to Moshe on Mount Sinai, the people were worshiping the golden calf. About 3,000 people died as punishment for their sins. When the Spirit was given during Pentecost, the people repented, and about 3,000 people believed and found spiritual life.
YHVH's presence was symbolized by a cloud and fire, which led the Israelites out of Egypt. Later, YHVH moved his presence into the temple (2 Chron. 5:7-8, 13-14). During Pentecost, YHVH's presence moved from the temple into a "new temple," the followers of Yeshua (Rom. 8:9). Both of these events were witnessed by the assembly (church or children of Israel).
The Catholic church is part of the church, not THE church.

LOL. The fragments also make reference to multiple other non-canonical documents as well. It cites the authority of the bishop of Rome! Again you make the point for authority of the Church pre-existing the canon. Thanks!



 

Yawn.

Half truths and childish games.  At least you're consistent.

Going to send me another ugly email so you can skirt the COC now?

I IMed you about it before. I will again when I get back to a computer.

From the translation of the fragment that you cited:





"yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth."





"and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline."





"There is current also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion,  
and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic
Church "





"Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or,
bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic
[Church]"





"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother,
was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of
Rome"



Hmm. Nothing 'half' about that. If you cite this at 170 AD, there appears to be ONE Church, the Catholic Church, with a seat of power in Rome, that is calling the shots.





As for IMs, I don't ever recall IM to you, ugly or not.




You should sleep. You yawn a lot.
 

Very well, let us demonstrate your half truths.

You said that the fragment lists other works.  That is true.  The other half that you left out is that it said these works were spurious and should be rejected.

Your other half truth.

You are right that the Fragment mentions bishop Pius.  Not surprising given that it was recorded in Italy during his tenure.  The other half that you left out is that while you claim that this supports the superiority of the Roman church, that is not even suggested in the document itself.  Not to mention that Pius never claimed to be THE leader of the church, nor did his contemporaries ever ascribe that position to him.

Don't feel bad.  When Roman Catholicism split from the Orthodoxes they had to reinterpret their history to make the claim that they were the one true church and all that.

One of those revisions is the subject of this thread - the recognition of certain writings as authoritative upon the church.

As has been demonstrated, Christians everywhere had settled upon the 27 books of the NT centuries before the episcopate of Carthage called a conference to affirm what everyone already knew.

Not that TWIRE needs my help but:

a) Pius I was Bishop of Rome (Pope) from approx. 142 to 155.
b) Popes don't typically claim to be anything other than servants of God. They are elected by a group of Bishops that is divinely led by the Holy Spirit, so contemporaries did actually ascribe that position to him.
c) Is it possible that the document doesn;t specifically say " the Pope is the boss" because by 170 AD it was common knowledge/agreed upon by the pertinent parties?

Is it that time of week again? These threads always wind up being petty bickering and are really not helping anyone's case. I feel like every time I click on one of these Catholic v. Protestant threads expecting at least a heated but civil debate, the same people are posting the same snarky remarks and then everyone gets their feelings hurt. Some serious jerks in here.



Its giving me absolutely no desire to learn (at least on this forum) more about either side's point of view. Thanks a lot.

This is whats so frustrating about early church history.  So much bad history has been done by groups pushing an agenda that it is difficult to have honest discussions about it.

I've done the bulk of my doctoral work in Patristic studies and have been up to my eyeballs in primary sources for years.  In any other field of history, ponderings like the above would be met with howls of laughter because it lacks any basis in reality.

But in the field of church history, people claim whatever they want and use whatever anachronistic gymnastics necessary to defend them.

The New Testament was around while Peter and other Apostles and Paul were still alive.
It may not have been officialy called such.

Pauls letters and others were delivered to the churches and were copied over and distributed.

Peter talks about this in 2 Peter 3: 15-16.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Peter put Pauls letters on the same level as "other scriptures" probably meaning the Old Testament and maybe other writings that became the New Testament.
So Peter calls Pauls letters "Scripture"
Long before any council called it the New Testament.

I agree with your conclusion that Paul’s epistles, and likely other documents eventually destined to for the New Testament were likely in distribution during the life of Shim’own/”Peter.”  However, I wouldn’t lend any special consideration to the use of the word “scripture” in the passage quoted.  To English via Latin, what else would you get for writings?

As to how Shim’own regarded Paul’s letters, I read 13-17 specifically as a rebuke of Paul and his writings.  An amplification for your consideration:

“Also (kai) this regarding (ten tou – of, about, and in association with in the accusative feminine addressing reconciliation and genitive masculine addressing) our(emon) Upright One, Yahowah (KY – a Divine Placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle and Yahowah’s name): steadfast endurance and constraint (makrothymia – show restraint under trial, always analyzing while expressing righteous indignation toward the adversary, being hostile, even exasperated, willing to wage war with great passion) considering forming opinions(hegeomai – thinking in matters pertaining to an directions and guidance, influence, authority, and counsel) regarding the process of salvation (soteria – when the object is being saved) inasmuch as it pertains (kathos – just as accordingly in the manner) then(kai) to this (o), our (emon) esteemed (ho agapetos – unique and dear, welcoming and entertaining) countryman (adelphos – brother and / or fellow Yahuwd / Jew [and thus not afforded the title Apostle title he craved]), Paulos (Paulos – Latin for Little and Lowly), throughout (kata – pertaining to and in accordance with) the (ho) clever use of human philosophy (sophia – wisdom and insights gleaned and capacity to understand derived from man’s knowledge, intelligence, and experience [and thus not Godly inspiration]) having been produced (didomai – having been given, granted, entrusted, and appointed) by him(auto) in writing (grapho) to you (umin).” (2 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 3:15)

“And even (kai – also) as (hos – like and in a similar way, when and because) in (en – throughout) all (pas) letters (epistole – epistles), inside (en) them (autais – they) speak (laleo – proclaim and convey a message) all around and on the other side of (peri – about, encompassing the proximity or sides concerning an account, with regard to or remotely about; from peran – beyond the extremity to the other side, and heteros, that which is different and opposed to) this(touton).”  “Within (en) which (ais) there are (hos eimi – there is the existence and presence of)some things (tina – a considerable number of important issues) difficult to understand(dusnoetos ­– hard to comprehend, detrimental to thinking, and injurious to comprehension), which (tina) the (ho) uneducated (amathes – unlearned and ignorant who have not been properly taught) and (kai) malleable (asteriktos – the unstable and poorly established with flexible and wavering views, perspectives, and attitudes)misinterpret and distort, turning away (strebloo – pervert and twist deriving a false meaning which turns people away, tormented and suffering as a result),  as (hos – approximating in a somewhat similar way) also (kai – then even) with the(tas) remaining (loipos – inferior, residue, left over, or other) writings (graphas –letters; from grapho – to write (expressed here in the plural, thus addressing multiple written documents or letters), pertaining (pros – as a consequence with regard) to their(ten) own individual (idian – one’s distinct and unique) destruction and annihilation(apoleia – complete and utter ruin and obliteration) of themselves (auton).” (2 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 3:16)

“You, therefore (gmeis oun), beloved (agapetos – dear esteemed ones, those set apart and welcomed), now knowing this in advance (proginosko – currently possessing this foreknowledge), you should be observant, on guard, keeping your distance(phylassomai – you should choose to keep away and abstain by being especially watchful and protective, isolating yourself from this, completely disassociating to be safe) in order that (hima) not (me) in or of this (te ton) un-appointed, unprincipled, and irreverent(athesmon – unrighteous and licentious, unjust and lawless, self-gratifying) deceptive delusion (plane – perversion and corruption), you are forsaken, having been led astray(ekpipto synapagomai – you yield and fall, you are carried away, drifting off course, and you are judged, being held accountable, submitting to an improper association with the lowly and inadequate (the meaning of paulos), perishing) from the steadfast and dependable One (tou sterigmos idiou – from the firm and unchanging guarantee of the One who saves).” (2 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 3:17)

If you've done so much research you would have found plenty of documentation showing Pius I to be the Pope (Bishop of Rome) during that time, and you would be familiar with the method by which a Pope is selected. You made the claim he was not what the Catholic Church says he is...you provide the documentation. None of that "you can't prove a negative" crap either; you claimed that the left out fragments of your earlier quoted document show this so let's see it.

As to the argument from silence, you have a point but it doesn't negate mine. If I were writing to you about something the President would I have to tell you that he's the nation's leader and has the power to.....? Of course not.

That is precisely my point. The fragment refers to documents that were sacred, others that were rejected. By whose authority were they deemed wothy to be

publicly read in church' or not?



The context of the fragment taken as a whole shows a  'clearly recognizable''one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth' which 'speaks to all' and has leader who not just the referred to as 'bishop Pius' but also described as 'occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome.'



It would take real gymnastics to draw any conclusion other than the existence and supremacy of the Catholic Church.



I have no doubt that during this period Christianity and more specifically Catholicism, was settling the issues of canonicity. But ultimately the Church, as you said 'affirm[ed] what everyone already knew.' They all knew it because of authoritative declarations over time, and finally the definitive, complete canon in Carthage. Again to your point, this is the same way that the Immaculate Conception was declared by papal bull in 1854. This was not a thought that sprang up de novo in the early 1830s.

Also interesting that the Book of Wisdom was included in this fragment. And was part of the canon but rejected centuries later by the prots.

Well, I guess you guys can't argue the history of scripture with me so you're deflecting to another quai historical belief.  So be it.  Lets address your "argument" point by point.

You said "If you've done so much research you would have found plenty of documentation showing Pius I to be the Pope (Bishop of Rome) during that time,"  Well, you've managed to stumble across my point, albeit in a somewhat clumsy way.  Do you know why you can't offer any primary source material from the era giving credence that Pius was a Pope?  Its because there isn't any.  Pure and simple.  Neither he nor any of his contemporaries ever made that claim.

You said "and you would be familiar with the method by which a Pope is selected."  Why yes, I am familiar with that process.  Are you familiar with chronological history?  If so you would know that that process wasn't established until centuries AFTER Pius died.  So, if the selection process for a Pope didn't exist, then how can there be a Pope?

You said "You made the claim he was not what the Catholic Church says he is...you provide the documentation.  None of that "you can't prove a negative" crap either"  Now come on, this is just ridiculous.  Do you know why you qualified this request with your "can't prove a negative"?  Its because you know that this is total horse crap.  Do you really think that you're going to find second century documents refuting a belief that didn't exist until the sixth century (at best)?  Really?  You've got nothing and you know it, that's why you're cowering behind anachronistic and ad hoc claims.  Come on, at least try to make an effort here.

You said "As to the argument from silence, you have a point but it doesn't negate mine."  Actually, if you're interested in any kind of historical truth, it does.  You're making a claim without evidence which renders your claim false.

Finally, you said "If I were writing to you about something the President would I have to tell you that he's the nation's leader and has the power to.....? Of course not."  Well that would make sense if you were referring to Obama, who became President 225 years after the office was established.  You're not doing that though.  Calling Justin a "Pope" is akin to calling John Smith a US President even though he lived and died centuries before the notion of a President was considered.

What you are doing is applying newer ideas on past events.  This is the core of anachronistic thinking and is the cardinal sin of even amateur historical work.

You assume I'm trying to do any historical work at all.

You expect me to completely ignore almost 2000 years of Church history, with a compilation that was started by people who were there at the beginning, because you aren't happy with the sources' verbiage? What documentation that Pius was actually named Pope would make you believe it? I suspect there is none, because centuries ago/conspiracy/etc. Look up 'Annuario Pontificio', even though I'm fairly certain it won't fly in your eyes.

By the way, who is Justin?

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter]
he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep
[John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles,
yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by
his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.
Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a
primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but
one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and
the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded
accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he
imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair
of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that
he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).



http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/sray_stpeterprimacy_apr07.asp

Whether or not the Church was more Orthodox or Latin rite Catholic, the point was that it was the authority of the Church that already had 7 sacraments, a hierarchy, liturgy etc. that proclaimed by their authority which books were divinely inspired "scripture" and which books and letters were spurious.

Thus we must accept that the Holy Spirit that guided those men to chose the books we come to accept as the word of God also inspired them to believe in 7 sacraments, etc. etc. if they fell away from the primitive Gospel of Jesus on such crucial elements, how could we accept that they had any divine mandate, any divine authority to safeguard and determine what was and was not "scripture"?

By the 2nd generation, they already had the sacramental system, liturgy, deacons, priests, and bishops..... it would follow that "bible alone" Christianity is incomplete, that the Christian community was constituted not around the book but around the Church, which had put some things to paper.

Thus to jettison the Church in favor of the book is only to delay the inevitable collapse into atheism or at least post-Christian religion (which unfortunately is happening right now). To keep the faith in Jesus we need more than the bible, we need authority and the power of healing, exorcism, and of making disciples.....and that comes from the apostles and their successors.

Additionally, the reason this is important is that the books the Protestant bible leaves out are from the Old Testament.

Catholics and Orthodox have 73 books in our Bibles, following the Septuigent version (70 scholars) that had been translated into the Greek.

Why this is significant is two fold.

1) We believe the Holy Spirit really did inspire the Jewish people and Temple Worship and Priesthood etc. up to the coming of John the Baptist and the Messiah, Jesus Christ....so the latest books of scripture in the Old Testament were accepted as validly inspired by God even though they were relatively recent additions (like Maccabees 1 and 2).

2) Early Christian apologists and evangelists found alot of prophecy and scriptural allusions in these books to promote the Gospel, so in the Jewish council in Jamnia in 110 AD ( after the fall of Jerusalem ) the assembled Pharisees and scribes declared that the Greek version of the Old Testament to be suspect....but from a Christian perspective the blessing cloud had already left the Temple and the Jewish priests and been passed onto the Church, so their ex post facto closing of the barn door shouldn't matter to Christians.

But until the crucifixion the Jewish high priests etc. did indeed have divine authority - Jesus himself in the Gospels speaks to that effect "do what they tell you, just don't do what they do" and again "go and show yourselves to the priests.."

This means a lot of things.... the Old Testament is holy. The people of Israel were called to a holy life and many did indeed live saintly lives. The Law and all its commandments, ritual, etc. wasn't bad, wasn't evil, wasn't stupid. It might not have been definitive or effective in remission of sins, but it wasn't pointless or somehow wrong. They did indeed follow God's will as He revealed His will to them.

Thus for example, their dietary laws weren't bad. We might not need to keep them out of fear of being ritually unclean, but there's nothing intrinsically bad with Kosher. Circumcision.... we no longer need to circumcise for the sake of entering into the Covenant and being saved, but again, that doesn't mean it's pointless or bad. The 10 commandments were not abrogated. The Temple was replaced not annihilated, the rituals adopted not obliterated. Thus the vestments, candles, incense, prayers of the Mass, etc. all appropriate Jewish Temple motifs.

From a single tribe who were Levitical Priests, we are a Holy People, a Kingdom of Priests....thus while there is a difference between the priesthood of the ordained ministers (deacons, priests and bishops) all Baptized Christians perform priestly functions by offering up prayers and sacrifices and blessing things (like food or one another).

Thus we (unlike Martin Luther in an effort to "reform" corruption) did not obliterate what came before, but superceded and replaced it. It's not that the Old Testament was garbage but that it was fulfilled in the New. Or that the priesthood was garbage, but that it would blossom in the new....or that the Temple was garbage, but that it too would be opened, universalized, made available in the person of Jesus.

I certainly think (and I'm not alone in this ) that the Holy Spirit allowed the Protestant revolt to happen on account of real Catholic sins and corruptions and there WAS (and always is) a need for reform. I do believe our Protestant brothers (brothers because we are all genuinely related through a common Baptism) have divine grace and genuine insights and real gifts to offer the world.

