Random West Mall Postings

This isn't a graduate seminar, it's a sports internet chat board.

And, while I've been blessed with plenty of time in recent years, I don't have time to do your research for you. But if you have academic sources from a neutral institution, that might be helpful to read.

Here is a question to ponder: Is it ok for a nation to deny the Freedom of Religion to its citizens?

 

Since I said "roughly 382 AD" I think that gives us + or - 20 years leeway when talking 4th century.

 

It's that kind of mushy thinking that will lead to the downfall of Western civilization, Guy.

 

Also, Athanasius left out the Book of Ester so the Council of Rome didn't just copy / paste his work.

 

I think everyone acknowledges Athanasius. Both Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox claim the early church fathers as their own.

The councils no doubt made decrees. But on the subject of canon the councils were merely codifying what was more or less already being followed.

 

Yes. Paul mentions a letter or two he sent to the Corinthians that isn't in the Bible. I think he mentioned sending a letter to them in between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians that isn't in the Bible.

 

Point taken

 

I understand that letter was a request to send one of their famous Corinthian leather hand bags for his travel needs and some bbq.

 

I think the Jewish Scriptures had already been determined well before Athanasius. So I was referring to the NT. Esther was one of the last OT books included because it never mentions God. It was highly debated way before Athanasius came onto the scene. He must have agreed with the minority opinion of older scholars. Interesting point though. Canon is a messy subject.

Also some say that Origen in 250 AD included all 27 books in his NT. Canon was definitely a process over time. I just don't think the large "C" Catholic church determined it. I think the councils recognized what a variety of churches were already agreeing on.

 

I speculate that the thinking went something like this: Paul is one of the greatest of the Apostles--he even "overruled" Peter on an important theological issue.* So whatever Paul wrote is trustworthy enough to make it into the Bible. (provided it can be shown that the writing was indeed an authentic letter from St. Paul.)


*That's right. Look it up in the NT yourselves. St. Paul overruled St. Peter (whom is regarded as the first Pope by the Catholics) on an important theological matter. No dispersion on either of them--they both were martyred for the faith. It's just that St. Paul got a new revelation that changed the traditional view (which St. Peter argued).

 

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

 

Paul corrected Peter as recorded in Galatians 2. But the issue wasn't a new revelation. Paul was calling Peter back to what God taught Peter back in Acts about ending the dietary code.

 

This offers good reading from a different point of view. St John Chrysostom presents an intriguing take on the matter.

 

It depends in my opinion, as in does freedom of religion equate to insurrection. Freedom of religion came about when folks were able to mentally separate the two.

 

Instead of theologians contorting to make it seem that Peter was never ever wrong after he was anointed the "first Pope", a more honest explanation is that everyone makes mistakes and is fallible. And even this same St. Peter publicly denied Christ 3 times in one night--yet he is still a Prince among the Saints! That's actually rather inspiring. More inspiring than the existence of a believer who can never, ever, ever, ever be wrong.

 

I don't think it's appropriate for a state to deny the freedom of religion to its people. I'm a bit surprised that there are Americans who think it's ok.

Now having an established national church could be problematic.

 

I presumed your frame of reference was 400 years ago since you made reference to the Hugonots.

 

"Here is a question to ponder: Is it ok for a nation to deny the Freedom of Religion to its citizens?"
Of course it is. It may not be the right thing to do by OUR standards
but if it is another sovereign nation it is their choice.

 

Got about a paragraph into the article and stopped due to some basic error.

If Chrysostom really thinks that Paul served Peter and all other apostles, then he contradicts Scripture.

If the Bible says that Peter "stood condemnded" as it does in Galatians 2:11, then Peter stood condemned. If he was in hypocrisy and lead others into in Galatians 2:13, then it is clear that he was in the wrong. Papist sophistry doesn't invalidate God's Word. And the point of Galatians 2:1-10 is to clarify that Paul's apostleship was on the same level as Peter's and all the rest.

 

Chop, many states has established churches. The issue was that they didn't allow the federal government to set up one over them. I don't want established churches in America, but I don't think any state is ever secular. The question is which religion holds sway.

 

I agree everyone acknowledges Catholic Saint Athanasius, but that wasn’t the question. The question is the canon of scripture. I agree, and stated as much, NT readings were already being heard at Mass before the councils, but there is historical proof recognized by both Catholic and Protestants, that those councils met to canonize the scriptures. There is not an inspired table of content for the NT books. Christ left us a church but not a bible, so that church had to determine, through prayer and discernment, which books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, because many writings made that claim. I never doubt the love Protestants have for Jesus Christ, so I'm mostly certainly not arguing against that. I simply arguing authentic history.

As for the Church Fathers:

Ignatius of Antioch - Used the name "Catholic Church" Kataholos -in his writings. Circa AD 107 the term was already widespread, and his writings indicate it wasn't a foreign term to his readers.

Justin Martyr - On the Eucharist before he died in 165; he explained clearly that the offering of the bread and wine constitutes the sacrifice prefigured in the Old Testament and instituted by Jesus as a New Sacrifice.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (and faithful follower of Justin's position) - ..."the bread and the wine, from being earthly, become heavenly; the Christian from being corruptible becomes fit for eternal life".

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage - in his letter On The Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord was dominated by the belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist to be offered as a sacrifice (there's that darn word again) to God.

They were also unanimous on baptism - "Baptism...now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Col. 2:11-12). Even Luther centuries later affirmed the necessity of baptism - "Baptism is no human plaything but it is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved". (Luther's Large Catechism 4:6). It wasn't until decades later the know accepted definition of by all Christians throughout history, was changed.

I could go on, and on, and on. They died horrifically for proclaiming the faith. Please read them for yourself, don't take my word for it.

Question: You said Protestants claim the Church Fathers for themselves, but protestantism didn't even exist during time of the Fathers, so they couldn't have been Protestants. They were too busy preaching, writing, and running for their lives to protest. If the Catholic Church didn't canonize the scriptures as you say, which church did? Where is that church today? Was it the Lutherans? Martin Luther 1517, and he at least concedes the scriptures of the New Testament were through the canonization of the Catholic Church. Episcopalians? Samuel Seabury 1789. Calvinist? John Calvin 1551. Baptist? John Smyth 1609. Presbyterian? John Knox 1582.

 

I guess my point is that the Holy Spirit also worked to show Christians which books were canon. That was as much the Holy Spirit's work as the church and ever more so.

 

The Protestant viewpoint is that they were bringing Christianity back to Apostolic and early Church Father doctrine, recapturing theology that had been lost.

 

Yes. Catholic means Universal. Even the Reformers used the word catholic to describe the church around the world. That isn't the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

And yet Jesus said "it is finished" on the cross. Tetelestai in the Greek. Perfect tense meaning absolutely completed action.

 

I'm cross-posting the below here from the Israel thread, as it seems to fit in with the direction this thread has steered:

One thing classical Western Civilization has wrong (in my opinion) is the classic view of the "Dark Ages." As it turns out, and contrary to what we learned in school, that time period wasn't so "Dark" after all. Science, literature, music, art, and architecture were flourishing--especially in the later centuries of the "Dark Ages." There were places in Europe during the "Dark Ages" that were even more advanced than their contemporary Islamic Golden Age neighbors.

Now the Renaissance really kicked it into overdrive, but the engine of progress was already moving during the later parts of the "Dark Ages."

This should be studied more.

 

...but didn't Plinius, Sub-Bishop of Thessalonika, try to slip in the book of Esther...?

 

Looks like they've since elevated the position at Thessalonika from a Sub-Bishop*, to a Metropolitan.

This is actually him below:

Filotheos, Metropolitan of Thessaloniki (GOC).




*"Sub-Bishop" is not an actual Church position for any lurking Zoroastrians.

 

And if any Protestant thinks the Roman Catholic Church is medieval, go attend an Eastern Orthodox mass sometime, preferably a Russian one (the "OCA").* It's a time machine. They really haven't changed in 2,000 years. Wear very comfortable shoes if you go...

On a related note, there are a minority of traditional Anglican Churches whose masses look a lot more medieval than many of the modern post-Vatican II Catholic masses.

The loooooooooong wedding scene in The Deer Hunter shows a Rusyn/Carpatho-Rusyn* Orthodox mass/wedding from a real cathedral in Cleveland.


*a people without a state. Many 1,000's of them bolted in the early 1900s for the coal fields and steel mills of W. Penn/E. Ohio.