The Papist Popery Of The Papacy

[dairygirl4u2c]

In Epistles 16,29, and 30 Cyprian is addressed as "Cypriano Papae" or Pope Cyprian.

Epistle 74 Firmilian in regards to Stephen, "the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he betrays and deserts unity this way".

Firmilian to Pope Cyprian in regards to Pope Stephen of rome:

[quote]
And herein I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many Churches, in that by his authority he maintains baptism among them...Nor does he perceive that he who thus betrays and abandons unity, casts into the shade, and in a manner effaces, the truth of the Christian Rock...Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics...He who concedes and assigns to heretics such great and heavenly privileges of the Church, what else does he than hold communion with them...But as to the refutation of the argument from custom, which they seem to oppose to the truth, who so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or not to leave darkness, when he sees light?...And this you of Africa may say in answer to Stephen, that on discovering the truth you abandoned the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the custom of the Romans we oppose custom, but that of truth; from the beginning holding that which was delivered by Christ and by His Apostles (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of St. Cyprian, Epistle LXXV. 17, 18, 20, pp. 279-281).[/quote]

[quote]sec. 24
"What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the Churches of the whole world! And how great `sin' hast thou `heaped up,' when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks. For thou didst cut thyself off; deceive not thyself; for he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself from all." [/quote]

That link in the first post is an excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church. He doesn't think the papacy is truly orthodox.

Edited August 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[William Putnam]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 09:58 PM']William, Protestants simply believe that the teachings of the Fathers ought to be evaluated on the basis of the Scriptures, not that Patristics are worthless.[/quote]
Well bless your heart and good for you! I think that many Protestants do exacty that and again, good for them! I think that all of the writings of the fathers would stand up to scrutiny with the scriptures anytime! But I have run across too many who simply reject the fathers and their writings as heretics!

For such individuals, I often say, they are so sot in their belief system ways, they who would also reject the remains that are in the tomb that has the epitaph of Abraham Lincoln. They would claim that it is not his real body but some impostor or that there was some sort of "body exchange" just prior to burial, even if I were to produce all of the written evidence that it is his real body.

I think they would even reject DNA evidence of an exhumed body to prove it!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]Rome has spoken, case is closed.[/i]

Derived from Augustine's famous [i]Sermon[/i].

[William Putnam]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 31 2004, 07:16 AM']Correction... "Some" protestants... there are many protestants that believe them to be worthless.


God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]
Indeed!

These are the same guys that would doubt that Abraham Lincoln is really buried in the tomb that has his epitaph, all documentation is similarly "worthless."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


[i]Rome has spoken, case is closed.[/i]

Derived from Augustine's famous [i]Sermon[/i].

[Anna]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 31 2004, 11:38 AM'] In Epistles 16,29, and 30 Cyprian is addressed as [b]"Cypriano Papae" or Pope Cyprian. [/b]

Epistle 74 Firmilian in regards to Stephen, "the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he betrays and deserts unity this way".

Firmilian to [b]Pope Cyprian[/b] in regards to Pope Stephen of rome:





That link in the first post is an excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church. He doesn't think the papacy is truly orthodox. [/quote]
Another way dairygirl takes things out of context: Cyprian was a bishop and died a martyr, but he was never elected pope. Papae means "pappa," "father." It does not necessarily mean "pope."

Pope St. Stephen reigned as pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 254 AD to 257 AD, succeeding Pope St. Lucias.

When did Pope Cyprian reign????? (Never.)

Amazing how some non-Catholics like to rewrite Catholic history.

[Anna]

St. Cyprian's treatise [i]"De Unitate"[/i]


[color=blue][b]If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?[/b][/color]

One might ask those same questions today, which Cyprian penned in the 3rd century: [b][i]
He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith?

He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?[/i][/b]

[dairygirl4u2c]

I apologize for the name of this thread if it offends you, Anna. It was meant as a joke. All a lot of noncatholics got is evasion, illogical CAPS, and what I just did and all that. (not that a lot of Catholics got more than this either) It was suppose to be ironical. Other than that, I really don't know why you're not thinking things through and ad hominem so much.



[quote]Cyprian was a bishop and died a martyr, but he was never elected pope. Papae means "pappa," "father." It does not necessarily mean "pope."[/quote]

I hope others recognize what I was sayin, but just in case they don't, my point is that just because the bishop of rome is referred to as pope in those days doesn't necessarily mean anything that Catholics sometimes assume it does.

[quote]"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among the Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear: ‘I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.’[/quote]

Just because Peter had a special place doesn't mean other bishops of rome do too. Is this what you're going to argue? No references to how this relates to the sucessors is pretty weak. I just wanted to point this out because catholics do this a lot, pointing out Peter's special role and assuming way too much.


Now anyone knowledgeable know where good info is about this situation?

Edited August 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Brother Adam]

Here is the thing though. Are we assuming too much? Or did Jesus' (God's) words to Peter have significant meaning? If you were before God today, in the flesh, wouldn't you hang on every Word that came out of His mouth? I'd buy a tape recorder and video camara!!!

Are we assuming to much? Or are you assuming too little? Is it too much to assume that we should make a big deal out of the resurrection? Or out of Pauls commentary on salvation?

History sincerely speaks against your assertion that we are making to much about Christ's declarations to Peter. "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray can take you through the "Why's" if you are willing to have an open mind to at least learn another point of view.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]In Epistles 16,29, and 30 Cyprian is addressed as "Cypriano Papae" or Pope Cyprian.

Epistle 74 Firmilian in regards to Stephen, "the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he betrays and deserts unity this way".

Firmilian to Pope Cyprian in regards to Pope Stephen of rome:


[quote]

And herein I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many Churches, in that by his authority he maintains baptism among them...Nor does he perceive that he who thus betrays and abandons unity, casts into the shade, and in a manner effaces, the truth of the Christian Rock...Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics...He who concedes and assigns to heretics such great and heavenly privileges of the Church, what else does he than hold communion with them...But as to the refutation of the argument from custom, which they seem to oppose to the truth, who so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or not to leave darkness, when he sees light?...And this you of Africa may say in answer to Stephen, that on discovering the truth you abandoned the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the custom of the Romans we oppose custom, but that of truth; from the beginning holding that which was delivered by Christ and by His Apostles (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of St. Cyprian, Epistle LXXV. 17, 18, 20, pp. 279-281). [/quote]




[quote] 
sec. 24
"What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the Churches of the whole world! And how great `sin' hast thou `heaped up,' when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks. For thou didst cut thyself off; deceive not thyself; for he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself from all."  [/quote]



That link in the first post is an excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church. He doesn't think the papacy is truly orthodox. [/quote]



We need some historical context here. First off there was a controversy over rebaptizing heretics. Pope Stephen said that there was no need for rebaptism. Firmilian disagreed;

[quote]We know from Cyprian that Stephen issued an edict which ordered obedience under pain of excommunication. We learn from Firmilian that Stephen based his edict on an appeal to his succession from Peter. As to both these points Firmilian has, of course, an answer ready: the excommunication recoils upon Stephen, and his edict shows him to be no true successor to Peter.[/quote]

So what can be learned from the quote that you gave from Firmilian. Well Firmilian had a strong motivation to deny the papacy of Stephen because he was excommunicated by him and because he disagreed with St. Stephen in regards to rebaptizing heretics when they come back into the fold. At the very least this shows that pope Stephen claimed to be the successor of Peter and that he believed that he had authority over the entire church. And so far Firmilian is the only person you have shown to challenge this position. You would think that there would be a larger outcry if someone started to take a position of authority that they believed that he did not possess. Firmilian was wrong in regards to both baptism and the Papacy. Another interesting thing is that unlike Firmilian, St. Cyprian did believe the Peter was the rock in Matt 16:18. Here is a quote from an Anglican historian.

[quote][b]The Anglican historian Edward Giles comments:[/b] "Cyprian is clearer than Origen about the meaning of our Lord's words to Peter (Matt 16:18). [b]To him the rock is Peter, and our Lord built his Church on Peter. He says this so often that no one doubts that it is his view. [/b]Cyprian also claims that this text gives the bishops their authority, for the Church is settled upon them....Disputes on this version [of De Unitate 4] have therefore turned on the question whether in Cyprian's view the primacy of Peter was a permanent factor in the Church or not. On the one hand it is suggested that 'Peter is not the real ground, not the cause nor the centre, but only the starting point in time, and the means of recognition of Church unity' [quoting Hugo Koch]....Against this view Dom Chapman stresses the words [b]'Upon one he builds the Church.' That one is Peter; Peter is the rock, and the idea of a temporary rock is absurd. There is no mention of priority in time in Epistles 33 and 43, and from these letters it seems clear to Chapman that Cyprian means Peter, like the bishop to be 'a permanent not a transient guarantee of the unity of the edifice which rises upon a single rock.''" (Giles, page 49, 52)[/b]

[/quote]

[url="http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:82PsvOkHhcIJ:www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm+Firmilian++papacy+catholic&hl=en&ie=UTF-8"]http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:82PsvOk...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]

There have also been non-Catholic historians who have became catholic do to history. An example is Cardnal Newman. Here are some links that I think you will find interesting.



--[url="http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/ecu.htm"]The Pope and the Ecumenical Councils[/url]
--[url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy![/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1355"]Byzantium and the Roman Primacy[/url]
--[url="http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/byzantin.htm"]The Primitive Church and the See of Peter: The Byzantine Plot[/url]
--[url="http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/sixth.htm"]The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy[/url]
--[url="http://rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html"]Papal Authority in the First Ecumenical Councils[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1092"]Eastern Orthodoxy: Primacy and Reunion[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3485"]Peter and the Orthodox: A Reprise[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=586"]The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM"]The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/Universal.htm"]The Papacy[/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm"]Does the Orthodox Church Believe in the Primacy of Rome? [/url]
--[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm"]Popes, Councils, and Orthodoxy by Mark Bonocore[/url]
--[url="http://www.tcrnews2.com/EOrthodoxy2.html"]Why the Office of Peter is Necessary: The Importance of Papal Primacy in the Church[/url]
--[url="http://www.tcrnews2.com/likoudis.html"]Apologetics, the Papacy, and Eastern Orthodoxy[/url]

Edited September 1, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

dairygirl4u2c,


When looking at the history of Christian faith it is clear that there is development in its doctrines. There is a deeper understanding of the deposit of faith over time. To put the papacy’s development in perspective, I think it would be helpful to compare its development to the development of a doctrine that we both hold. By putting the Papacy into this context I think it will convey how remarkable the historical development of the Papacy really is. What I am asking of you is to show me the earliest correct canon of the Bible both OT and NT (the same one that you use) listed in Christian history. Then we will see if it is earlier that Pope St Stephen who claimed to be the successor of Peter and excommunicated bishop Firmilian around the year 254-257 A.D.

It will be interesting to see what you find. God bless

Edited September 2, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thank you Cure.

[quote]We know from Cyprian that Stephen issued an edict which ordered obedience under pain of excommunication. We learn from Firmilian that Stephen based his edict on an appeal to his succession from Peter. As to both these points Firmilian has, of course, an answer ready: the excommunication recoils upon Stephen, and his edict shows him to be no true successor to Peter.[/quote]

I just want to remind people to read these commentaries in different contexts other than the one you perceive. Look at the facts of the situation; neglect the way the facts are presented, such as in that quote.

The fact. Based on his succession from Peter, Stephen wanted to excommunicate other churches, and firmilian was against it. Remeber the succession from Peter does not necessarily mean with all the perogatives of Peter. (I might argue that even Peter didn't have what most claim he has, but I want to aruge what might actually be considered)

And your last post summarizes Newman. I am knowledgable. But even that case does not prove the papacy, it only show that it might be true.

I will look into more, but I doubt I will be able to find anything. Being from that time and all. I do subscribe somewhat to evidence we have against the Catholic Church doesn't exist because it had control over it for so long.

So, I'd think there'd be more stronger evidence that the bishop of rome was then as we think of today. I don't mean it has to be the full tree, but the acorn should at least show more signs of being an acorn tree that put to rest ideas that it might not be.

Edited September 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Cure of Ars]

I am not going to respond to your last post at this time because I do not want to get distracted from comparing the development of the canon of Scripture to the development of the Papacy. So the question is, what is the earliest correct list of books that belong in the bible? Please let us know what you find.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[dairygirl4u2c]

In 367 a man named Athanasius first gave a list of canonical books identical with our 27 today and in the same order. I assume he had no additional books. Some say this was part of the Eastern Orthodox Church I assume because he's from the East.

The first decision for the Romans concerning the canon of the Scriptures was given at a synod under Pope Damasus in 382. In the same manner the Synod of Hippo in 392 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397 accepted the complete canon. And later Trent declared it finally infallibly.

One (of many) page that has reference to Athan.
[url="http://www.roca.org/OA/6/6g.htm"]http://www.roca.org/OA/6/6g.htm[/url]


I would like to point out that even if the Catholic Church had the first list, I do not suppose that proves anything. From my perspective, the canon is just the most orthodox and safest bet. From a fundamentalists perspective, the orthodox church worked by God to create an infallible canon with everything in it. I see some issues arising with this, so luckily I don't have to defend it.


So, I'd think there'd be more stronger evidence that the bishop of rome was then as we think of today. I don't mean it has to be the full tree, but the acorn should at least show more signs of being an acorn tree that put to rest ideas that it might not be. (and this little parable goes for the development as canon as far as I'm concerned)

Edited September 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 30 2004, 03:38 PM']

Firmilian learned of the Christianity from the Catholic Church, letters to him where to correct his error... his views where wrong. The Catholic Church had a right and authority to correct him because they taught him. Firmilian was not keeping to the faith taught by the apostles. [/quote]
Convenient!

[Aloysius]

convienient that the Church of God fought against Firmilian.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]In 367 a man named Athanasius first gave a list of canonical books identical with our 27 today and in the same order. I assume he had no additional books. Some say this was part of the Eastern Orthodox Church I assume because he's from the East.[/quote]

Athanasius did get the NT correct but his canon had Baruch, which your canon does not have, and it omitted Esther, which your canon has. I asked for a list of the complete canon. So you need to go later in time to find the correct canon that you hold. Please keep looking because I am interested when your canon will finally shows on the seen.

But here I want to add something. Here is a quote from the pope that shows that he took a position of primacy in the Catholic Church even before you have the full development of your and my canon;

[quote][b]It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all…And above all,[/b] why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? [b]Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?[/b] If then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius], notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased,[b] they want to obtain our concurrence[/b], although we never condemned him [Athanasius]. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you. ([b]Pope St. Julius[/b], quoted from Jurgens, p.346)[/quote]

Sounds like more than a acorn to me.


[quote]The first decision for the Romans concerning the canon of the Scriptures was given at a synod under Pope Damasus in 382. In the same manner the Synod of Hippo in 392 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397 accepted the complete canon. And later Trent declared it finally infallibly.[/quote]

This would work if you where Catholic. But the canon at these councils given has the Deuterocanonicals (what protestants call the apocrypha) so this is not the same canon as you hold. So unless you become Catholic this is not the correct canon that you hold.

[quote]I would like to point out that even if the Catholic Church had the first list, I do not suppose that proves anything. From my perspective, the canon is just the most orthodox and safest bet. From a fundamentalists perspective, the orthodox church worked by God to create an infallible canon with everything in it. I see some issues arising with this, so luckily I don't have to defend it.[/quote]

My point is not that the Catholic Church had the first list. This is because at that time there was not two churches east and west. There was only one Church. But lets hold off on judgment for now and I am not going reply to your “safest bet” comment for now. I first just want to find the first canon list that corresponds to your canon. I'm kinda excited to find when it is going to show up.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[megamattman1]

If you're talking about NT canon, it appears that Hippo/Carthage had it. (unless Esdras was in the NT) If you're talking about the overall bible, it appears that Trent had the final canon. This is because Trent excludes Esdras which was in the earlier. I am not sure if Esdras is included in protestant versions or not.

[quote]This would work if you where Catholic. But the canon at these councils given has the Deuterocanonicals (what protestants call the apocrypha) so this is not the same canon as you hold. So unless you become Catholic this is not the correct canon that you hold. [/quote]

It is misleading to say the ealier councils had them. They were there for edification, but for nothing else until Trent. Pope Gregory the Great says about the Apocrypha that "…we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony" (Moral Teachings Drawn from Job; 19, 34). Cardinal Cajetan, a leading Roman Catholic scholar at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, states that the Apocryphal books are not canonical and cannot be used to confirm matters of faith.

It is not wrong to assume that the deuterocanonicals couldn't have been decided canonical after awhile, but it seems somewhat arbitary to do it after so long.

So what we have is Prots if they have Esdras have a bible from the early Roman synods. Maybe you'd insist that the Prots should follow trent if it followed the earlier synod, but even the Church now doesn't follow the synod.

Prots just feel that the decision back then was final. I admit it's sort of arbitary for a fundamentalist to say this. It's even arbitarary for a realist to say it (i consider myself a realist when looking at the facts of a situation). An influential Church with other churches decided that it was final. But why not draw the line with what's orthodox?

To a realist, it seems the Church is drifting away from Orthodoxy. You just have to have faith that it is not.

[quote]It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all…And above all, why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that [b]the custom [/b]has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius], notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him [Athanasius]. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you. (Pope St. Julius, quoted from Jurgens, p.346)[/quote]

It doesn't necessarily sound like an acorn to me. Because there is nothing to put to rest doubts that it might not be an acorn, I still stand by my parable.

Edited September 3, 2004 by megamattman1

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 2 2004, 05:27 PM'] convienient that the Church of God fought against Firmilian. [/quote]
No, convenient that you just throw out a Father who doesnt agree. For all you know, he could have been trying to reform the Church. That's evidence that even back then, there were Protestants, but the Pope was able to silence them, until one simply refused to recant, and managed to keep himself from being burnt at the stake like John Huss.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Firmillian's dissent wouldn't constitute a consensus. We don't base teachings off of individual Fathers.

[Oik]

[quote]No, convenient that you just throw out a Father who doesnt agree. For all you know, he could have been trying to reform the Church. That's evidence that even back then, there were Protestants, but the Pope was able to silence them, until one simply refused to recant, and managed to keep himself from being burnt at the stake like John Huss.[/quote]

No, actually, all this porves is that people think and discuss and that the Early Church Fathers that were wrong, were willing subject to God's authority rather than put thier belief in front of the Church, and go out and persist in heresy or other illict ideologies.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]If you're talking about NT canon, it appears that Hippo/Carthage had it. (unless Esdras was in the NT) If you're talking about the overall bible, it appears that Trent had the final canon. This is because Trent excludes Esdras which was in the earlier. I am not sure if Esdras is included in protestant versions or not. [/quote]


This is not the case. This can get a little complicated because different book were given different names and sometimes books were later separated. This is the case with Esdras. When the list of Hippo and Carthage lists Esdras it is not referring to the apocrypha work, which is not a part of the canon but to Ezra and Nehemiah. At the council of Hippo, Ezra and Nehemiah where considered one book, Esdras. Here is proof of this from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[quote]I. ESDRAS THE MAN

Esdras is a famous priest and scribe connected with Israel's restoration after the Exile. The chief sources of information touching his life are the [b]canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias.[/b] [u]A group of apocryphal writings is also much concerned with him, but they can hardly be relied upon, as they relate rather the legendary tales of a later age.[/u][/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm[/url]

[quote]II. THE BOOKS OF ESDRAS

Not a little confusion arises from the titles of these books. Esdras A of the Septuagint is III Esdras of St. Jerome, whereas the Greek Esdras B corresponds to I and II Esdras of the Vulgate, [b]which were originally united into one book[/b]. Protestant writers, after the Geneva Bible, call I and II Esdras of the Vulgate respectively [b]Ezra and Nehemiah[/b], and III and IV Esdras of the Vulgate respectively I and II Esdras. It would be desirable to have uniformity of titles. We shall follow here the terminology of St. Jerome. [/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm[/url]

[quote] It is misleading to say the ealier councils had them. They were there for edification, but for nothing else until Trent.[/quote]

It is not misleading because the councils of Hippo and Carthage had the same list that was given at Trent.

[quote]St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his "De Doctrinâ Christianâ" he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. [b]The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419),[/b] in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and [b]drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded.[/b]  [Catholic Encyclopedia] [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]

[quote]Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. [b]Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.[/b] [Catholic encyclopedia] [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]

This also shows that your claim is not true;

[quote]The Council of Florence (1442)

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are[u] infallible [/u]states of doctrine. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" [b]contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical[/b]. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity. [Catholic Encylopidea] [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]


[quote]Pope Gregory the Great says about the Apocrypha that "…we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forth testimony" (Moral Teachings Drawn from Job; 19, 34).[/quote]

The term canon was used in different ways. I know that you probably rolling you eyes at me when I claim this so I will quote William Webster who is an anti-catholic apologist. I am quoting him so you do not think that I am making this up.
[quote]This is why I believe that the term canonical in the early Church had 2 meanings, one broad in the sense that it encompassed all the books which were permissible to be read in the Church and another narrow which included only those books which were authoritative for the establishment of doctrine.[/quote]
[url="http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html"]http://www.christiantruth.com/canon.html[/url]

I contend that Pope Gregory was using the term “canonical” as meaning that Maccabees was not read during Church liturgy. This quote also does not apply to all the "apocrypha" it is only reffering to Maccabees. I can give a fuller quote if you want me to show you this. If you want to read more on this subject go here and look under the section on St. Gregory the Great, Pope:

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html"]Did some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?[/url]

[quote] Cardinal Cajetan, a leading Roman Catholic scholar at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, states that the Apocryphal books are not canonical and cannot be used to confirm matters of faith.[/quote]

I will quote the Catholic Encylopidea to answer this comment;

[quote]In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. [b]And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic.[/b] The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received. [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm[/url]

[quote]It is not wrong to assume that the deuterocanonicals couldn't have been decided canonical after awhile, but it seems somewhat arbitary to do it after so long.[/quote]

Your assuming that the deutrocanonicals were not considered scripture by the early church but this is simply not the case. Here is a quote from a protestant historian that shows that the early church held to the deuterocanonicals.

[quote]It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . [b]It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. [/b]The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have [b]treated them without question as Scripture.[/b] Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).  [/quote]

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#Introduction"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#Introduction[/url]

[quote]So what we have is Prots if they have Esdras have a bible from the early Roman synods. Maybe you'd insist that the Prots should follow trent if it followed the earlier synod, but even the Church now doesn't follow the synod.[/quote]

I have shown that Esdras is referring to Ezra and Nehemiah which both the council of Trent and the Protestant bible has.

[quote]It doesn't necessarily sound like an acorn to me. Because there is nothing to put to rest doubts that it might not be an acorn, I still stand by my parable.[/quote]

I never made the claim that I could prove the Papacy without a doubt. But my argument is that there is more historical support for thedevelopment of the papacy then there is for the development of the Protestant Bible. Both beliefs require faith but the only difference is that the Protestant canon lacks historical continuity.

Edited September 4, 2004 by Cure of Ars