We don't have a monopoly on the gifts of the Spirit. We need their participation as they indeed need ours that the world may believe and be saved. But I fear that this historical ignorance of the canon of scripture is one of THE stumbling blocks for many Protestants - sincerely believing that they don't need the Church, sacraments, and graces therein on the mistaken historical PRESUPPOSITION that the Bible pre-existed the Church. Realizing that it was a sacramental, hierarchical, liturgical Church that collected and approved the canon by the authority handed down from the apostles to the bishops via apostolic succession.... realizing that was the sequence of events, that such things didn't rise after the canon was established but before..... all this means that Protestants returning to such things would be going home, not walking off into a foreign land.

We need the prodigals home before the feast can begin.

So, we've already come to the point where you just start quoting random texts without context.  We've reached this point sooner than usual.

Awesome.  How about a quote about the subject at hand.

"Let us therefore forsake the vanity of the crowd and false teachings and turn back to the word delivered to us from the beginning."

Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 7.2 110 AD

On whose authority were the Gospels of Peter and Thomas rejected?

On whose authority was the Arian heresy and the Gnostic one before it resisted and put down?

There were bishops, priests and deacons celebrating a weekly liturgy that involved sacraments when all this was happening. It wasn't proto-Protestant "every man his own pope, everyone his own infallible interpreter of the scripture" world. The single Church existed throughout the empire and beyond and the many local churches corresponded with each other regularly, holding councils and meetings and helping spread the Gospel which was more than a book, it was the oral traditions, the prayers, the sacraments, the liturgy.

Thus to return to "original Christianity" at a minimum Evangelicals will want the hierarchy, the sacraments, the liturgy in common with those early generations.

Bottom line....you have no desire to listen to what others here are saying regarding long-standing Church doctrines because you aren't happy with the sources. That's okay, but I don't see it as a very strong position. For example: if you believe the Jews at their word regarding historical content of the Old Testament then it's intellectually dishonest to throw out the early Church history just because the primary sources aren't impressive enough, since everything was passed down as oral history prior to being written down/published.

I understand the issue with the primary sources involved but I take the stance that over 1900 years of parsing the oral history and then the written history has pretty much solidified things; then take into the fact that we believe the Holy Spirit has worked (and will continue to) to maintain an accurate account of what is in the Bible and it looks like too big a bite to take. And for non-believers - now we're back to the "no evidence is good enough" issue coupled with...not knowing our history. There will ALWAYS be someone to argue something against the Church, some conspiracy theory about rewriting history that I can call just as self-serving. As always...point of view.

You know, there are some things in the RC church that I appreciate, but how you guys bang the drum of "authority" just makes me chuckle.

Have you ever gotten an email from a Nigerian prince?  Did you need someone in authority to tell you that its a scam, or did you figure that out on your own?

Have you ever read the gnostic gospels or the claims of the early heretics?  I have.  Oddly they were no challenge to my faith.  In fact when I put them down I thought to myself "what a load."  And didn't even need a vote to reach that conclusion.

Now, I realize that there are people in the world that need warnings like "coffee is hot" or "don't use hairdryers in the shower", but the first century did not suffer fools lightly.  If you were to actually read the materials produced by the early church you will find that it was populated by wonderfully intelligent men with a great deal of discernment.

You will also find that when they wrote against these heresies, they did not appeal to authority - they appealed to logic, reason, and scripture.

1 Peter 3:15 says: but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you,

Now, that term "defense" is translated from the Greek word "appologia" or "apology".  It literally means an argument based on facts.  Note that word there.  On FACTS.  

Now, I wonder, if you really think that Peter was a Pope, why do you so quickly dismiss his words and base your beliefs on things other than provable facts?  Believe what you want, but there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance going on here in your line of thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that when people are told something all their life & they've accepted it to be true people tend to hang on to it even when that belief is shown to fly in the face of the facts.  I see it happen in my own denomination all too often, and it really makes me sad.

In the spiritual culture we find ourselves in today, we must be extremely careful of the claims that we make.  Why?  Because one of the biggest charges atheists have against Christians is that our faith is anti-intellectual.  And when we go around making claims with no evidence, and then we make silly ad hoc arguments trying to justify them, we give credence to that charge.

Well, as far as being told something all my life...converted when in 1997 when I was 21.

And I like your use of capital letters. Why is something not a fact, just because your favorite primary source doesn't acknowledge it in a way to make you happy. Do you believe Peter was the first Pope (whether you believe in a Pope or not)?

