Just Wondering

[yiannii]

This question is for those who aren't Catholic.

Where in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible? I mean seeing the Bible is the only source of authority...

[yiannii]

bump

[Bruce S]

[quote]This question is for those who aren't Catholic.

Where in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible? I mean seeing the Bible is the only source of authority...[/quote]

Nowhere.

The early church, composed of Greeks, Africans, and Leventines met, and decided what books, point granted, however, they later broke up in the first mini-"Reformation"

So, authority, rested intially, LOCALLY, with a federated form where, from time to time they met, and decided matters.

So, CHRISTIANS ... all of them, different backgrounds, and from various centers decided things.

So, what is your point?

The same on that everyone insists here on all the time?

WE ARE THE ONE TRUE VOICE?

Oh, got it. Now, the real question is, AFTER the breakups, and in all the intervening time, did things stay as they were, or did "Evolution of Doctrine" continue on it's merry way? Without the rest of Christianity agreeing?

[Bruce S]

From Our Sunday Visitor, A Catholic Newspaper:

[quote][b]High on Theory, Low on Practice[/b]

[u][b]It has become common in recent years for renewal in the church to consist of developing the right documents, statements, papers, and reports.[/b][/u] [b]If an area has been treated in a theoretical way, we seem to suppose, then, somehow or other it will come to life among the people. That has not been the case. [/b]As Archbishop Bernardin pointed out in his talk, referred to previously:

"Many excellent things have been said about evangelization . . . yet, much of what has occurred to date seems largely notional it concerns the theory of evangelization; it remains to be translated into action. [b]Furthermore, much of it seems confined to official church circles it involves a relatively small number of people speaking to one another." [/b]

The number of people who are effectively evangelizing in the church and building Christian communities is relatively small. The church as a whole needs to draw more heavily on the impressive amount practical[b] pastoral wisdom that is being accumulated in successful renewal movements such as the Cursillo, the Focolare and the [B]charismatic renewal.[/b] [/B]
[/quote]

Which is what I continually work on, you have some of the best "paperwork" going, those Jesuits are wonderful. However, where the rubber meets the road, in real life, almost no Catholics actually KNOW or use any of that documentation, or even understand it.

It has gotten to the point, where even intelligent hard working faithful have given up on the beauracratic ways, self serving clergy, and the corruption. And no one wants AGAIN to deal effectively with these problems, just issue position papers and go on as usual.

Argh.

Edited April 10, 2004 by Bruce S

[Brother Adam]

I'm still trying to find the historical texts you use. lol.

[Adeodatus]

[quote]The early church, composed of Greeks, Africans, and Leventines met, and decided what books, point granted, however, they later broke up in the first mini-"Reformation"

So, authority, rested intially, LOCALLY, with a federated form where, from time to time they met, and decided matters.

So, CHRISTIANS ... all of them, different backgrounds, and from various centers decided things.
[/quote]

Five questions for Bruce,

So what was this gathering called, I wonder?
When and where --- pray tell --- did it take place?
If there were a series of them, again, when and where?
And what gave the early Church such authority?
What is this so-called "first mini-"Reformation"" known as historically?

Thanking you in advance!

[Bruce S]

[quote]Five questions for Bruce,

So what was this gathering called, I wonder?
When and where --- pray tell --- did it take place?[/quote]

I believe they were Ecumenical Councils, and they were many, held in various cities.

[quote]If there were a series of them, again, when and where? [/quote]

[quote]Christian Councils 
325  First Ecumenical Council of Nicea was convened by emperor Constantine: established the Nicene Creed as the fundamental statement of Christian faith. 
c. 364  The Church Council of Laodicea ordered that religious observances were to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath:
Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day. 
381  First Council of Constantinople. Convened by Theodosius I, then emperor of the East and a recent convert, to confirm the victory over Arianism, the council drew up a dogmatic statement on the Trinity and defined Holy Spirit as having the same divinity expressed for the Son by the Council of Nicaea 56 years earlier. 
394  Council of Carthage - first council to uphold doctrines of prayers for the dead and purgatory. 
431  Ecumenical Council of Ephesus denounced the teachings of Nestorius (d. 451), who argued that Christ had completely separate human and divine natures. 
451  Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon> voted that Christ is simultaneously "truly man and truly God."

A little known statement of the Council was Canon #15 (1):
No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny.
This is appears to have been the last time in church history that the ordination of women was mentioned as a routine practice in any form, and certainly establishes that women did hold, at one time, important church offices. 
553  Second Council of Constantinople, convened by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I to settle the dispute known as the Three Chapters. In an attempt to reconcile moderate Monophysite parties to orthodoxy, Justinian had issued (544) a declaration of faith. The last three chapters anathematized the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa for Nestorianism.

While the charge was true of their writings to a certain extent, the Council of Chalcedon had cleared those men of any personal heresy. Justinian's edict slighted the council and encouraged Monophysitism; it was deeply resented in the West. Pope Vigilius, resisted at first, but eventually was forced to support the edict.

Under pressure from the Western bishops he then reversed himself. In retaliation, Justinian called a council at Constantinople; it was attended by only six Western bishops, boycotted by Vigilius, and dominated by Justinian and the Eastern bishops. The council approved the imperial edict and seems to have censured Vigilius. The pope was forced to ratify the council's work the following year. The West, in general, was slow in recognizing it as an ecumenical council, but ultimately it was accepted - mainly because of the orthodoxy of its pronouncements. 
680-81  Third Council of Constantinople. It was convoked by Byzantine Emperor Constantine IV to deal with Monotheletism. 
787  The Second Nicean Council met - this was the last of the seven church councils commonly accepted as authoritative by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Council voted to allow the veneration but not the worship of icons. 
869-70  Fourth Coucil of Constantinople. It has never been accepted by the Orthodox Church, which instead recognizes the council of 880 that supported Photius. The council of 869 was convened at the suggestion of Basil I, the new Byzantine emperor, to confirm the restoration of St. Ignatius of Constantinople to the see that Photius had resigned.

Photius had already been condemned, without a hearing, at a Roman synod. At Constantinople his defense was cut short, and when he refused to sign his own condemnation, he was excommunicated. The result of these councils was to intensify the bitterness between East and West. 
1085  At the Council of Clermont, the First Crusade (out of a total of eight official crusades) was called by Pope Urban II (c. 1035 - 1099) against Muslims in the Holy Lands. 
1123  First Lateran Council. Summoned by Pope Calistus II to signal the end of the investiture controversy by confirming the Concordat of Worms (1122), it was held in the Lateran Palace, Rome, making it the first council to be held in Western Europe. Many of the council's decrees became part of the evolving corpus of canon law. 
1139  Second Lateran Council. Convened at the Lateran Palace, Rome, by Pope Innocent II, the council attempted to heal the wounds left by the schism of the antipope Anacletus II (d. 1138) and condemned the theories of Arnold of Brescia. 
1179  Third Lateran Council. Convened at the Lateran Palace, Rome, by Pope Alexander III after the Peace of Venice (1178) had reconciled him with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I, it included an envoy from the Orthodox Greeks. The most important legislation was the first canon, which confirmed that the election of the pope was to be in the hands of the cardinals alone, two thirds being necessary for election. 
1215  Pope Innocent III organized the Fourth Lateran Council in Rome in order to discuss and define central dogmas of Christianity. It was one of the most important councils ever held, and its canons sum up Innocent's ideas for the church. It recognizes the necessity of the Eucharist and penance as sacraments for salvation. 
1408  Council of Oxford prohibited translations of the Scriptures into the vernacular unless and until they were fully approved by Church authority, a decision sparked by the publication of the Wycliffite Bible. 
1409  Council of Pisa ended the Great Schism by declaring both rival popes deposed and electing a third: Pope Martin V. 
1417  The Council of Constance, largest Church meeting in medieval history, officially ended the Great Schism.

It replaced a papal monarchy with a conciliar government, which recognized a council of prelates as the pope's authority and mandated the frequent meeting of councils. This new period was known as the Italian territorial papacy and lasted until 1517 CE.

John Hus traveled to the Council of Constance to propose his reforms for the Church. Upon his arrival at the Council, Hus was tried for heresy and burned. His death encouraged futher revolt by his followers. 
1545-1563  Council of Trent, Catholic Reformation, or counter-reformation, met Protestant challenge by clearly defining an official theology 
1869-1870  First Vatican Council, 20th ecumenical, affirmed doctrine of papal infallibility (ie. when a pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals he does so with the supreme apostolic authority, which no Catholic may question or reject). 
1962-1965  Second Vatican Council, 21st ecumenical, announced by Pope John XXIII in 1959, produced 16 documents which became official after approval by the Pope, purpose to renew "ourselves and the flocks committed to us" (Pope John XXIII). 


[/quote]


[quote]And what gave the early Church such authority?[/quote]

To what? Gather, discuss, argue theology, fight heresies? I would assume they were seeking, as all men do, to clarify, and agree, and over time, they did just that. Of course, those that disagreed, some at the highest levels, continued to argue, and still do, as to what is the "proper way" to be a Christian. That is still ongoing, even inside of the Catholic Church, where there has NEVER been uniformity of thought, and still isn't.

[quote]What is this so-called "first mini-"Reformation"" known as historically?[/quote]

Christianity. Yeah, right, the FIRST mini-Reformation, was when those who wanted to be PURE followers of Jesus, broke free of the need to be Jews first. The second, was when the Greek Christians broke off because of Rome's insistance on IT being the ONLY true faith, so the oldest followers, those second to the Samaritan's to become followers of the 'The Way' fought free of Roman domination.

[Brother Adam]

Waldenese?

[Adeodatus]

Those Councils you list, Bruce, are for the most part Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church (your sources have some laughable, inaccurate comments thrown in, to be sure).

So we have the following statements out of you:
1. The Church "decided what books" belong to the Bible at Councils
2. These Councils are Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church

So, the conclusion is surely: [b]the Catholic Church gathered the books of the Bible and "decided what books" belong to the Sacred Scriptures.[/b]

My question was "what gave the Church the authority to gather the books of the Bible and 'decide' what consititutes Sacred Scripture?" This is not about uniformity of thought or fighting heresy. This is about authority. If you refuse to admit the Catholic Church "decided what books" by the authority of the Holy Spirit, then you have no reason to hang on to the Bible do you? In fact, if you do not confess the Catholic Church has the Holy Spirit to help her to do this, then there is no reason on earth why you personally, Bruce, cannot add 'Alice in Wonderland' to your Bible.


For some reason you think all this happened [b]before[/b] the decisive separation with the Jews. Alas, I think this goes with the territory. You have a unique (to say the least) view of history----[quote]Yeah, right, the FIRST mini-Reformation, was when those who wanted to be PURE followers of Jesus, broke free of the need to be Jews first. The second, was when the Greek Christians broke off because of Rome's insistance on IT being the ONLY true faith, so the oldest followers, those second to the Samaritan's to become followers of the 'The Way' fought free of Roman domination.[/quote]

Here, can I refer you to even secular sources of history? I'm guessing you'd consider all Catholic sources of history 'tainted' and biased. Fine. be my guest. Look at any secular source, but do try and move beyond your own polemical and ludicrous sources.

Peace to you... And Happy Easter!

[Bruce S]

[quote]So we have the following statements out of you:
1. The Church "decided what books" belong to the Bible at Councils
2. These Councils are Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church

So, the conclusion is surely: the Catholic Church gathered the books of the Bible and "decided what books" belong to the Sacred Scriptures.[/quote]

[color=blue]c[/color]atholic church ... YES!! [color=red]C[/color]atholic church ... NO.

Of course the Christians sorted out the acceptable Gospel's and Letters, but they were certainly inclusive of ALL Christians, your claim that Rome is the originator of these agreements is a joke. They ALL VOTED on them, ALL, read slowly, ALL Christians. Not your beloved denomination.

catholic is universal, and it still exists. Catholic BIG C, is a denomination, the third oldest one, the first being the Messianic Jews, the Second those holding to Greek Christianity ways, and even perhaps the Coptics being older still.

Revisionist history. Didn't work for the Communists, but hey they tried, so I guess I can't blame you at all for this effort.

In the words of a FINE thinking Catholic leader.

[quote]While there is an appropriate pride to take in our heritage as Catholics, there[b] is also an inappropriate pride and arrogance that is blind to the actual condition of Catholicism. Catholic theology-on the books and in documents-can be great, but Catholic practice can be an abomination to the Lord and a scandal to the "little ones": "You keep saying, 1 am so rich and secure that I want for nothing.' Little do you realize how wretched you are, how pitiable and poor, how blind and naked!"[/b] (Rev. 3:17).

Ralph Martin: Our Sunday Catholic Visitor

[/quote]

You are doing it AGAIN, sheesh. Such pride, such arrogance, such a need to be RIGHT...

No wonder thinking Catholics are running out the doors right and left, this drives people AWAY, can't you see that? Whatever happened to HUMBLE????

Edited April 10, 2004 by Bruce S

[Brother Adam]

You're avoiding the issue. Prideful people tick me off too. In fact, most "Cathoilcs" make me go nuts as they are not Catholic at all (heck, not Christian at all), however when we are considering eternal matters, can we afford to be wrong?

Thankfully, God is not the author of confusion.

[Adeodatus]

I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you Bruce to show that 'catholic' is not 'Catholic'.
Only 'Catholic' with a big C satisfies the description of the catholic (small c) Church.

As for revisionist history, again you are the only one here indulging in it. I am not saying this with any animosity whatsoever, but with great sadness. I think you really ought to read some history before spouting yout baseless, groundless views---and I mean that with all charity and patience. You obviously know very little of the Greek Orthodox and the Copts if you imagine their faith is all that different from the Catholic faith.

Any perceived arrogance is purely in your mind, I assure you. Ironically you do not see that you might be the arrogant one in claiming to be right (which is not a problem if only you had solid evidence), and getting angry at the Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ because she claims to have the truths Jesus Himself gave her and continues to teach through her.

May God enlighten you and give you peace.

[God Conquers]

I'd love to see your sources Bruce. Serious scholarship on this point is extremely important.

Do you know how the majority of these Christians practiced their faith?

My bet is that nearly all practiced their liturgy according to the Didache. This is the direct predecessor of today's Catholic Mass. And yes, it included Eucharist as Catholics today believe it. This document is also called the Teachings of the Apostles.

I'd love for you to point me(us) to some sources where we can see where your history comes from versus our supposedly "revisionist" history.

Also, it would be nice if you showed us some Primary Sources or archeological evidence that the "mini-reformation" Christians were a majority of Christians, and that as a group they practiced significantly differently than the rest, and that this group maintained unity through history until today.

And no, a chart which Bobby-Jean Bob drew and posted on imapentecostal.com doesn't cut it.

[Bruce S]

[quote]I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you Bruce to show that 'catholic' is not 'Catholic'.
Only 'Catholic' with a big C satisfies the description of the catholic (small c) Church.
[/quote]

If you WERE really "UNIVERSAL C Catholic" there would not be other Christians, there are, so you are NOT.

you are a denomination, a big one, but just a minority denomination in most of the developed world, and going down fast in Europe, where it almost doesn't even exist anymore.

So much for BIG C, I think it might be -atholic very soon, almost no C the way trendlines in Italy are going.

[Livin_the_MASS]

Man Bruce where do you study at?

You split from us brotha! You don't know this by now, your a hard one to teach

sheeeh!