The church in Rome

[Always in His Presence]

Not sure what that time period is when you speak of Constantinople before Constantine

The only one and I mean, the only one who is saying that is you. I have stated my position on it that it was not the first Century that I was referring to five times. I’m sorry you don’t understand that I don’t know how to make it any planer so I’ll see you at the six-time.

I’m not addressing Constantinople during the first century, but the third one, which is what you keep bringing up.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You don't know beans about my education. Yet you presume a lot. I usually think your posts are pretty good. On this though you have ... erm ... got some things crossed.

That is 100% how I feel about you also.

So here we are at an impasse. Much blessings to you God’s riches in Best. I’m done repeating myself thank you. Have a good night.

 

[prodromos]

The book of Romans was written to the Church in Rome. That Church is still there. The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome and is the successor to the Apostles of Rome.

Well, kind of. That particular patriarchate has been in schism from the Church for centuries now.

 

[HTacianas]

Well, kind of. That particular patriarchate has been in schism from the Church for centuries now.

There is a schism, yes. But that leads to the question of "where -or what- is the Church". If you whittle it all down, the Church is where salvation can be found. Salvation is through the sacraments. And then, who's sacraments are valid? The Patriarchs have de facto agreed that the Apostolic Churches have valid sacraments. So there you find the Church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The only one and I mean, the only one who is saying that is you. I have stated my position on it that it was not the first Century that I was referring to five times. I’m sorry you don’t understand that I don’t know how to make it any planer so I’ll see you at the six-time.

I’m not addressing Constantinople during the first century, but the third one, which is what you keep bringing up.

Constantinople wasn't a thing until the FOURTH century. There was a city there founded in 657 BC called Byzantium. But even that was destroyed by the Romans around 196 AD before being rebuilt. Then Constantine decided it would become the seat of Empire in 324 AD, embarked on a building project there, and it became a capital in 330 AD.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is 100% how I feel about you also.

So here we are at an impasse. Much blessings to you God’s riches in Best. I’m done repeating myself thank you. Have a good night.

Well, you can't detail your interpretation of Nicea canon 6 or provide which canon of Nicea established a 66 book canon or detail your interpretation of Constantinople canon 3. You tell me about how you know all about some dude named Trajen, when maybe you mean Trajan but you can't even tell me if you mean Trajan or this mystery Tragen. Yeah, I'd say we're done here. It is not a historical impasse but it is an impasse nonetheless.

 

[prodromos]

That is not accurate - sorry you disagree.

Please provide citations.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, kind of. That particular patriarchate has been in schism from the Church for centuries now.

Do you think you could at least deign to use what you know to agree that Rome was a patriarchate from early on? That it was once considered by even the Orthodox as first among equals among the patriarchal Sees?

 

[prodromos]

Do you think you could at least deign to use what you know to agree that Rome was a patriarchate from early on? That it was once considered by even the Orthodox as first among equals among the patriarchal Sees?

That has never been in question.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That has never been in question.

Well, in this thread it seems it has been questioned, but I think maybe I agree with you that it makes no sense to question it.

 

[prodromos]

Well, in this thread it seems it has been questioned, but I think maybe I agree with you that it makes no sense to question it.

Whoever is questioning it, must be getting their information from the "its a mystery why they call it the history" channel.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Well, you can't detail your interpretation of Nicea canon 6 or provide which canon of Nicea established a 66 book canon or detail your interpretation of Constantinople canon 3. You tell me about how you know all about some dude named Trajen, when maybe you mean Trajan but you can't even tell me if you mean Trajan or this mystery Tragen. Yeah, I'd say we're done here. It is not a historical impasse but it is an impasse nonetheless.

That is because you are not answering and of my questions, yet demanding I answer yours.

When I find myself having to repeat my statements I believe it takes this from a conversation to a theological soliloquy.

It has to be five and take. If you are ever open to that concept, we can re engage, until then it is a useless venture.

 

[RileyG]

St. Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch and was later at Rome. "Babylon" was a code-name for Rome, as Rome became Christian. This is accepted as a historical fact.

 

[RileyG]

There is a schism, yes. But that leads to the question of "where -or what- is the Church". If you whittle it all down, the Church is where salvation can be found. Salvation is through the sacraments. And then, who's sacraments are valid? The Patriarchs have de facto agreed that the Apostolic Churches have valid sacraments. So there you find the Church.

exactly! Christ gave his authority to his apostles and they handed it down to their successors- so forth and so on. All of the early Church fathers accepted this.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is because you are not answering and of my questions, yet demanding I answer yours.

When I find myself having to repeat my statements I believe it takes this from a conversation to a theological soliloquy.

It has to be five and take. If you are ever open to that concept, we can re engage, until then it is a useless venture.

You asked me ONE question. You can see that question in post 36. Here it is: "I'll ask again: The Roman Catholic Church canonized 73 books - who canonized the 66 books accepted as Holy Scripture today? It wasn't the Roman Catholics - who was it, when and why?"

I answered that question with "It certainly wasn't the Orthodox." You then claimed that the Council Of Nicea had established a 66 book canon. I asked where in the canons of the council of Nicea that was to be found. And you have yet to provide anything about that. It's fine if you don't want to answer questions. All well and good. But do not be surprised when your claim about the Council of Nicea setting a 66 book canon rings hollow to many of us. It sounds more Dan Brown than anything, especially when we have the twenty canonical rulings of that council available to us. And none of them specify a list of books of the Scriptures.

 

[PloverWing]

I'll ask again: The Roman Catholic Church canonized 73 books - who canonized the 66 books accepted as Holy Scripture today? It wasn't the Roman Catholics - who was it, when and why?

I've been waiting to see what answer you're expecting here, and what conclusions you want to draw from the answer, but I still don't see where you're going with the question, so I'll put one possible answer out there:

The canon was in flux for many centuries. The church mostly settled on the 27 New Testament books pretty early, but disagreement about the Old Testament persisted much longer. We see some definitive lists emerging in the Western churches around the time of the Reformation. We see one list in the Council of Trent, another list in the Westminster Confession, and yet another list in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, to take some examples. (I'm less familiar with the history of the canon in Orthodoxy; perhaps one of our Orthodox readers can fill in some details.)

Is this the answer you're looking for, or do you have something else in mind?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I've been waiting to see what answer you're expecting here, and what conclusions you want to draw from the answer, but I still don't see where you're going with the question, so I'll put one possible answer out there:

I am just waiting for someone to specifically answer the question.

The change didn’t just happen,

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'll ask again: The Roman Catholic Church canonized 73 books - who canonized the 66 books accepted as Holy Scripture today? It wasn't the Roman Catholics - who was it, when and why?

That would be some collection of protestants because no Jew accepts the 27 books of the New Testament and no Christian (before the protestant revolt) restricted the Old Testament to the list of books that post Christian Jewry created.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That would be some collection of protestants because no Jew accepts the 27 books of the New Testament and no Christian (before the protestant revolt) restricted the Old Testament to the list of books that post Christian Jewry created.

Ok - there is one guess. Thank you.

 

[PloverWing]

Ok - there is one guess. Thank you.

Are you looking for the name of one particular Protestant Reformer? Are you thinking of Jerome, who observed the differences between the Septuagint and the books eventually seen as canon by the Jewish community?

What are you trying to get at?