And I would argue that none of my arguments (save the base - Jesus is the Son of God and our Savior) have been made without evidence...hence the entire history of the RCC. Just because I choose to refer you to the Church's work doesn't make it any less correct or meaningful. Once again, to argue the 'anti-intellectual' side is to argue against an entity that maintained intellectual thought ("learning") for centuries after the fall of Rome.

I have to admit I'm surprised by you guys.

And I have to admit I'm sometimes clear as mud.

My point in bringing up the canon is that when the bible which both Protestants and Catholics take as the word of God was assembled and approved and distinguished from the other books floating around that world, the men who decided on just 4 Gospels and not 7 or accepted some but not all letters claimed to have Paul as their author, were called "bishops" and they led those early communities who met regularly to worship via a liturgical prayer that involved sacramental signs.

St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John and teacher of St. Irenaeus (who wrote against the Gnostics in the 2nd century) was a bishop... he wrote of the sacraments, there was a hierarchy, there was a liturgy, etc.

Rather than focus on the title of the bishop of Rome, etc. I'm focusing on the fact that there was a hierarchy, there were special prayers, the community understood the difference between Baptism and confirmation... there was a grasp that not everyone could declare himself a leader "just because'.

I read those early Church fathers and I see proto-Catholic or proto-Orthodox lifestyles and theologies and not proto-Protestant ones. No one is talking from a 'faith alone, bible alone' world view, which is odd, since that's what we've been led to believe would otherwise have been the case prior to 313 or 325 or whatever arbitary date is put for the 'great apostasy'.

This being the case, I think it makes for a firmer position for ecumenism. As a Catholic, I 'get' that we need reform - indeed every century the Church needs reform (and it either happens by our own or we get a serious 'backs to the wall' persecution that clears out the dead wood for us.) Reform means going back to roots. As American Protestantism faces loss of cultural hegemony you too will need to consider reform, so where will you turn? To know that the earliest generations of Christians had liturgy ought to make you less afraid of liturgy. That they understood grace to come sacramentally via a hierarchy. As evil rises, we will need to revert to the tried and true 'miracles of healing and exorcism' - and that (for those of you with experience of demons) requires authority to drive out.

It's not for nothing that Hollywood and satanists and other secularists attack Catholics more than anyone else. It's not for nothing that exorcisms are on the increase - and priests (orthodox and catholic) are increasingly being sought for help where lay prayer warriors fail. If you accept that the Church never went into apostasy to begin with, that there wasn't 1100 years of total darkness until Luther magically re-discovered an aboriginal Christianity (which never existed), it helps to face what's coming (at least in the US.)

I'm not writing this to say Protestants are all wet and silly. But to encourage them to realize that the bible came to them from a believing community that was more than 'bible-only' or 'faith-only'. On the other hand, the Church that ignores the bible and faith is an ignorant and blind Church. We need both the bible and the traditions, the faith and the hope that comes with experience of the earlier fathers.

I see more and more 'bible' churches re-thinking sexuality to justify gay marriage etc. and wonder.... we've been to this rodeo before, what can we learn about what other centuries can teach us of growing persecution? Catholics know we're a minority in the US and we know we've been persecuted and survived other empires in other centuries so most likely will survive the USA too.... and yet at a tremendous cost to ourselves. But still, knowing that the faith is bigger than one's nation is a good thing I think. It would be helpful to have this perspective. At least it helps me.

Well said. Denial of the early Church hierarchy and the liturgy is, at least to me, to deny Christianity's most basic roots because that's all they had in 40 AD. Christ had gone and left his Apostles to build and grow His Church. There was no Bible to lean on, so they spread the word/Word as commanded. The Scriptures (OT only at that time) served a purpose but the focus had changed from the Law to Him (as the New Covenant). Were things "simpler" with no grand basilicas, gold-trimmed vestments, no gold monstrances? Sure they were, because that's how things are when you start any endevour. The focus was on the message, and the message was put together by His direct students according the plan. Sight of that has been lost by a great many, inside of and outside of the Church.