Why study of the fathers leads only to Catholicism and why I came Home to RCC

[samir]

the bible has nothing good to say about pastors

Seriously? You might want to finish reading the New Testament before coming to that conclusion.

I'd have been just as happy not going to school, nowhere in the bible does it say go to school.

Why am I not surprised?

I'm never going to be Catholic to me it's foolishness.

Yeah, I can see why.

 

[prodromos]

Which leads me to ask, what was it becore the eucharist elevated it?
To which the answer can only be "bread".

To which I reply...then "bread" changed into the "flesh of jesus", to which you might even agree.

But the moment I use a word that means no more or less than it changed from bread to flesh that is "transubstantiation" you disagree..

Because that categorises "bread" and "flesh" as examples of a substance - that is a material with physical properties, and somewhere about there you start disagreeing with dictionary definition of substance..

The point I make is , that the word transubstantiation does not say how the change occurs, or why it occurs, or even the detail of what occurred it is simply noting of the fact the change occured. "Bread" became "flesh" on which we argee.

So I find the whole of orthodox thinking on this sophistry.

I do not agree with your caricature of Orthodoxy or your claims regarding St Justin Martyr but see no point in this constant back and forth, so I will just leave a link to a thread where the Eastern and Western views were discussed and will say no more on the matter.

The Eucharist: True differences between Catholics and Orthodox???

That said...

Any who accept that the eucharist "is the flesh of jesus" have acknowledged the summit of our faith.

The many who do not, have lost the early church teaching somewhere down the line.
Which was the point I made first off..

If only you had made just that point and not used it as a means of taking a swipe at Orthodoxy, I could have left it alone.

 

[Mountainmike]

I read the first few pages of that thread and other than raising the -( I assume ) - insignificant difference of leaven, I struggle to find a succinct explanation of how it is orthodox accept what was bread Now "is the flesh of Jesus" , without accepting there was a change.

I would be interested in non partisan commentary on the difference - provided it is not smoke and mirrors, and explains why Justin Martyr didn't say " contains Jesus" (or similar ) instead using the precise formula " is Jesus" - that difference hits at the heart.

It is rather like saying when a lady is now with child.
The child coexists with the mother. You could never state that the lady " is now a child" by virtue of the child existing, and none would ever say so because the mother still exists. So coexistence - consubstantiation - contradicts use of the word " is" Or when ice is heated to steam, you could only say " is steam" if none of the ice remained.

So please find me a non partisan work that explains the philosophical contradiction that when something is stated as "is" that ANY of the original can remain, so fits the coesxistence implied by consubstantiation, which usage is at very least is a breach of grammatical form and normal meaning of words.

Until then I still hold the opinion that orthodox would rather shroud it in mystery, so by not ascribing even a name to the process, it has not denied transubstantiation, it simply has not confirmed it, preferring not to say: most commentaries I see are imprecise in both philosophy and logic.

I come back to the fact what was bread now "is flesh of Jesus" . So I can only ask my orthodox friends to be specific about what they say changed.
Point to a logically precise commentary please.

I do not agree with your caricature of Orthodoxy or your claims regarding St Justin Martyr but see no point in this constant back and forth, so I will just leave a link to a thread where the Eastern and Western views were discussed and will say no more on the matter.

The Eucharist: True differences between Catholics and Orthodox???

If only you had made just that point and not used it as a means of taking a swipe at Orthodoxy, I could have left it alone.

 

[Geralt]

"The pillar and foundation of truth is the church" - NO

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord." Ep2:19-21

The church only secures and promotes what has already been provided for; and not invent their own apart from scripture.

Scripture gives authority to the church and councils. God acts through men. Without that you do not have scripture, "The pillar and foundation of truth is the church" So Do you disagree with scripture?

 

[Geralt]

why do you even ask this question ? did the gospels just came out of nowhere ? of course not.

sorry your definition faith is mechanical and a commodity, something transferable. not true.

How do you determine which books are scripture? For example, why do you believe the Revelation of St John the Divine is scripture but not the book of Mormon or Paul's epistle to the Laodecians?

The faith refers to a set of beliefs taught by Christ. Many non-Catholic churches have a "statement of faith" where they list the faith their church believes.

 

[samir]

why do you even ask this question ?

I asked because a person shouldn't accept a religious book unless there is evidence it is authentic. I asked many Protestants and so far none of them could explain why they accept the books they do and reject others which led me to think they just don't care what God says and just want to follow a religion that allows them to pick and choose what to believe. I hope that's not true so I ask before firmly concluding that is the case.

 

[BBAS 64]

I asked because a person shouldn't accept a religious book unless there is evidence it is authentic. I asked many Protestants and so far none of them could explain why they accept the books they do and reject others which led me to think they just don't care what God says and just want to follow a religion that allows them to pick and choose what to believe. I hope that's not true so I ask before firmly concluding that is the case.

Good day, Samir

To which testament do you refer because there is much in common for me and the church of Rome... how we arrive at the list is fundamentally the same with the NT. As to the OT I believe Trent deviated from the historical church, and the Jewish scriptures.

Which would you like to tackle first.... state your case.

In Him,

Bill

 

[thecolorsblend]

As to the OT I believe Trent deviated from the historical church, and the Jewish scriptures.

In what way?

 

[prodromos]

In what way?

And which Jewish canon of Scripture are we talking about, as there was more than one?

 

[thecolorsblend]

And which Jewish canon of Scripture are we talking about, as there was more than one?

I was saving that for later.

But since you mention it...

 

[samir]

Good day, Samir

To which testament do you refer because there is much in common for me and the church of Rome

I'm talking about writings, not testaments. For example, Luther rejected the Revelation of St John the Divine? How do you determine whether that book is scripture? How would you determine whether the story of Bel and the Dragon in he book of Daniel was God's word? How about the book of Mormon?

... how we arrive at the list is fundamentally the same with the NT. As to the OT I believe Trent deviated from the historical church, and the Jewish scriptures.

Trent reaffirmed the canon they had been using since the 4th century which contained the exact 73 books the Catholic Church has always used since they decided upon the canon. The evidence is conclusive and beyond dispute.

As far as the Protestant canon, starting with the Catholic canon is cheating because if you're not Catholic you can't use the early Catholic councils as an authority so you'd need to provide evidence that each of the 66 books you accept is scripture and that all other books are not scripture.

Which would you like to tackle first.... state your case.

Let's start with the Revelation of Saint John the Divine. The only basis I would have for accepting it is the authority of the Catholic Church and I don't see how I could accept that authority unless I became a Catholic. Right now I'm non-denominational and thinking about becoming a Catholic because I have no idea how I can be confident that any of the books in my bible are scripture.

 

[Geralt]

'none of them could explain' - probably your prejudice kicking in.

the answer is simple, God works in men and women He has chosen to lead His people, and then God works in His people as well to understand and qualify the works He has given to the former.

I asked because a person shouldn't accept a religious book unless there is evidence it is authentic. I asked many Protestants and so far none of them could explain why they accept the books they do and reject others which led me to think they just don't care what God says and just want to follow a religion that allows them to pick and choose what to believe. I hope that's not true so I ask before firmly concluding that is the case.

 

[prodromos]

'none of them could explain' - probably your prejudice kicking in.

the answer is simple, God works in men and women He has chosen to lead His people, and then God works in His people as well to understand and qualify the works He has given to the former.

"Chosen to lead His people" - that would be the apostles and their successors the bishops.

"God works in His people as well to understand and qualify the works He has given to the former" - that would be the Councils.

Glad to see we're on the same page

 

[PanDeVida]

I read your bible right up to here.
Matthew chapter 23 verse 9
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Disciple, then I guess you do not Obey one of the Ten Commandment of “Honor thy father and mother".
Since you, don't call your Father, Father. lol you Protestors make me laugh!

Honor thy Father and Mother: This commandment obliges the faithful to show respect for their parents — as children and adults. Children must obey their parents, and adults must respect and see to the care of their parents, when they become old and infirm.

Disciple, this goes to show that you do not understand the true meaning of Matthew 23:9

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I asked because a person shouldn't accept a religious book unless there is evidence it is authentic. I asked many Protestants and so far none of them could explain why they accept the books they do and reject others which led me to think they just don't care what God says and just want to follow a religion that allows them to pick and choose what to believe. I hope that's not true so I ask before firmly concluding that is the case.

Did you find and ask anyone who simply follows Jesus, and simply believes His Word ?

 

[BBAS 64]

In what way?

Good day,

As noted here:

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

They were able to "resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties" seeing that I am not Roman Catholic I never had any of those concerns nor do I find the reasoning used very compelling. The historical error made at Trent is clear and can not be denied by any clear thinking person they would have been better of to stick to the historical realities. Do not misunderstand they do have the right to define that which their church believes, I would never say that they do not but seeing I am not a member it is moot.

Maybe if the council of 1442 had the ability to speak clearly on the matter then things may have been different for the roman church.

"Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament."


19. To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ. It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New, which have complex, dialectical relationships between them. A study of these relationships is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the Christian Church and the Jewish people. The understanding of these relationships has changed over time. The present chapter offers firstly an overview of these changes, followed by a more detailed study of the basic themes common to both Testaments.




