Papal Infallibility.

[DArceri]

1 Timothy 3:1-3

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.


Overseer=Bishop.

8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

Peace

I thought bishops couldn't be married....

 

[lionroar0]

14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you

21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

 

[lionroar0]

This is in direct contradiction to what Paul taught in Romans about the intrinsic depravity of mankind, that man's righteousness are as filthy rags, that no person is ever justified by the deeds of the law (or their obedience to it), and that when Jesus became our sacrifice on the cross, He paid the full price, so that we will never be punished for our sins - that Jesus took the whole punishment. That is what Paul clearly taught.

OSAS??

Peace

 

[Theophorus]

Here is a good example of the falibility of the Pope.

The greater proportion of the RCC church believes in the Pelegan, Semi-Pelegan, and Socinian view of man's natural state before God - that mankind is not intrinsically sinful but is affected by Adam's disobedience; therefore man can be justified through being obedient to the commandments of God and through his own righteousness. Also, after becoming a Christian, a person can continue to be punished for his sins whether they be venal or mortal.

This is in direct contradiction to what Paul taught in Romans about the intrinsic depravity of mankind, that man's righteousness are as filthy rags, that no person is ever justified by the deeds of the law (or their obedience to it), and that when Jesus became our sacrifice on the cross, He paid the full price, so that we will never be punished for our sins - that Jesus took the whole punishment. That is what Paul clearly taught.

Therefore, if the Pope holds to doctrines that are contradictory to Holy Scripture, how could he ever be infallible? He is promoting unscriptural doctrine. That has to make him in constant error.

Others hold this "error" besides the Pope. Few seem to be able to put aside biases and answers questions.

 

[lionroar0]

I thought bishops couldn't be married....

St Paul prefered that they weren't married. Those are the qualifications if they were married.

Peace

 

[DArceri]

OSAS??

Peace

If Peter is the Rock, I was curious if you could show me where Peter said anything about works being required for salvation.

 

[susanann]

I can understand the Bible just fine.

Good! The world's foremost bible scholars (all denominations) and bible colleges need someone to help them explain MANY unclear and confusing passages that have perplexed us for centuries.

 

[susanann]

They never say "My word is always right>" They tell us a good thing, to read God's word for ourself. We are not so dense as to not realize what it says, and detect errors.

IF a million people read the bible, they will get a million different interpretations of it.


If Jesus wanted us to rely soley on written words, and not on any personal help and guidance from our personal religous leaders, then why did Jesus not write anything down? Why didnt he spend his whole life dictating?

Jesus did not write ANYTHING down on paper.

IF Jesus wanted us to use only a written book (and not a personal teacher), he would have spent his life writing that book, or dictating a book.

Why did Jesus send people, out to teach and lead, and not hand them written words for them to just read, distribute or quote?

Why did Jesus create a church composed of people to spread the word and teach and lead instead of just publishing a million rule books to hand out and let everyone interpret in a million different ways?

The bible is great, and contains many guidelines and notes which form the basis and foundation from which our leaders can use to apply to our current lives and our current problems.

Furthermore, Jesus' use of parables shows that he was giving us points and themes and main ideas and principles rather than a word for word rulebook.

It is the basic teachings of principles, learned by Christian leaders/people, that he intended to preserve and spread his church.

For Gods word to be everlasting, it is the principles and themes that must be learned because specific things like tobacco, artificial birth control, video games, etc are not in the bible.

Christianity is not a written rule book.

The pope is a christian leader, whos purpose is to help us interpret his teachings in the bible which was written later after he died. The pope, or whatever of the principle christian leaders there are in the church, are supposed to help us apply Jesus teachings to our current lives and to bind us together as one Church. The last thing Jesus wanted was for everyone to have a different opinion and different interpretation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IF a million people read the bible, they will get a million different interpretations of it.

A good reason to reject the extreme private individual interpretation that the RC denomination insists upon (but only when it does it).

why did Jesus not write anything down? Why didnt he spend his whole life dictating?

God did.
Isn't that good enough for you?


From my Catholic membership class: "The Bible is the Word of God, and no greater assurance of credence can be given." "The books of the Bible - both separately and as a whole - are inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means the God is the Author. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error."


Catholics and Protestants agree on the Two Natures of Christ and the Communication of Attributes, and so as the Holy Spirit inspired Holy Scriptures, Jesus is, too.

IF Jesus wanted us to use only a written book (and not a personal teacher), he would have spent his life writing that book, or dictating a book.

1. See above.


2. Jesus quoted from God's Holy Scriptures at least 50 times. Authoritatively and normatively, denominstrating the approach of Sola Scriptura. How often did Jesus refer to the Bishop of Rome? How often did Jesus refer to Pope Benedict? How often did Jesus refer to the Infallible Pope? How often did Jesus refer to the Roman Catholic denomination? How often did Jesus refer to the Magisterium of the RCC? Ah. That says something to everyone but Catholics. In fact, Jesus refered to the Catholic Church EXACTLY the same number of times as He did the LDS Church.

Why did Jesus create a church composed of people to spread the word and teach and lead

That's the Protestant position.

instead of just publishing a million rule books to hand out and let everyone interpret in a million different ways?

That's the Catholic position.


It's the RC denomination that insists IT is the "sole teaching authority."
It's the RC denomination that insists IT is the "sole interpreter" of Scripture.
It's the RC denomination that insists IT can make whatever it wants authoritative equal to God's Holy Word and that IT is the "sole interpreter" of that, too.
It's the RC denomination that insists IT is the "sole arbiter" for whatever IT wants arbitrated.
It's the RC denomination that insists IT is infallible in all the above.

The RC denomination embraces the most extreme form of private individual interpretation known to me. Then, oddly, rebukes private individual interpretation (well, for EVERYONE except itself).

Christianity is not a written rule book.

Nor is it an institutional denomination - the RCC.

The pope is a christian leader, whos purpose is to help us interpret his teachings in the bible which was written later after he died. The pope, or whatever of the principle christian leaders there are in the church, are supposed to help us apply Jesus teachings to our current lives and to bind us together as one Church. The last thing Jesus wanted was for everyone to have a different opinion and different interpretation.

The RCC does not teach that the Pope is "a christian leader." It teaches that it's leader is the "vicar of Christ" and may speak infallibilty. The RCC does not teach that the role of the Church is simply to teach SCRIPTURE or to interpret the same, it equates "Tradition" (as it chooses, defines and inteprets) with God's Holy Word. The RCC insists that God's Word MUST be interpreted so as to agree with the teachings of the RC denomination. It's a very different function that teaching us God's Holy Scriptures. The topic of this thread - the DOGMA of papal infallibility is a classic example of that.



Thank you for the discussion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[willard3]

Would Jesus want thousands of different religions, each disagreeing on what He really said? Or would he want all Christians united in one common belief system?

Hence why the CC maintains its position. Jesus founded it, so logically we must conclude that Jesus wanted it.

Finally, who is to say that sacred Tradition is not inspired by God just as the Bible is inspired? As stated before, God did not EXCLUSIVELY speak to us through Scripture, and it seems rather condescending to say that God can ONLY speak to us through Scripture. Are we limiting Him to what He can say and how He can say it?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Would Jesus want thousands of different religions, each disagreeing on what He really said?

Do we prevent that by institutionalizing Christianity? By each denomination self-claiming to essentially be THE church? By each denomination self-claiming to be infallible? By each denomination self-claiming to be the sole teaching authority? By each denomination self-claiming to be the sole interpreter of Scripture and Tradition?

Jesus founded it, so logically we must conclude that Jesus wanted it.

Well, so the RC denomination self-claims.
The LDS self-claims the same thing.
Anyone can self-claim anything they want (if their ego is sufficient).
But I find this statement to be circular and self-authenticating no matter who makes it.

Finally, who is to say that sacred Tradition is not inspired by God just as the Bible is inspired?

1. I disagree that we should formulate DOGMA by asking our own questions and answering our own question - declaring such infallible.


2. This is the arguement the LDS uses. And who is to say that I'm not inspired by God? Isn't it theoretically possible? Is a theoretical possibily therefore dogma?

As stated before, God did not EXCLUSIVELY speak to us through Scripture, and it seems rather condescending to say that God can ONLY speak to us through Scripture. Are we limiting Him to what He can say and how He can say it?

1. See #1 above.

2. God MIGHT have spoken through Brigham Young or Mary Baker Eddy or Jimmy Jones. I agree - it's theoretically possible. However, we all agree that God did so in His Holy Word. In the words of my Catholic textbook, "The Bible is the Word of God and no greater assurance of credability could be given." We agree that God's Holy Scriptures are Apostolic, Authoritative, First-Century, DIVINELY-inspired, and written - so that it's knowable to all and alterable by none. This seems better as a Canon to me than the self-claims and opinions of two billion people or denominations with egos big enough to self-claim IT ALONE can be correct.



Thank you for the discussion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[susanann]

It's a very different function that teaching us God's Holy Scriptures. The topic of this thread - the DOGMA of papal infallibility is a classic example of that.

If people believe the bible, and not the pope, then why do they trust how the pope created the bible?

The fact is, that the bible, is what the pope says "is" the bible.

Most people, including protestants, DO trust the pope in his decision to include the particular relgious writings that the pope chose.

HOw many protestants have gone thru the hundreds of other writings that the pope did not include in the bible?

"IF" you "really" dont trust the pope, then you cant possilby trust the popes decision to exclude so many other writings that he did not put into the bible.

My guess is, that nearly everyone who "says" they dont trust the pope, actually DO trust the pope, and in fact, they never have went thru all the writings that the pope chose not to include in the bible.

"IF" you do not think the pope is infailable, then you must read and review all the books and writings and letters that the pope tossed away.




-----------------------------------------------
"a very important point which tells us eloquently of the office that the Catholic Church performed, under God and the Holy Ghost, in selecting and sifting and stamping with her Divine authority, the Scriptures of the New Law; and I make bold to say that a calm consideration of the part that Rome took in the making and drawing up and preserving of the Christian scriptures will convince any impartial mind that to the Catholic Church alone, so much maligned, we owe it that we know what the New Testament should consist of, and why precisely it consists off these books and of no others; and that without her we should, humanly speaking, have had no New Testament at all, or, if a New Testament, then one in which works spurious and works genuine would have been mixed up in ruinous and inextricable confusion.


There were spurious books floating about ‘in the Christian Church’, without a doubt in the early centuries; this is certain, because we know their very names; and it is precisely in her rejections of these, and in her guarding the collections of inspired writings from being mixed up with them, that we shall now see the great work that the Catholic Church did, under God’s Holy Spirit, for all succeeding generations of Christians, whether within the fold or outside of it.


It is through the Roman Catholic Church that Protestants have got their Bible; there is not (to paraphrase some words of Newman) a Protestant that vilifies and condemns the Catholic Church for her treatment of Holy Scripture, but owes it to that church that he has the Scripture at all.


Boniface, Bishop of Rome, for the purpose of confirming it. Form that date all doubt ceased as to what was, and what was not ‘spurious’, or ‘genuine’, or ‘doubtful’ among the Christian writings then known.

Rome had spoken.

A Council of the Roman Catholic Church had settled it.

You might hear a voice here or there, in East or West, in subsequent times, raking up some old doubt, or raising a question as to whether this or that book of the New Testament is really what it claims to be, or should be where it is. But it is a voice in the wilderness.



at all events in regard to the New Testament, the Reformers left the books as they found them, and today their Testament contains exactly the same books as ours; and what I wish to drive home, is that they got these books from Rome, that without the Roman Catholic Church they would have got them, and that the decrees of Carthage, 397 and 419 A.D., when all Christianity was Roman Catholic – reaffirmed by the Council of Florence, 1442, under Pope Eugenius IV, and the Council of Trent, 1546 – these decrees of the Roman Church, and these are only the means and the channel and the authority which Almighty God has used to hand down to us His written Word. Who can deny it?

The Church existed before the Bible; she made the Bible; she selected its books, and she preserved it. She handed it down; through her we know what is the Word of God, and what the word of man; and hence to try at this time of day, as many do, to overthrow the Church by means of this very Bible, and to put it above the Church,


http://www.geocities.com/militantis/biblechp4.html

 

[susanann]

P: "The Catholics are wrong. I do not think that the pope is infailable".


C: "That is interesting. Then what do you believe?"



P: "Although I am not a bible scholar, I only believe what is written in the bible, only what was included in the bible, nothing that was excluded from the bible, and only then, as I alone interpret what it means".



C:"Hmm, that is interesting. So, where did you get that bible"?



P: "From the pope".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If people believe the bible, and not the pope, then why do they trust how the pope created the bible?

He didn't.

Most people, including protestants, DO trust the pope in his decision to include the particular relgious writings that the pope chose.

Let's review that history...


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.




By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic denomination didn't even exist yet.



Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation.



All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century. 20 of the 27 books are now in place. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic denomination didn't even exist yet.




Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cyrian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).


The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever.




Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever.




Early Christian Meetings:


Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional denominational synod and not an ecumenical council , it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional denominational council and not an ecumenical council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. Of course, it's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century). I'm not sure the Bishop of Rome even attended this meeting, but in any case, the "decision" was not his.



These acknowledged the canon that God's people developed over a period of centuries (most within the First Century). Every other denomination has done the very same thing - there's nothing unique about the RC denomination embracing the Canon - all Christian denominations have. Soli Deo Gloria!


Pope Benedict, while a wonderful man, has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Nothing.




Footnote:

It's historically necessary to point out that rarely has consensus in Christianity ever been perfect or without dispute. Various other lists - slightly different - continued well into the fifth century and beyond. Revelation and Hebrews (perhaps the last to be resolved in the mid 4th century) remained controversal for centuries - and some lectionaries excluded any readings form one or the other well into the middle ages.



Back to the topic?



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[icedtea]

and it seems rather condescending to say that God can ONLY speak to us through Scripture. Are we limiting Him to what He can say and how He can say it?

Yes, and non catholic people have given God's word. You are being inclusive. I know you cannot not believe what you believe without losing your faith, but Jesus is the only head of the church.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have no standing with Bishops...I have standing with JESUS.

1 1 Timothy 3
1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 1 Timothy 3
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

3 Titus 1
7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:

4 1 Peter 2
25 For you were as sheep going astray; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.

 

[BrightCandle]

Note, that a bishop is to have a wife. This would disqualify the Pope from being a bishop, as he is single. Remember, also that the Peter the first Pope, as the RCC claims, had a wife. Isn't this a inconsistent example to base doctrine on?

 

[Theophorus]

He didn't.






Let's review that history...


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.




By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic denomination didn't even exist yet.



Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation.



All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century. 20 of the 27 books are now in place. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic denomination didn't even exist yet.




Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cyrian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).


The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever.




Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27. No "Pope" was involved whatsoever. The Roman Catholic Church was not involved whatsoever.




Early Christian Meetings:


Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional denominational synod and not an ecumenical council , it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional denominational council and not an ecumenical council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. Of course, it's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century). I'm not sure the Bishop of Rome even attended this meeting, but in any case, the "decision" was not his.



These acknowledged the canon that God's people developed over a period of centuries (most within the First Century). Every other denomination has done the very same thing - there's nothing unique about the RC denomination embracing the Canon - all Christian denominations have. Soli Deo Gloria!


Pope Benedict, while a wonderful man, has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Nothing.




Footnote:

It's historically necessary to point out that rarely has consensus in Christianity ever been perfect or without dispute. Various other lists - slightly different - continued well into the fifth century and beyond. Revelation and Hebrews (perhaps the last to be resolved in the mid 4th century) remained controversal for centuries - and some lectionaries excluded any readings form one or the other well into the middle ages.



Back to the topic?



Pax!


- Josiah



.

Are you saying that bishops did not exist prior to a certian date?

 

[DarkLord]

How can u quote the Early Church Fathers when tehy believed in the Papacy, the Real Precense, in the Catholic Church etc etc. Is this cafeteria protestantism now?

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

The papacy was deeply entrenched in the early Christian Church called the Catholic Church.

 

[S Walch]

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.”

To which basically ever other Bishop wrote back to Him and told him not to do such a silly thing. Not all succumbed to the silly excommunications of the Bishop of Rome.

A quick read of your own Encyclopedia would have proved that.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm