Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,201-7,2507,251-7,3007,301-7,3507,351-7,356 next last
To: Cronos; Dr. Eckleburg
do you consdier the Apostolic Creed to be a forgery too?

Good example. "Apostolic constitution" is another (APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS, for example, a 2009 document).

7,301 posted on 03/03/2011 5:52:51 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7296 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Oh, that’s rich — do you consdier the Apostolic Creed to be a forgery too? Does this mean that you agree with the unitarians in denying the Trinity?

This comment wins the prize for today!

Hello Reggie. Still skewering the loose arguments, I see.

7,302 posted on 03/03/2011 6:50:33 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7299 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

hmmm... why? Do you as a unitarian believe in the Trinity? Or not?


7,303 posted on 03/04/2011 4:03:12 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7299 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Cronos
(Cronos)Oh, that’s rich — do you consdier the Apostolic Creed to be a forgery too? Does this mean that you agree with the unitarians in denying the Trinity?

(Reggie)This comment wins the prize for today!

Hello Reggie. Still skewering the loose arguments, I see.

Hello Mark. Not really. It's not possible to have a sensible "debate" with one who equates the fake "Apostolic Canons" and the authentic "Apostles/Apostolic Creed".

7,304 posted on 03/05/2011 8:52:37 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7302 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
No one pretends the Apostles wrote the Canons themselves.

Then the same "no one" should not quote them and present them as Canon Law.

The word “pseudo” is often used to qualify instances of unstated authorship in order to distingush them from literal authroship. We have, for example, “Pseudo-Chrysostom”. That is someone whose writings were attributed to St. John Chrysostom but he was not him. This in no way diminishes the value of the writing itself; Pseudo-Chrysostom, despite his unknown identity, is frequently and admiringly excerpted in Caten Aurea, for example. You can ascertain that for yourself by reading at random at the URL which is near my signature.

If you wish to defend pious lies as "truth" that is your prerogative. I prefer facts.

It helps to be familiar with the terminology of the field in which you attempt to opine.

On this we agree. You can begin with learning the vast difference between "The Code Of Canon Law" and the Canons, real or fake, of a Church Council and/or the imaginary "Apostolic Canons".

If you have in mind some distinction between a council promulgating canons for people to obey and Canon Law, please explain what the distinction is. As you see from the documents I showed you, interference across bishoprics was against the canons in the Early Church.

The Code Of Canon Law Code Of Canon Law is a legal set of laws binding (though confusing and often misinterpreted) on the entire Church.

Some Canons of recognized Ecumenical Councils are accepted as "Infallible" while others, especially of local and obscure Councils are possibly interesting but certainly not binding on the entire Church.

The single thing the two have in common is the word "Canon".

7,305 posted on 03/05/2011 9:18:40 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7300 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
If you wish to defend pious lies as "truth"

There is no "lie". The word "pseudo" is an indication that the "Apostolic" in the title needs to be understood "In the spirit of the Apostles", just like recent "Apostolic constitution" is to be understood, and just like quite ancient "Apostolic Creed" is to be understood. In either case there is no attempt to pretend the "apostolic" document is written by the apostles, and so no fraud and no lie.

Looking for lies? Look no further than the evil products of the so-called reformation, starting with the two idiotic solas, sola fide and sola scriptura. To pretend that they exist in the gospel would really constitute a lie.

Some Canons of recognized Ecumenical Councils are accepted as "Infallible" while others, especially of local and obscure Councils are possibly interesting but certainly not binding on the entire Church

Well, of note here is that those canons that are binding can be referred to as canon law even though the current Canon Law was codified (on the basis of pre-existing laws) not that long ago. Second, it is the practice of the Church to promulgate canons when a controversy exists, and otherwise stick to already established custom. So, episcopal sovereignty does not start when a canon is promulgated, but rather if there is a canon about it then it is a reflection of the earlier custom. And so a letter from one bishop to another urging a bishop to reinstate some priests he defrocked would be ordinarily a violation of episcopal sovereignty and not possible as a "pastoral letter" as you claimed. It is therefore, an evidence of papal authority exercised by Pope St. Clement.

7,306 posted on 03/05/2011 11:03:25 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7305 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Hello Mark. Not really. It's not possible to have a sensible "debate" with one who equates the fake "Apostolic Canons" and the authentic "Apostles/Apostolic Creed".

We must all educate the next generation - those who will replace us in our stead in the world. If we fail, then those who come after us will in all probability fail as well. It is really up to us.

7,307 posted on 03/05/2011 6:28:52 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7304 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
If you wish to defend pious lies as "truth"

There is no "lie". The word "pseudo" is an indication that the "Apostolic" in the title needs to be understood "In the spirit of the Apostles", just like recent "Apostolic constitution" is to be understood, and just like quite ancient "Apostolic Creed" is to be understood. In either case there is no attempt to pretend the "apostolic" document is written by the apostles, and so no fraud and no lie.

Rubbish! The so-called Apostolic Constirutions were a collection of documents written in the 4th century which were purported to be written by the Apostles. They were obviously a lie, a forgery, pseudo, false, whatever you want to call it but please don't insult me by pretending "In either case there is no attempt to pretend the "apostolic" document is written by the apostles, and so no fraud and no lie.".

Are you playing a game by saying "there is no attempt..."? By quoting from the "Apostolic Constitutions" you are perpetuating a lie. It's about time to begin playing it straight.

Will your next defense be for the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals and claim they must be understood in the spirit of....whatever?

Looking for lies? Look no further than the evil products of the so-called reformation, starting with the two idiotic solas, sola fide and sola scriptura. To pretend that they exist in the gospel would really constitute a lie.

Very poor attempt at deflection. I'll not bite.

Well, of note here is that those canons that are binding can be referred to as canon law even though the current Canon Law was codified (on the basis of pre-existing laws) not that long ago. Second, it is the practice of the Church to promulgate canons when a controversy exists, and otherwise stick to already established custom. So, episcopal sovereignty does not start when a canon is promulgated, but rather if there is a canon about it then it is a reflection of the earlier custom. And so a letter from one bishop to another urging a bishop to reinstate some priests he defrocked would be ordinarily a violation of episcopal sovereignty and not possible as a "pastoral letter" as you claimed. It is therefore, an evidence of papal authority exercised by Pope St. Clement.

The above is meaningless doubletalk and a pitiful display of lack of understanding.

I have no further interest in wasting my time with one who uses many words to say nothing of value.

7,308 posted on 03/06/2011 10:02:22 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7306 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
The above is meaningless doubletalk and a pitiful display of lack of understanding.

They end up arguing nonsense. They can't keep a thought straight or argue a point to any conclusion. They deflect, dissemble and ignore.

Funny thing is, all they have to do is open their Bible and read it, praying always for the Holy Spirit to guide them.

That they don't condemns them.

7,309 posted on 03/06/2011 12:54:21 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7308 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
collection of documents written in the 4th century which were purported to be written by the Apostles

Not any more than a recent Apostolic Constitution, or Apostle's Creed are purported to be written by the Apostles. We are apostolic church. Everything we do is apostolic.

meaningless doubletalk

Canons are canons. The Church had them since the decisions of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) were promulgated. If you have any questions, please ask them, and there is no need to get cross with me.

7,310 posted on 03/06/2011 5:21:21 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7308 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
Canons are canons. The Church had them since the decisions of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) were promulgated. If you have any questions, please ask them, and there is no need to get cross with me.

I'm not cross, simply tired of the meaningless blather. I suggest you ask a knowledgeable person in your Church to tell you the difference between a "canon" of any Church Council and the "Code Of Canon Law".

While you are at it you could also ask how a 155mm Howitzer meets your definition "Canons are canons." You might be surprised to learn that there are different types of "canon".

7,311 posted on 03/07/2011 9:13:53 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7310 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
For your reference:

Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members.

Canon Law

The difference indeed exists between the Canon Law of 1917, of 1983, the earlier Liber Extra (1234), and Canon Law in general. The Canon Law in general is as old as the Church.

A howitzer is a kind of cannon (note spelling). The Canon Law of 1983 is a kind of Canon Law. When discussing the sovereignty of bishops, I was making a reference to Canon Law in general, not any particular codification of it.

7,312 posted on 03/07/2011 7:53:05 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7311 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
A howitzer is a kind of cannon (note spelling). The Canon Law of 1983 is a kind of Canon Law. When discussing the sovereignty of bishops, I was making a reference to Canon Law in general, not any particular codification of it.