The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible


In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm talking about writings, not testaments. For example, Luther rejected the Revelation of St John the Divine? How do you determine whether that book is scripture? How would you determine whether the story of Bel and the Dragon in he book of Daniel was God's word? How about the book of Mormon?



Trent reaffirmed the canon they had been using since the 4th century which contained the exact 73 books the Catholic Church has always used since they decided upon the canon. The evidence is conclusive and beyond dispute.

As far as the Protestant canon, starting with the Catholic canon is cheating because if you're not Catholic you can't use the early Catholic councils as an authority so you'd need to provide evidence that each of the 66 books you accept is scripture and that all other books are not scripture.



Let's start with the Revelation of Saint John the Divine. The only basis I would have for accepting it is the authority of the Catholic Church and I don't see how I could accept that authority unless I became a Catholic. Right now I'm non-denominational and thinking about becoming a Catholic because I have no idea how I can be confident that any of the books in my bible are scripture.

Good Day, Samir

I have already dealt with the historical errors of the roman church in formulating it's own OT cannon seeing I do not belong to the roman church their name it claim it authority is mere fallacy. I do got it just has used your own subjective thought process and are buying into it. I believe you are in error for doing so.

As to the historical and some what inconsistent view of the inclusion of Revelations in the history of the church I will post some information soon.

Can you show me where I can find a German translation or primary source documentation of Luther's bible any version, that does not contain the Book of Revelations in it.

Thanks,

In Him,

Bill

 

[tz620q]

Good day,

As noted here:

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

You do have a way of quoting books that are difficult to obtain; but I will try to do the leg work and see what this is all about. If I can find a copy of this or maybe the 2002 edition, I will post on it.

They were able to "resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties" seeing that I am not Roman Catholic I never had any of those concerns nor do I find the reasoning used very compelling. The historical error made at Trent is clear and can not be denied by any clear thinking person they would have been better of to stick to the historical realities. Do not misunderstand they do have the right to define that which their church believes, I would never say that they do not but seeing I am not a member it is moot.

Maybe if the council of 1442 had the ability to speak clearly on the matter then things may have been different for the roman church.

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.


The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible


In Him,

Bill

You know I have always found it funny that non-Catholics hold up this rather late official pronouncement of the Catholic canon as though it helps their apologetic. What it shows is an early church that was fully aware that authority had been passed to people, not a book. So the Catholic paradigm of a loose canon makes more sense that the Protestant paradigm, which suffers due to the fact that publishers in the U.S. were able to remove 7 books from the KJV in the 1800's without a peep being said. Now we have the modern illogical defense that they were either never there in the canon (easily proven false by listing any of the early council decisions) or that based on Jewish Scriptures they should have never been there (which would require us to get rid of the NT). What are your thoughts on this or do you take a different tack on this issue?

 

[Geralt]

chosen at a moment in time and for God's purposes.

no general rule that leadership = authority, or that it is passed on like an heirloom.

for in the purposes of God, even non-believers or satan serve his purposes.

"Chosen to lead His people" - that would be the apostles and their successors the bishops.

"God works in His people as well to understand and qualify the works He has given to the former" - that would be the Councils.

Glad to see we're on the same page

 

[BBAS 64]

You do have a way of quoting books that are difficult to obtain; but I will try to do the leg work and see what this is all about. If I can find a copy of this or maybe the 2002 edition, I will post on it.



You know I have always found it funny that non-Catholics hold up this rather late official pronouncement of the Catholic canon as though it helps their apologetic. What it shows is an early church that was fully aware that authority had been passed to people, not a book. So the Catholic paradigm of a loose canon makes more sense that the Protestant paradigm, which suffers due to the fact that publishers in the U.S. were able to remove 7 books from the KJV in the 1800's without a peep being said. Now we have the modern illogical defense that they were either never there in the canon (easily proven false by listing any of the early council decisions) or that based on Jewish Scriptures they should have never been there (which would require us to get rid of the NT). What are your thoughts on this or do you take a different tack on this issue?

Good Day, TZ

I will allow the writing of the Roman church stand on their own... let the reader read...

You assume for your self that councils decisions hold any validity on the issue I would refer you to Jerome on that issue for the historical view of the 7 books that were removed. I agree it was done in haste as a reflecx to the errors of the roman chuch at Trent ... but my `1611 KJV has them as does some other printing of scripture that I have I find them useful in the correct historical ways as noted by Jerome.

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Also it depends on your use of the word Canon as being the objective correct usage, I know you think it is .... that documented history is quite "muddy"....

In Him,

Bill