The Bible . . . is any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity.

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation,[7] known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[8] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.

chukwudi44: Even the origen you mentioned in your write up,was he not catholic? Origen irrespective of some of his erroneous views later condemned by the church remains one of the most influential figures in xtian.if not for some of the controversies associated with him. He would have been placed alongside the likes of the great St Augustine of hippo

Enigma: ^^^ Was either the Synod of Hippo or the Council of Carthage (I've actually been to Carthage before ) a Roman Catholic affair?

Where is Hippo and where is Carthage? What Church was in Hippo and/or Carthage and to which See did these places belong ---- Rome?

Hippo was an ancient bishopric and still is the name of a Roman Catholic titular see in the former Roman province of Numidia, since French colonial rule a part of the residential see of Constantine. It contains some ancient ruins, a hospital built by the Little Sisters of the Poor, and a fine basilica dedicated to St. Augustine.

Hippo was a Tyrian colony on the west coast of the bay to which it gave its name: Hipponensis Sinus, first settled by the Phoenicians probably in the 12th century BC; the surname Regius 'of the King' was bestowed on it as one of the places where the Numidian kings resided.
A maritime city near the mouth of the river Ubus, it became a Roman colonia which prospered and became a major city in Roman Africa. It is perhaps most famous as the bishopric of Saint Augustine of Hippo in his later years. In the summer of 430 the Vandals put the city of Hippo under siege as the aged bishop lay on his death bed; he died 28 August 430. Following a 14-month siege, the city fell to the Vandals and King Geiseric made it the capital of the Vandal kingdom until the capture of Carthage in 439.

Titular Metropolitan See of
Cartagine
Tunisia
Continent: Western and Northern Africa
Rite: Roman (Latin)
Type: Titular Metropolitan See
Location: m. Proconsolare o Zeugitana, Tunisia

Pastor AIO:

It fell under the see of Constantinople when the French colonised it. (at least one and a half thousand years after the canonisation of the bible).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regius

The Vandals were Arians (If I remember correctly), and so they considered Catholic orthodoxy to be a heresy. They destroyed the Catholic tradition in North Africa, or rather those parts of it that they conquered (Vandalia).

And as for Carthage?


http://www.gcatholic.com/dioceses/former/t0414.htm

Enigma: ^^^ As of today, does the Church and See to which either Augustine belonged (i.e. where he was bishop) or to which Origen belonged accept the Roman Catholic Bible ---- or do they have a different canon?

chukwudi44:

So you have finally accepted the fact that st Augustine who canonised the books of the bible subscribed to the roman catholic faith.if their generation decide to rebel against rome it still does not change the fact the bible was canonised under the authourity of the roman church.

Let's assume pastor bakare canonised the bible while he was @ redeemed if he dies and his children decides to form another church would you say the bible was not canonised by redeemed? This is just simple logic

Enigma: ^^ You are the one who said you are not a "Nigerian Catholic" and later claimed the Roman Catholic Church.

My point was that Hippo and Carthage were not part of the Roman Catholic Church; they were not part of the See of Rome; rather they were part of the See of Alexandria.

chukwudi44:

The see of hippo and carthage neither belonged to rome nor alexendria.The see of hippo belonged to the see of hippo governed by its own bishop ditto for carthage.The see of rome was only given preeminent authourity because it was the last see of st peter.The same thing applies to even the see of lagos.The pope is first bishop of rome before anything else.He is only allowed to take precedence over other bishops because of the link of peter to the roman see

Even after the split of the alexendrian church from rome at the council of chalcedon,the see of hippo did not go with them but rather remained aligned with the roman church until north africa was ravaged by the muslims

Enigma:

NO, this is wrong! At the Council of Nicea, three primary Sees were formally recognised: Antioch, Alexandria and Rome; Jerusalem was given a special place of honour and much later on the See of Constantinople was also recognised.

The See of Alexandria was given "oversight" of the African Churches ---- which would thus include Hippo and Carthage. It is just as the bishopric of Milan would also be under the "oversight" of the See of Rome.

chukwudi44:

You seem to be contradicting yourself.first you started by claiming every see in the catholic church were independent now you are claiming hippo and carthage were assigned to alexendria.

Indeed Rome,Jerusalem and Antioch were accorded special status but no church was directly placed over them.
Why then did the church of alexandria not drag the churches of hippo and carthage along with them when it went out of communion with rome in 453 ce @ the council of chalcedon


The authourity rome wields today is only because of its link with peter

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.

In the Apostolic Age (largely the 1st century) the Christian Church comprised an indefinite number of local Churches that in the initial years looked to the first church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference. But by the 4th century it had developed a system whereby the bishop of the capital of each civil province (the metropolitan bishop) normally held certain rights over the bishops of the other cities of the province (later called suffragan bishops).

chukwudi44: Mind you rome did not begin to get special recognition from the council of nicea.it has always wielded pre-eminent authourity even from the first and second centuries.

Pope clement presided over the crisis in the corinthian church as far back as 96CE.Even the highly revered bishop of smryna st polycarp had to travel to rome in 146 CE to confer with pope anicetus over the easter date controversy.furthermore Ireneaus bishop of lyons had to plead with pope vicor in 170CE when he threatened to excommunicate some north african bishops over this same easter controversy.Not to forget St ignatius who in 110CE calls it the church that takes precedence

"The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West...In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century."

The visit of St. Polycarp to Rome is described by St. Irenæus in a letter to Pope Victor written under the following circumstances. The Asiatic Christians differed from the rest of the Church in their manner of observing Easter. While the other Churches kept the feast on a Sunday, the Asiatics celebrated it on the 14th of Nisan, whatever day of the week this might fall on. Pope Victor tried to establish uniformity, and when the Asiatic Churches refused to comply, excommunicated them. St. Irenæus remonstrated with him in a letter, part of which is preserved by Eusebius (Church History V.24), in which he particularly contrasted the moderation displayed in regard to Polycarp by Pope Anicetus with the conduct of Victor. "Among these (Victor's predecessors) were the presbyters before Soter. They neither observed it (14th Nisan) themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet, though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed. . . And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp ... nor Polycarp Anicetus . . . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace", etc.

Enigma: ^^^ Was either the Synod of Hippo or the Council of Carthage (I've actually been to Carthage before ) a Roman Catholic affair?

Where is Hippo and where is Carthage? What Church was in Hippo and/or Carthage and to which See did these places belong ---- Rome?

Enigma: Since we are digressing a little bit, let me too put some questions to you.

1. Was the apostle Peter ever a "pope"?

2. What does "pope" mean, really?

3. Was the appellation "pope" first used for the patriarch of Alexandria or of Rome?

4. When did "pope" become a title for the Bishop of Rome?