My mistake. My example of a howitzer as a "canon" was in error. May I use old age as an excuse?

In any event, using a canon of a forged document as "proof" of anything is proof of nothing.

7,313 posted on 03/08/2011 10:04:45 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7312 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg

As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery.


7,314 posted on 03/08/2011 5:15:24 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7313 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery.

OK, I understand your willingness to quote from a work of fiction such as the Apostolic Constitutions to justify a very imaginative definition of a Church Canon.

7,315 posted on 03/09/2011 9:35:54 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7314 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery.

And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.

Do you still wish to defend the following?

The (Pseudo-fictional-fake-phony) Apostolic Constitutions

7,316 posted on 03/09/2011 10:04:20 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7314 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery.

And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.

Do you still wish to defend the following?

The (Pseudo-fictional-fake-phony) Apostolic Constitutions

7,317 posted on 03/09/2011 10:04:20 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7314 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.

Thank you for all your good and Scriptural illustrations of how Rome follows the doctrines of men.

Fictitious doctrines of men.

7,318 posted on 03/09/2011 10:18:09 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7317 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg

There is nothing fictional or phony in it. Canons 35 and 36 describe what the Church considered law in 400 AD. Therefore, it is still law.


7,319 posted on 03/09/2011 6:54:52 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7317 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
There is nothing fictional or phony in it. Canons 35 and 36 describe what the Church considered law in 400 AD. Therefore, it is still law.

Sad to say, I can't accept you as an authority on the subject. Perhaps you can provide an official Catholic Church position on the subject of the authenticity of the "Apostolic Constitutions".

Until then consider the subject closed.

7,320 posted on 03/10/2011 2:30:56 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7319 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
Why, you read from the Encyclopedia already. Out focus should really be the Canons, and not the entire 8 books, since that is what I used to illustrate sovereignty of bishoprics. Here is the more relevant article, which begins:
A collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 47). They deal mostly with the office and duties of a Christian bishop, the qualifications and conduct of the clergy, the religious life of the Christian flock (abstinence, fasting), its external administration (excommunucation, synods, relations with pagans and Jews), the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage); in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church.

Apostolic Canons

You seem to be confusing the authorship of the books -- unknown, -- with whether they reflect the legal environment of the Early Church, -- they do.

7,321 posted on 03/10/2011 5:55:38 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7320 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
Why, you read from the Encyclopedia already. Out focus should really be the Canons, and not the entire 8 books, since that is what I used to illustrate sovereignty of bishoprics. Here is the more relevant article, which begins:

A collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 47). They deal mostly with the office and duties of a Christian bishop, the qualifications and conduct of the clergy, the religious life of the Christian flock (abstinence, fasting), its external administration (excommunucation, synods, relations with pagans and Jews), the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage); in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church.

Apostolic Canons

For the blind and deaf: From the same link. Please pay attention!

In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable.

Apostolic Canons

If you have difficulty in understang the meaning of "false and untenable" I can't help you.

You seem to be confusing the authorship of the books -- unknown, -- with whether they reflect the legal environment of the Early Church, -- they do.

I am confusing nothing nor, I suspect, do you. If you wish to keep pushing a forgery as "truth" be my guest. Just don't push it off on me.

7,322 posted on 03/11/2011 10:38:02 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7321 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
For the blind and deaf: From the same link. Please pay attention!

In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable.

Apostolic Canons

If you have difficulty in understang the meaning of "false and untenable" I can't help you.

lol. AMEN!, Old Reggie. Thank you for taking the time to read the link offered and prove, from that very link, that the "Apostolic Canons" are forgeries.

7,323 posted on 03/11/2011 1:07:29 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7322 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg

I know, — this is why I did not insist on them originating from the apostles. I posted them as an illustration of the legal environment of the Early Church relevant to your assertion that one bishop coudl write a “pastoral” letter telling another bishop what to do in his diocese.

Please read the above statement and imagine ii in bold, red, and big letters if it helps. It is tiresome to repeat everything several times to you before it sinks in.


