What Did The Church Fathers Say About The Catholic Church?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1263223' date='May 3 2007, 10:52 AM']St. Peter did not found the Syriac Orthodox Church in Antioch. He founded the See of Antioch, which currently has multiple claimants:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Antioch#Current_patriarchs"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_...rent_patriarchs[/url][/quote]

As I mentioned in the other thread, there is great arguments about who holds the true see of St. Peter

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1263661' date='May 3 2007, 11:59 PM']As I mentioned in the other thread, there is great arguments about who holds the true see of St. Peter [/quote]That question wasn't germane to my post.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1263626' date='May 3 2007, 10:03 PM']Anyone out of the Alexandrian school or tied to Constantine or Eusebius, FORGET IT.[/quote]

Is this an example of how you proof-text history?

[quote]Im sticking with Gods Word because we have HIs promise as to its purity.[/quote]

In order to attest to the purity of His Word, God first must tell us what His Word consists of, since the Bible is a collection of disparate writings selected by the Catholic Church. The only original, authentic list of writings that belong in the Scriptures was provided by the Catholic Church.

As you know, there are at least two Bibles -- the original Catholic Bible and the incomplete Protestant version. But there are several others as well. Google "Which Bible, Whose Canon?" --a Methodist website.

Which one is the REAL Word of God? The logical answer: The Catholic Bible.

Likos

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Budge' post='1263626' date='May 3 2007, 10:03 PM']Anyone out of the Alexandrian school or tied to Constantine or Eusebius, FORGET IT.

Im sticking with Gods Word because we have HIs promise as to its purity.[/quote]
Remember "The pillar and foundation of truth IS the church" (1 tim 3:15) Ask yourself, was the bible even compiled yet when that was first written? It was not. What did one do without his written word then? You can not pick and choose what you want to believe out if the bible..........like you can the early church fathers writings! Thats all you got! You really don't even need to attend church anymore,Do you???? Just you and your bible!......Oh yes the holy spirit guiding you to ALL truth. Wow! That is so great for you! You just must be praying everyday for us poor deiceved catholics. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do???" You were at one time one of us, now your just so worried about our salvation, you really feel its your duty to set us right!! Praise God for you my sister, I hope your up for such a big task. ..................its a real pity though, that such a wonderul image to our Lord (that's you ms.budge) is deciding to take the WIDE road. JC

[Budge]

[quote]
In order to attest to the purity of His Word, God first must tell us what His Word consists of, since the Bible is a collection of disparate writings selected by the Catholic Church. The only original, authentic list of writings that belong in the Scriptures was provided by the Catholic Church.[/quote]The canon was well decided on before Constantine came along or the council that made the list "official"

[quote]

As you know, there are at least two Bibles -- the original Catholic Bible and the incomplete Protestant version. But there are several others as well. Google "Which Bible, Whose Canon?" --a Methodist website.[/quote]

Ive read Apocrypha, it actually contradicts the rest of Gods word.

One thing about the real Bible all the books fit as a seamless garment.
[[quote]You were at one time one of us, now your just so worried about our salvation, you really feel its your duty to set us right!! Praise God for you my sister, I hope your up for such a big task. ..................its a real pity though, that such a wonderul image to our Lord (that's you ms.budge) is deciding to take the WIDE road. JC[/quote]

It is a big task, doing this doesnt exactly make you ms. popular...

Ive asked God can I go witness to some atheists and Wiccans now, {I do offline} it would be a LOT easier. So far the answer has been no.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1264095' date='May 4 2007, 07:15 AM']The canon was well decided on before Constantine came along or the council that made the list "official"

[code]I'm going to have to call you out on this Budge, the purpose of the council of Nicea [which by the way, the majority of Protestants agree with], was to secure the legacy of Jesus Christ. Gnostics had rose up [primarily in Egypt] and the ordinary follows didn't have "a bible" of books [as the word means many books in greek] to know as a fact were of Jesus Christ. There were a great amount of books that Christians had to sort through, and what the council did was not create a new legacy of Jesus Christ but to secure an already existing legacy that was confused with gnosticism/arianism/etc.[/code]


Ive read Apocrypha, it actually contradicts the rest of Gods word.

[code]Tell me specifically how the book of Wisdom contradicts "the Word of God" please.[/code]

One thing about the real Bible all the books fit as a seamless garment.

[code]What's this comment supposed to mean? :idontknow: Are you talking about the nice leather bound that you paid extra money for at your local charismatic Christian book store?[/code]

Ive asked God can I go witness to some atheists and Wiccans now, {I do offline} it would be a LOT easier. So far the answer has been no.

[code]Why do you put God's stamp of approval on your words? That's no different then Muhammed![/code][/quote]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1264095' date='May 4 2007, 09:15 AM']The canon was well decided on before Constantine came along or the council that made the list "official"[/quote]

You have been misinformed.

The canon was NOT "well decided" until the end of the fourth century. The New Testament apocrypha were disputed almost up to the time the canon was declared. There were other writings that were considered "Scripture" by some local Churches right up until canonization, but didn't make the cut when the final decision was made (1 Clement [written by the fourth Pope], the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas). The writings of New Testament deuterocanon are Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. The writings of the Old Testament deuterocanon are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, parts of Esther (10:14-16, 14) and Daniel (3:24-90, 13, 14).

Deuterocanon means "second canon" and refers to those books and passages of the Old and New Testaments about which there was controversy at one time in early Christian history. Protestants in the 16th century and after called the OT deuterocanon "Apocrypha." Martin Luther rejected them from his canon in his German translation of the Bible, and other Protestants have followed his example. I've never met a Protestant who knew there was a NT deuterocanon. But then, they claim to know their Bible, but they don't know much about what it is, where and how they got it, or its history. The chapters and verses they take such pride in knowing are modern additions. Chapters were added in 1227 (Archbishop Stephen Langton), verses in 1551 (French printer Robert Stephanus).

Constantine was born 228(?) and died in 337. He was Roman Emperor from 325 - 337.
He had nothing whatever to do with the canonizaton of Scripture, which did not take place until the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage II (397) and III (419). Protestant scholars usually cite 397 at Carthage as the date of canonization (the decrees were sent to the Pope for approval). Constantine had been dead for 60 years. Final approval of the canon was given by Pope Innocent I in 405.

Likos

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1263095' date='May 3 2007, 02:07 AM']St. Peter was in Jerusalem and Antioch first. Didn't he lead them? If he did, I have to think he had successors there.
I want to know the Catholic answer for that.[/quote]


Yes Peter did have successors in Antioch. However, Jerusalem didn't have a Patriarchate until the Council of Nicea. At first there was only three Patriarchs. Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Later at the Council of Nicea both Constantinople and Jerusalem were added.


But you are correct. Peter was at Antioch first before he went to Rome. And he did leave a sucessor there.

Rome gets the honor of having both Peter and Paul die there........plus it was thee city of the Empire.......and this is why the Roman Bishop was seen as first among equals.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1263223' date='May 3 2007, 11:52 AM']St. Peter did not found the Syriac Orthodox Church in Antioch. He founded the See of Antioch, which currently has multiple claimants:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Antioch#Current_patriarchs"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_...rent_patriarchs[/url][/quote]


True! At one time the see of Antioch only had one Patriarch. After the Council of Chalcedon she had two! Well really one original one, but for the sake of argument we will say two.

Those who rejected the council of Chalcedon called those who embraced it "Melkites"! It wasn't until the 17 hundreds that a segment in Lebonon schizmed from the main body. And Rome took them and eventually gave them their own Antiochian Patriarch clone. These Eastern Catholics call themselves Melkites but that name was used for all syrians who embraced the council of Chalcedon.


So yes there are three Patriarchs of Antioch. However, the original see and succesion is the byzantine one for the school of Antioch was always at odds with the school of Alexandria and the nonchalcedonian Syrians don't rep the tradition of the school of Antioch. Their theology is more in line with the school of Alexandria. The ones that rep the school of Antioch the most are the Nestorians for they embraced the works of the enemies of Saint Ceril of Alexandria. But that is mostly in the past now for the two Patriarchs are in the process of intercommunion.

Edited May 6, 2007 by jnorm888

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Budge' post='1263626' date='May 3 2007, 09:03 PM']Anyone out of the Alexandrian school or tied to Constantine or Eusebius, FORGET IT.

Im sticking with Gods Word because we have HIs promise as to its purity.[/quote]


You don't have the same number of books in your Old Testament that Jesus and the Apostles had.

So what Bible are you talking about?

[Paddington]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='1265632' date='May 6 2007, 12:25 AM']True! At one time the see of Antioch only had one Patriarch. After the Council of Chalcedon she had two! Well really one original one, but for the sake of argument we will say two.

Those who rejected the council of Chalcedon called those who embraced it "Melkites"! It wasn't until the 17 hundreds that a segment in Lebonon schizmed from the main body. And Rome took them and eventually gave them their own Antiochian Patriarch clone. These Eastern Catholics call themselves Melkites but that name was used for all syrians who embraced the council of Chalcedon.
So yes there are three Patriarchs of Antioch. However, the original see and succesion is the byzantine one for the school of Antioch was always at odds with the school of Alexandria and the nonchalcedonian Syrians don't rep the tradition of the school of Antioch. Their theology is more in line with the school of Alexandria. The ones that rep the school of Antioch the most are the Nestorians for they embraced the works of the enemies of Saint Ceril of Alexandria. But that is mostly in the past now for the two Patriarchs are in the process of intercommunion.[/quote]

jnorm888,

Thank you very much.

Paddington

[Katholikos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1263207' date='May 3 2007, 12:27 PM']**I think they can be trusted, don't you?
yes, but i look at the evidence and think that is not the way the world works. i think the CC has contradicted itself in the past, and am willing to again dialouge on this if you are willing to get academic.
i could say the same thing.. the holy spirit guides individuals. if it's something important, those who are trying follow will understand. you might say things like confession are important, and the fact people disagree shows it cannot be the case that it gides ppl individually. i say, you are creating the problem where there is none, confession isn't important, and you will see that eventually, and if you don't, you at least know the important things that really matter. so, the holy spirit guides us, and i think it can be trusted to do that, don't you?

(here you will say yes but the people i don't, then i will say i trust it but the pope i don't, etc etc)
this is simply an inherent judgment call difference, views of which cannot be reconciled, necessarily.

you might say in a way should't reply to these topics, because you're gearing this more for those who might be persuaded who haven't seen the evidence. but then, i'm always looking for someone to call me out, and challenge me on my scholarly and intellectual claims.[/quote]

I would like to dialog with you, Dairygirl, but I find your posts difficult to read and understand. Most of the time, I don't know what you mean by what you've written. Perhaps others are more capable of filling in the missing words or completing the sentences or straightening out the syntax than I. Sorry. Please don't take offense. I'm not criticizing -- your posts are very popular with others -- but I'm just explaining why I don't accept your offer (if that's what it was). mea maxima culpa

Peace, Likos

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Budge' post='1264095' date='May 4 2007, 09:15 AM']The canon was well decided on before Constantine came along or the council that made the list "official"
Ive read Apocrypha, it actually contradicts the rest of Gods word.

One thing about the real Bible all the books fit as a seamless garment.
[

It is a big task, doing this doesnt exactly make you ms. popular...

Ive asked God can I go witness to some atheists and Wiccans now, {I do offline} it would be a LOT easier. So far the answer has been no.[/quote]

God has asked Budge to witness the story of her salvation to all catholics. She would much rather witness to wiccans and atheists... it would be much easier!...............maybe..........just maybe .........our Lord has a bigger purpose here Budge???? Come home sister!