Enigma: The posts are there; I'm not quoting anything again. I see your post above as wriggling instead of doing the honourable thing.

I am even minded to end discussing with you here and now. Afterall I was discussing with Kay17 originally, and I guess he'd be back at some point.

Enigma:

Cheap and unworthy nonsense. Whoever said they were "protestants"? All I have ever said is that they were not Roman Catholics. That is the pretense and false impression that the Roman Catholics have been spreading to hoodwink people --- especially in the Western world.

Origen's travels gave him exception opportunities to know the traditions of widely separated portions of the Church and made him very conversant with the discrepant attitudes toward certain parts of the New Testament. He divided books with Biblical claims into three classes:

those universally received;
those whose Apostolicity was questions;
apocryphal works.

In the first class, the Homologoumena, stood the Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John. The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews. Personally, Origen accepted all of these as Divinely inspired, though viewing contrary opinions with toleration. Origen's authority seems to have given to Hebrews and the disputed Catholic Epistles a firm place in the Alexandrian Canon, their tenure there having been previously insecure, judging from the exegetical work of Clement, and the list in the Codex Claromontanus, which is assigned by competent scholars to an early Alexandrian origin.

Enigma: .... Meanwhile the reference to Origen means I can even take the process of canonisation back some 100/150 years before Athanasius already.

Moreover, in the East are found the riches of those spiritual traditions which are given expression especially in monastic life. There from the glorious times of the holy Fathers, monastic spirituality flourished which, then later flowed over into the Western world, and there provided the source from which Latin monastic life took its rise and has drawn fresh vigor ever since. Catholics therefore are earnestly recommended to avail themselves of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers which lift up the whole man to the contemplation of the divine.

Ubenedictus: now you've missed thing up again, there wasn't a time we had two popes! Instead there was a time we had two people claiming to be the pope. That simply means one was pope and the other was the anti-pope. The pope had the infallibility and the anti pope was either a schismatic or an heretic Or both.
Peace.

Reyginus: I don't agree with you. My reason being that the catholics these two popes represented saw them as the head.
Take a look at this link..
http://www.christian-history.org/western-great-schism.html#sthash.K8N4wPwf.dpbs
Before the Western Great Schism came a time
sometimes called the Babylonian Captivity of the
Church; a time when the pope, the bishop of
Rome, ruled not from Rome but from Avignon. In A.D. 1294 Benedetto Gaetani was elected and
took the name of Pope Boniface VIII. Europe was
in great conflict at the time. In Germany, Albrecht
I, son of former German king Rudolph I, was
trying to regain the throne from Adolf of Nassau.
England and France were threatening each other in what would eventually become the Hundred
Years War. There was also conflict over the papal throne,
which the powerful Colonna family of Italy had
hoped to obtain. Boniface VIII was a skilled and experienced
player of power politics, however, and he went
rapidly to work. He was able to overthrow the
Colonna family and seize their lands by calling a
crusade. He also obtained a favorable peace with
Albrecht of Hapsburg, but he was not so fortunate in France. Long, intense political battles that don't belong on
this web site raged for almost a decade with
Philip IV of France, and Philip proved to be the
better politician. In the midst of a losing battle,
Boniface resorted to his strongest weapon,
excommunication. Philip found out about this, however, and, using
an alliance with Boniface's enemies in the
Colonna family, sent a party in to kidnap the
pope. (It appears the mafia was at work even in
the 14th century!) Their intention was to force the pope to resign.
He refused, even at threat of death. So his captors
sat him backwards on a horse and paraded him
through his home town. Boniface's political failures meant he had few
defenders, even in his native Italy. The battle
with Philip was over. Boniface died not long after, and Philip, not
wishing to continue fighting a pope, gathered
French cardinals and elected Pope Clement V in
Avignon in 1305. Clement, a political puppet,
never set foot in Rome during his entire papacy.

Ubenedictus: hehehe, you meant with the traditions of the apostles abi?
seriously you need to go back and read that passage again. And pray for a little understanding!

the word of God doesn't seem have "boundaries" either its from scripture or tradition.
It is sharper than a two edged sword. Hehehe

Ubenedictus: oga hold it oh, if i were not busy at the moment, i would have open a thread for all the people you've insulted and believe me they will give you a thorough mouth washing. Better reconsider how you address people. Follow peace with all men.

truthislight:

You mean the word of God is without boundary = lawlessness, or the pope is the lawless man without boundary in the name of tradition?

chukwudi44:

The word of God is Jesus and not the bible.The bible was created by the catholic church hence the church comes first.

The scriptures in 1 tim 3:15 describes the church and not the bible as the pillar of faith.The catholic church had existed for almost 400 years without the bible.

The creation of the bible by the catholic church in the late fourth century does not mean everything is contained therein.Even the bible explicitly claims it does not contain everything.Even biblical authours had to quote oustside the bible.

truthislight:

So the pope can do everything, i mean anything in the name of tradition = no boundary.

What then is lawlessness?

Reyginus: I don't agree with you. My reason being that the catholics these two popes represented saw them as the head.
Take a look at this link..
http://www.christian-history.org/western-great-schism.html#sthash.K8N4wPwf.dpbs
Before the Western Great Schism came a time
sometimes called the Babylonian Captivity of the
Church; a time when the pope, the bishop of
Rome, ruled not from Rome but from Avignon. In A.D. 1294 Benedetto Gaetani was elected and
took the name of Pope Boniface VIII. Europe was
in great conflict at the time. In Germany, Albrecht
I, son of former German king Rudolph I, was
trying to regain the throne from Adolf of Nassau.
England and France were threatening each other in what would eventually become the Hundred
Years War. There was also conflict over the papal throne,
which the powerful Colonna family of Italy had
hoped to obtain. Boniface VIII was a skilled and experienced
player of power politics, however, and he went
rapidly to work. He was able to overthrow the
Colonna family and seize their lands by calling a
crusade. He also obtained a favorable peace with
Albrecht of Hapsburg, but he was not so fortunate in France. Long, intense political battles that don't belong on
this web site raged for almost a decade with
Philip IV of France, and Philip proved to be the
better politician. In the midst of a losing battle,
Boniface resorted to his strongest weapon,
excommunication. Philip found out about this, however, and, using
an alliance with Boniface's enemies in the
Colonna family, sent a party in to kidnap the
pope. (It appears the mafia was at work even in
the 14th century!) Their intention was to force the pope to resign.
He refused, even at threat of death. So his captors
sat him backwards on a horse and paraded him
through his home town. Boniface's political failures meant he had few
defenders, even in his native Italy. The battle
with Philip was over. Boniface died not long after, and Philip, not
wishing to continue fighting a pope, gathered
French cardinals and elected Pope Clement V in
Avignon in 1305. Clement, a political puppet,
never set foot in Rome during his entire papacy.

Reyginus: Chukwudi, you strike me as someone with a good grasp of the catholic history and doctrine. With respect to papal infallibility how do you justify below. Which of the two can we say exhibited infallibility?

Enigma: Hitherto the Roman Catholics had not acknowledged the canon presented by Athanasius let alone the one he said was handed down.

They relied on some "canon" at the Council of Rome 382 ----- forgery.

Then Synod of Hippo; na lie, that one na regional African synod.

Then Synods of Carthage; another lie; those ones too na regional African synods.


Now in their off-guard moments some Roman Catholic writers acknowledge that there was a canon or there were canons elsewhere at some points. Here is one example from a Roman Catholic source which I first posted on page 16 of this very thread (our local apologists did not realise its implication then of course).

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm




What did the Roman Catholic source mean by "Alexandrian Canon"?

Meanwhile the reference to Origen means I can even take the process of canonisation back some 100/150 years before Athanasius already.

Enigma:

And if with Origen, we identify a written list going back as early as the 200s, we can still go further back in terms of written lists to circa 170-180 with the canon and books listed in the Muratorian Fragment.

This is before we now go to the books cited as sacred scriptures by the "church fathers". Not going that far back yet, Irenaeus quotes from every book of the present New Testament except two; many would say 25/27 is pretty good going!

Enigma: Ah, I remember someone earlier saying Athanasius would call himself "Catholic". Of course --- but not in the Roman Catholic sense. And he was emphatically NOT a Roman Catholic.

And as if to confirm it, an important document issued by the Roman Catholic Church would seem to be suggesting that people like Athanasius are not "Catholic" -- in the Roman Catholic oxymoronic sense of course!

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Enigma: And to confirm the point above, as of today the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the present members of the Church to which Athanasius belonged to be "Catholics", let alone Roman Catholics.

Sheer rubbish!

Enigma: Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".


A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

TBC and to deal with New Testament etc separately.



*NB I am using the expression "The Catholic Church" (with the capitals) in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church tends to claim nowadays or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense. (Edited)

Ubenedictus: sorry my dear, the orthodox christians are regarded as catholics though not in full communion.

Ubenedictus: u are certainly mixing stuff up. Orthodox donot refer to themselves as "orthodox catholic church" to put the word "catholic" there would imply that they are in full communion with the roman see.

Reyginus: My reason being that the catholics these two popes represented saw them as the head.

Take a look at this link..
http://www.christian-history.org/western-great-schism.html#sthash.K8N4wPwfidst

Ihedinobi: ^^ Busted!

chukwudi44:

Nope pal orthodox split from catholicism only during the east-west schism of 1054 CE.

chukwudi44: Conditions for teachings being declared infallible

Statements by a pope which exercise papal infallibility are referred to as "solemn papal definitions" or ex cathedra teachings. Also considered infallible are the teachings of the whole body of bishops of the Church, especially but not only in an ecumenical council[16] (see Infallibility of the Church).

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"

2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority"....)

3. "he defines"

4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"

5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)⁠[17]

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (pope or College of Bishops); it must concern a doctrine of faith or morals; it must bind the universal Church; and it must be proposed as something to be held firmly and immutably. The terminology of a definitive decree will usually make clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful", or through an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.[18]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility