Apostolic councils?

[BreadOfLife]

He was one of the most renowned scholars of his time, I do believe. A linguistic phenomenon for sure. You're extremely biased BOL, due to your being indoctrinated in Catholic dogma. I don't believe that you'd be willing to concede a single point that denounces any of the, indubitably, heterodox historical practices of the Roman Catholic church? Like I keep saying, your unwarranted and implicit allegiance to them, will be your demise now, and on Judgment Day - you need to call them out on their tyranny and anti-Christian dogma.

Sooooo, the KJV is wrong - but Tyndale was right???
You would have a HARD time trying to convince the vast majority of Protestants of that. If Tyndale was so "renowned" - he wouldn't have screwed-up so badly.

As for your charges of "anti-Christian" dogma and your rejection of Church Authority - I leave you with the words of CHRIST, who will be my judge:

Matt 16:16-19
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide YOU to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

THAT is the Authority of Christ Himself.
Doesn't get ANY MORE Authoritative than that . . .

 

[DNB]

Sooooo, the KJV is wrong - but Tyndale was right???
You would have a HARD time trying to convince the vast majority of Protestants of that. If Tyndale was so "renowned" - he wouldn't have screwed-up so badly.

As for your charges of "anti-Christian" dogma and your rejection of Church Authority - I leave you with the words of CHRIST, who will be my judge:

Matt 16:16-19
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide YOU to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

THAT is the Authority of Christ Himself.
Doesn't get ANY MORE Authoritative than that . . .

Your are 1,000% correct BOL, ...and it is such a shame that the Roman Church has categorically either rejected or perverted these, and all of Christ's precepts, on the day of its inception.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your are 1,000% correct BOL, ...and it is such a shame that the Roman Church has categorically either rejected or perverted these, and all of Christ's precepts, on the day of its inception.

And WHEN was that?
Seem I get a different answer from every anti-Catholic I talk to.

NONE of you can seem to agree when the Catholic Church (not "Roman" Church) was founded.
Seem you've all erased Matt. 16:18 from your Bibles . . .

 

[jaybird]

85-90% of the WORLD was illiterate - not just Christianity.
The Church didn't have jurisdiction over the entire world, Einstein.

What's wrong with you? You appear to have cognitive issues.
I repeat these facts over an over and they just don't seem to sink in.

As for your nonsense that the Church "fought against" people having Bibles in different languages - that's about the MOST idiotic thing you've said. As I educated you earlier - there were ALREADY Bibles in different languages BEFORE Wycliffe and Luther.
What part of that statement are you having difficulty with?

who told you these things? throughout the majority of europe the bible was only available in latin. in order to learn latin you had to go through the church, this is common knowledge, everyone knows this. any community that tried to make a local translation were persecuted by the church because the church did not want the common people to have access. you are welcome to call me names if this gives you comfort but it will not change this fact.

here is a whole wiki page on bible censorship. i guess they are in on this conspiracy to. maybe wiki needs to move out of their mommas basement.
Censorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

 

[DNB]

And WHEN was that?
Seem I get a different answer from every anti-Catholic I talk to.

NONE of you can seem to agree when the Catholic Church (not "Roman" Church) was founded.
Seem you've all erased Matt. 16:18 from your Bibles . . .

Yes, you're right, that part is slightly elusive...
...it almost makes one feel that the Christ-ordained, Roman Catholic Church was there from the beginning, ...NOT!

...let's just say it was around the time when the secular entities of this forsaken world, infiltrated the Church to the point of usurping its leadership. Namely Constantine presiding over the 1st ecumenical council (325ad), and establishing the Edit of Milan (313ad). Or even when Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the State religion (380ad). Despite the reprieve from persecution, and the freedom to fellowship and evangelize, what syncretism, paganism, sophistry or platonism had integrated with the Apostolic tradition, to the point of either regulating it to the incidental or venial, and promoting their secularism, mysticism, avarice and tyranny to the forefront.
I would say BOL, right around that time!

 

[Marymog]

Are you a thorn-in-my-side sent by satan? Did you not even read my post that you actually replied to?
Like I said, the sub-apostolic era is still to early to unequivocally delineate the heterodoxy. It is the EXAMPLES THAT I GAVE, THAT YOU KEEP ASKING FOR, where the evidence is clear that corruption, almost immediately, dominated the church and its history.

I don't want evidence from the 2nd generation disciples, or even the 3rd, it is the 4th century and up, where we see the disintegration of orthodoxy in such an overt an undeniable manner. All the ecumenical councils, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the papacy, transubstantiation/consubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, ransom theory, satisfaction theory, penal substitution, Christus Victor, ....
How long is this going to take Mary???

Good morning DNB<

First off I sincerely don’t understand why you are so sarcastic and mean in your responses to me. A thorn in your side sent by Satan?? That is just straight up unnecessary and mean.

Second off I know you THINK you have been clear in what you are saying....but you are not clear. You use the words “like I said” when you never said that!!!

Third off YOU believe that the sub-apostolic era is to early to delineate heterodoxy. Why do you believe that? What is your evidence of that?

Fourth......You make the claim that the disintegration of orthodoxy Occurred during 4th century and up time frame but you gave no evidence of it. You believe the orthodoxy disintegrated simply because you don’t agree with it?? That’s my best guess since you never explained.

Soooooo I am going to GUESS here since you haven’t been very clear: You refuse to accept what Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch have written as early Church teaching, practices, beliefs etc????

Mary

 

[Marymog]

who told you these things? throughout the majority of europe the bible was only available in latin. in order to learn latin you had to go through the church, this is common knowledge, everyone knows this. any community that tried to make a local translation were persecuted by the church because the church did not want the common people to have access. you are welcome to call me names if this gives you comfort but it will not change this fact.

here is a whole wiki page on bible censorship. i guess they are in on this conspiracy to. maybe wiki needs to move out of their mommas basement.
Censorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

Hi jaybird,

Did you read the Wikipedia link you provided? That link explains WHY the Bible was generally “only available in Latin”. There was nothing nefarious about it. Today we make the mistake of looking at history thru 20th century eyes. Things were MUCH different back then and there were reasons they did what they did and it was’t for nefarious reasons.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

...let's just say it was around the time when the secular entities of this forsaken world, infiltrated the Church to the point of usurping its leadership. Namely Constantine presiding over the 1st ecumenical council (325ad), and establishing the Edit of Milan (313ad). Or even when Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the State religion (380ad). Despite the reprieve from persecution, and the freedom to fellowship and evangelize, what syncretism, paganism, sophistry or platonism had integrated with the Apostolic tradition, to the point of either regulating it to the incidental or venial, and promoting their secularism, mysticism, avarice and tyranny to the forefront.
I would say BOL, right around that time!

Hi DNB,

Soooooo any teaching BEFORE 313AD you consider Apostolic teaching?

 

[DNB]

Good morning DNB<

First off I sincerely don’t understand why you are so sarcastic and mean in your responses to me. A thorn in your side sent by Satan?? That is just straight up unnecessary and mean.

Second off I know you THINK you have been clear in what you are saying....but you are not clear. You use the words “like I said” when you never said that!!!

Third off YOU believe that the sub-apostolic era is to early to delineate heterodoxy. Why do you believe that? What is your evidence of that?

Fourth......You make the claim that the disintegration of orthodoxy Occurred during 4th century and up time frame but you gave no evidence of it. You believe the orthodoxy disintegrated simply because you don’t agree with it?? That’s my best guess since you never explained.

Soooooo I am going to GUESS here since you haven’t been very clear: You refuse to accept what Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch have written as early Church teaching, practices, beliefs etc????

Mary

Sorry for the sarcasm. Yes, you're right, I thought that I was clear, but apparently, I wasn't, no problem
The sub-apostolic era is too early because, you can even be right about that without undermining my point. The church's clear abuse and heterodoxy began at the ecumenical councils and continued ever since. So somewhere between Polycarp (for the sake of argument) and the councils, the tradition of the Apostles became corrupt. Once that the State and the Emperors became involved in the church, then the church was no longer the Church of Christ. This is both by principle, and by practice, and the practice was cited several times already, that is why I became impatient.

All the ecumenical councils, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the papacy, transubstantiation/consubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, ransom theory, satisfaction theory, penal substitution, Christus Victor, ....

Now, of course, we can debate what is nonsense, and what is not, but we all agree that the secular State has absolutely no business in the affairs of the Church, and that indulgences, crusades and the inquisition were abominations established by the Roman Church. Thus, we can conclude that the pope is not infallible - contrary to his claim, and thus a liar, and thus not part of the apostolic succession.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

Soooooo any teaching BEFORE 313AD you consider Apostolic teaching?

Mary, for crying out loud, I can't recall anymore what I've read about the patristic period and their writings, this is why I can't comment - but, it's not my point. For what I can assert at this point, is that from 313 on, we can veritably state that corruption dominated the Institutional Church, and thus, the apostolic tradition was not present in their teachings, nor in the desires to uphold it - if it ever even reached that far.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, you're right, that part is slightly elusive...
...it almost makes one feel that the Christ-ordained, Roman Catholic Church was there from the beginning, ...NOT!

...let's just say it was around the time when the secular entities of this forsaken world, infiltrated the Church to the point of usurping its leadership. Namely Constantine presiding over the 1st ecumenical council (325ad), and establishing the Edit of Milan (313ad). Or even when Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the State religion (380ad). Despite the reprieve from persecution, and the freedom to fellowship and evangelize, what syncretism, paganism, sophistry or platonism had integrated with the Apostolic tradition, to the point of either regulating it to the incidental or venial, and promoting their secularism, mysticism, avarice and tyranny to the forefront.
I would say BOL, right around that time!

Uhhhhh, NO - let's NOT just say that.
I asked you to tell me when the Catholic Church started - and you FAILED again to substantiate your garbage.

If the Catholic Church was started at some point - then history will show us when.
If YOU can't pinpoint this time through the lens of history - then you're lying again.

And, for the record - Constantine didn't "preside" over the Council of Nicaea.
He had NOTHING to do with what was determined there regarding the Arian Heresy, the Trinity or anything else - YOUR historical perversions, notwithstanding . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

who told you these things? throughout the majority of europe the bible was only available in latin. in order to learn latin you had to go through the church, this is common knowledge, everyone knows this. any community that tried to make a local translation were persecuted by the church because the church did not want the common people to have access. you are welcome to call me names if this gives you comfort but it will not change this fact.

here is a whole wiki page on bible censorship. i guess they are in on this conspiracy to. maybe wiki needs to move out of their mommas basement.
Censorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

Thank you for showing me that you don't READ the posts.
I already gave you published evidence on where this information can be gleaned.

In the book, Where We Got the Bible - Our Debt to the Catholic Church by PROTESTANT minister Rev. Henry G. Graham - he lists the evidence for previous vernacular translations of Scripture PRIOR to Wycliffe and Tyndale in Chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”.

If you're not going to do any homework - then don't bother debating things you DON'T know about . . .

 

[DNB]

Uhhhhh, NO - let's NOT just say that.
I asked you to tell me when the Catholic Church started - and you FAILED again to substantiate your garbage.

If the Catholic Church was started at some point - then history will show us when.
If YOU can't pinpoint this time through the lens of history - then you're lying again.

And, for the record - Constantine didn't "preside" over the Council of Nicaea.
He had NOTHING to do with what was determined there regarding the Arian Heresy, the Trinity or anything else - YOUR historical perversions, notwithstanding . . .

...uh, yes, let's say around 313, for all that is necessary to prove is that ever since that time, the apostolic tradition was corrupted and lost. Get the point, Einstein????

 

[BreadOfLife]

...uh, yes, let's say around 313, for all that is necessary to prove is that ever since that time, the apostolic tradition was corrupted and lost. Get the point, Einstein????

Perfect.

NOW - show me the document, declaration or decree hat instituted the Catholic Church being created in 313.
The Church has documents about EVERYTHING - so this should be easy for you.

If you can't produce a document - then we'll just chalk it up to your having LIED yet again . . .

For Extra Credit: Show me HOW Apostolic Tradition was "LOST" in 313 as YOU claim.

 

[Marymog]

Sorry for the sarcasm. Yes, you're right, I thought that I was clear, but apparently, I wasn't, no problem
The sub-apostolic era is too early because, you can even be right about that without undermining my point. The church's clear abuse and heterodoxy began at the ecumenical councils and continued ever since. So somewhere between Polycarp (for the sake of argument) and the councils, the tradition of the Apostles became corrupt. Once that the State and the Emperors became involved in the church, then the church was no longer the Church of Christ. This is both by principle, and by practice, and the practice was cited several times already, that is why I became impatient.

All the ecumenical councils, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the papacy, transubstantiation/consubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, ransom theory, satisfaction theory, penal substitution, Christus Victor, ....

Now, of course, we can debate what is nonsense, and what is not, but we all agree that the secular State has absolutely no business in the affairs of the Church, and that indulgences, crusades and the inquisition were abominations established by the Roman Church. Thus, we can conclude that the pope is not infallible - contrary to his claim, and thus a liar, and thus not part of the apostolic succession.

Thank you. I appreciate the apology.

I find it interesting that you consider the crusades were an abomination. Did you know that the crusades were A call for Christians to defend themselves and their land against Muslims? If not for the glorious crusades the world would be predominantly Muslim.

Did you know The Church does not teach that the pope is infallible?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Mary, for crying out loud, I can't recall anymore what I've read about the patristic period and their writings, this is why I can't comment - but, it's not my point. For what I can assert at this point, is that from 313 on, we can veritably state that corruption dominated the Institutional Church, and thus, the apostolic tradition was not present in their teachings, nor in the desires to uphold it - if it ever even reached that far.

I am still not clear on what you believe. Would you say that the writings/teachings of Clement, Polycarp and Ignatious are acceptable teachings for Christians to adhere to?

Thank you for your patience with me.....Mary

 

[DNB]

Perfect.

NOW - show me the document, declaration or decree hat instituted the Catholic Church being created in 313.
The Church has documents about EVERYTHING - so this should be easy for you.

If you can't produce a document - then we'll just chalk it up to your having LIED yet again . . .

For Extra Credit: Show me HOW Apostolic Tradition was "LOST" in 313 as YOU claim.

Because the Roman Catholic Church was derived from Western & Eastern (Byzantine) Empires, before the split (1054), obviously.
And for the bonus point, just read the creeds, namely the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed, the Athanasius creed, Theotokos, filioque, monethilitism & monophysitism, etc... Not to mention the concept of the 'vicar of Christ'

 

[DNB]

Thank you. I appreciate the apology.

I find it interesting that you consider the crusades were an abomination. Did you know that the crusades were A call for Christians to defend themselves and their land against Muslims? If not for the glorious crusades the world would be predominantly Muslim.

Did you know The Church does not teach that the pope is infallible?

Mary

Jesus never called his church to arms, ever, on the contrary. For as he said, 'if my kingdom was of this world, i could call a legion of angels down to defend my case' (paraphrase). It is antithetical to Christian dogma to kill in the name of the Lord, and even today, no one defends the principle that you are endorsing.

These are where the pope either declared infallibility, and under what circumstances, or exercised such an authority.
1854 Pope Pius IX, declared papal bull Ineffabilis Deus
First Council of the Vatican (1870; officially, 1870–1960)
Pope Pius XII 1950, Munificentissimus Deus

 

[BreadOfLife]

Because the Roman Catholic Church was derived from Western & Eastern (Byzantine) Empires, before the split (1054), obviously.
And for the bonus point, just read the creeds, namely the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed, the Athanasius creed, Theotokos, filioque, monethilitism & monophysitism, etc... Not to mention the concept of the 'vicar of Christ'

What's the "Roman" Catholic Church?

I belong to the "Catholic Church". "Roman" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - of which there are some TWENTY that comprise the ONE Catholic Church.
Among these are the Byzantine Rite, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, Alexandrian, etc. NONE of them are "Roman" Catholics.

As for the CATHOLIC Church - it was built by Christ. We read about this Church in the writings of 1st Century Bishop, Ignatius of antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. This was one of 7 Letters that he wrote on his way to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century. Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and was appointed Bishop of Antioch by Peter.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole EUCHARIST you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Now - does that sound like YOUR church?
I didn't think so . . .

 

[DNB]

I am still not clear on what you believe. Would you say that the writings/teachings of Clement, Polycarp and Ignatious are acceptable teachings for Christians to adhere to?

Thank you for your patience with me.....Mary

Mary, I am sorry for my impatience, I thought that i had stipulated my contentions clearly. Everything below I disagree with, in one way or another. Meaning, no one is infallible, there is error everywhere, showing that there cannot be implicit trust in anyone or anything. Evderything doctrine must be assessed case by case, principle by principle. All the below councils, creeds, theologians or doctrines are questionable if not nonsensible.

All the ecumenical councils, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the papacy, transubstantiation/consubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, ransom theory, satisfaction theory, penal substitution, Christus Victor, ....