7,324 posted on 03/12/2011 10:23:44 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7322 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom

The bottom line is that your own evidence says the Apostolic Canons are fabrications. Bogus. Fiction. Contrivance.

God’s word tells us Scripture is sufficient and “able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Men who go looking for truth outside the Scriptures inevitably stumble on the doctrines of men.


7,325 posted on 03/12/2011 12:04:30 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7324 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
I know, — this is why I did not insist on them originating from the apostles. I posted them as an illustration of the legal environment of the Early Church relevant to your assertion that one bishop coudl write a “pastoral” letter telling another bishop what to do in his diocese.

Please read the above statement and imagine ii in bold, red, and big letters if it helps. It is tiresome to repeat everything several times to you before it sinks in.

OK, I imagined your words to be in bold, red ink, and big letters and I find it to be a big, bold, red, falsehood.

Let's look here: (7319)

There is nothing fictional or phony in it. Canons 35 and 36 describe what the Church considered law in 400 AD. Therefore, it is still law.

The Apostolic Constitutions claims to be directly from the apostles. Therefore, the entire book is fictional and phony, contrary to your claim "There is nothing phony or fictional in it."

7,326 posted on 03/12/2011 3:01:20 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7324 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
your own evidence says the Apostolic Canons are fabrications

No it doesn't. It says the attribution is wrong. The content accurately reflects the legal environment of the Early Church.

Nor is that the bottom line. The bottom line is the laughable assertion by OldReggie that the Early Church did not have canon law, and before that, the equally ignorant claim that it was common practice for one bishop to tell another what to do in his dioocese "pastorally".

7,327 posted on 03/13/2011 10:08:52 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7325 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
The Apostolic Constitutions claims to be directly from the apostles. Therefore, the entire book is fictional and phony

There is no "therefore". Problems with attribution are common to the patristic legacy. Authors rarely stated their authorship; the attribution of the synoptic gospels, for example, is done from tradition. The author of several letters of St.Paul might actually be someone other than St. Paul; the author of the Protoevangelium of St. James is most likely not St. James It is possible that the Liturgy of St. James is likewise an incorrect attribution. We have the voluminous writings of St. Jerome and also of Pseudo-Jerome, of St. John Chrysostom and Pseudo Chrysostom. No originals of these works survive; copyists inserted attributions according to who they believed the author was. It was normal practice, -- the Christian history did not start with the forgery of Romans 3:28 by Luther (now that was really a forgery, the bastard knew very well what he was doing). I believe I explained that to you already a number of times, but of course if you should fail to retain it, I will explain it again.

7,328 posted on 03/13/2011 10:21:28 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7326 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
your own evidence says the Apostolic Canons are fabrications

No it doesn't. It says the attribution is wrong. The content accurately reflects the legal environment of the Early Church.

It actually says "false and untenable...". Spin it any which way and your claim is still false.

Nor is that the bottom line. The bottom line is the laughable assertion by OldReggie that the Early Church did not have canon law, and before that, the equally ignorant claim that it was common practice for one bishop to tell another what to do in his dioocese "pastorally".

Twisting what I said is one thing. an outright lie is another "... and before that, the equally ignorant claim that it was common practice for one bishop to tell another what to do in his dioocese "pastorally." is another.

The case is closed.

7,329 posted on 03/13/2011 1:53:40 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7327 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
It is not up to you to decide which case is and which isn't closed.

false and untenable

The attribution to the Apostles as actual writers is "false and untenable". The work itself is "a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine" and "a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church". Learn to read.

outright lie

it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another, viz "The church of God which sojourns at Rome" to "the church of God sojourning at Corinth. (Reggie 7189)

There was no Canon Law in the early Church! (Reggie 7293)


7,330 posted on 03/14/2011 5:25:54 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7329 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
It is not up to you to decide which case is and which isn't closed.

I, alone, am the one who decides to "close the case" with one who deliberately distorts and/or outright lies about what I have said.

I expect and accept the "spin doctor" routine but I don't accept deliberate lies.

Case closed!

7,331 posted on 03/14/2011 10:13:44 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7330 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom

I quoted what you said. If I misunderstood what you meant, you can explain yourself better, if you so choose.


7,332 posted on 03/14/2011 5:18:44 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7331 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
I quoted what you said. If I misunderstood what you meant, you can explain yourself better, if you so choose.

Please refer to my post #7329 where I accused you of a deliberate fabrication in your post #3927.

(Quote) Twisting what I said is one thing. an outright lie is another "... and before that, the equally ignorant claim that it was common practice for one bishop to tell another what to do in his dioocese "pastorally." is another.

Link= Annalex charges that OLD REGGIE claims it was common practice for one Bishop to tell another what to do in his diocese. OLD REGGIES denies this charge.

If you can show where I made such a claim I will apologize. Certainly it wouldn't be the first mistake I ever made. On the other hand, I expect an apology is in order if the charge, by you, is false.

7,333 posted on 03/15/2011 8:55:54 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7332 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom

In 7189 you said that “it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another, viz “The church of God which sojourns at Rome” to “the church of God sojourning at Corinth”. My point was that it was a legal impossibility. Then the conversation sidetracked into whether or not the Early Church had canon law. Indeed I exagerrated when I said “common practice”. But you did suggest that a bishop could teach another bishop, did you not?


7,334 posted on 03/15/2011 7:44:18 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7333 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
In 7189 you said that “it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another, viz “The church of God which sojourns at Rome” to “the church of God sojourning at Corinth”. My point was that it was a legal impossibility. Then the conversation sidetracked into whether or not the Early Church had canon law. Indeed I exagerrated when I said “common practice”. But you did suggest that a bishop could teach another bishop, did you not?

"But you did suggest that a bishop could teach another bishop, did you not?"

No; however, I will categorically state that a bishop could teach another bishop. Hell, I can teach a bishop a thing or two.

I would appreciate it greatly if you could send me a link to the Canon Law in effect in the 4th or 5th century. Be advised that a reference to a known piece of fiction is of no account.

The following link may be helpful in determining when Canon Law was developed: Canon Law

7,335 posted on 03/16/2011 11:03:33 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7334 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
I will categorically state that a bishop could teach another bishop. Hell, I can teach a bishop a thing or two.

He can, and you can, but not legally. The Letter of Clement was, on the other hand, studied in the Early Church -- to the point of being considered a part of the inspired scripture. No one raised an objection that is was against the canon.

Your link is good in studying the history of Canon Law. From it we (maybe not you personally but competent readers in general) learn, for example,

Until the Church began to enjoy peace, the written canon law was very meagre; after making full allowance for the documents that must have perished, we can discover only a fragmentary law, made as circumstances demanded, and devoid of all system. Unity of legislation, in as far as it can be expected at that period, is identical with a certain uniformity of practice, based on the prescriptions of Divine law relative to the constitution of the Church, the liturgy, the sacraments, etc. The clergy, organized everywhere in the same way, exercised almost everywhere the same functions. But at an early period we discover a greater local disciplinary uniformity between the Churches of the great sees (Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch, later Constantinople) and the Churches depending immediately on them. Further it is the disciplinary decisions of the bishops of the various regions that form the first nucleus of local canon law; these texts, spreading gradually from one country to another by means of the collections, obtain universal dissemination and in this way are the basis of general canon law.

There were, however, in the East, from the early days up to the end of the fifth century, certain writings, closely related to each other, and which were in reality brief canon law treatises on ecclesiastical administration the duties of the clergy and the faithful, and especially on the liturgy. We refer to works attributed to the Apostles, very popular in the Oriental Churches, though devoid of official authority, and which may be called pseudo-epigraphic, rather than apocryphal. The principal writings of this kind are the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" or "Didache", the "Didascalia", based on the "Didache"; the "Apostolic Constitutions", an expansion of the two preceding works; then the "Apostolic Church Ordinance", the "Definitio canonica SS. Apostolorum", the "Testament of the Lord" and the "Octateuch of Clement"; lastly the "Apostolic Canons". Of all this literature, only the "Apostolic Canons" were included in the canonical collections of the Greek Church. The most important of these documents the "Apostolic Constitutions", was removed by the Second Canon of the Council in Trullo (692), as having been interpolated by the heretics. As to the eighty-five Apostolic Canons, accepted by the same council, they rank yet first in the above-mentioned "Apostolic" collection; the first fifty translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus (c. 500), were included in the Western collections and afterwards in the "Corpus Juris".

Canonical collections in the East

a known piece of fiction

Sorry to go back to this, but if you are referring to the Apostolic Constitutions, it is a falsely attributed text which, however, does reflect the legal environment of the time, and its canons are a part of the contemporary Canon Law. It is mentioned in the above excerpt as such. As one can see, it was later incorporated in the "Corpus Juris".

***

Nor is your other assertion (7,287), that St. Clement is not telling the Corinthians what to do, is correct. He accuses the bishops of Corinth directly:

Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continues (46)

Then he urges them to reconcile and acknowledge their transgression

Let us therefore, with all haste, put an end to this (48)

Let us therefore implore forgiveness for all those transgressions which through any [suggestion] of the adversary we have committed. And these who have been the leaders of sedition and disagreement ought to have respect to the common hope. For such as live in fear and love would rather that they themselves than their neighbours should be involved in suffering. And they prefer to bear blame themselves, rather than that the concord which has been well and piously handed down to us should suffer. For it is better that a man should acknowledge his transgressions than that he should harden his heart (51)

Those guilty of the sedition should lose their office and submit to the faithful presbyters:

Who then among you is noble-minded? Who compassionate? Who full of love? Let him declare, “If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away wherever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.” (54)

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. (57)

The execution of this directive is to be reported back:

Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. (65)

From Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

7,336 posted on 03/17/2011 6:12:27 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7335 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
Your link is good in studying the history of Canon Law. From it we (maybe not you personally but competent readers in general) learn, for example,

Rather snarky isn't it? Goodby.

7,337 posted on 03/17/2011 9:01:19 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7336 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

When they lose, all they have left is snark.


7,338 posted on 03/17/2011 10:26:00 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7337 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Dr. Eckleburg; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom

It was fun. Thanks.


7,339 posted on 03/17/2011 4:53:54 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7337 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
I will categorically state that a bishop could teach another bishop. Hell, I can teach a bishop a thing or two.

LOL. Amen!

7,340 posted on 03/17/2011 5:01:19 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7335 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; OLD REGGIE
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim. 3:7.

Imagine, a life devoted to learning, and yet...

7,341 posted on 03/17/2011 5:17:22 PM PDT by smvoice (The Cross was NOT God's Plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7340 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Snark for snark, well done.

I always learn some history from your posts.

thanks..


7,342 posted on 03/17/2011 8:00:47 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7336 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Thank you for reading.


7,343 posted on 03/18/2011 5:15:49 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7342 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I always learn some history from your posts.

Learning to support lies and forgeries may be dangerous to your soul.

The Forgery Mill

7,344 posted on 03/18/2011 12:22:54 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7342 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Ha!

And I always get a laugh from your posts.

How’s that Unitarian Universalism going?


7,345 posted on 03/18/2011 12:49:23 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7344 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Oops, may have spoken to soon.

Does your link indicate you’ve converted to the “Nazarene Way: The Esoteric Teachings of Jesus and the Nazarene Essenes”

Kind of a Gnostic conversion going on here?


7,346 posted on 03/18/2011 12:54:33 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7344 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Oops, may have spoken to soon.

Does your link indicate you’ve converted to the “Nazarene Way: The Esoteric Teachings of Jesus and the Nazarene Essenes”

Kind of a Gnostic conversion going on here?

Nah! Does my liberal linking to Catholic sources indicate I am "going home" to the RCC? :-)

Unitarians feel free to study literature from all sources. Even the NY Times gets it right every now and then.

7,347 posted on 03/18/2011 2:13:32 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7346 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim. 3:7.

Imagine, a life devoted to learning, and yet...

Amen. That is a great verse, isn't it? It all depends on whether or not the mind has been renewed to know the truth or not.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2

And how is a man's mind renewed? By the purposeful work of the Holy Spirit, according to the mercy of God...

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5

7,348 posted on 03/18/2011 2:17:37 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7341 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
This is what I meant to send rather than a boring old smiley.
7,349 posted on 03/18/2011 2:26:22 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7347 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Wow! That was quite an informative site you linked to. I added it to my favorites list for future reading. Thanks.


7,350 posted on 03/18/2011 4:36:38 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7344 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,201-7,2507,251-7,3007,301-7,3507,351-7,356 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson