Reading the Church Fathers discussion
This topic is about
Treatise I
Fathers of the Third Century
>
Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church
date
newest »
newest »
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Jesus upholds the Scripture. Why not you?"I can see where you might get the impression.
Jesus established his Church, he didn't hand us the Bible. I firmly believe ..."
Nemo, I don't reject Jesus, I don't reject his Church, and I don't reject the Bible she produced. I firmly believe in them. You and I simply see different connections and relationships. As a good Protestant you stand by Scriptures as an independent authority.
Susan wrote: "Who (on earth) decided what exactly would equal the Bible that you hold so dear? The universal Church compiles the Scriptures and recognizes the divine inspiration and authority of the Scripture, because the Church is the dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
And if it was the Catholic Church as I believe, why would you trust them with the actual compilation of the Bible (throwing some out, while keeping some in) and yet, not trust them with the interpretation of such? Does that not seem like a discrepancy?
As I said before, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the universal Church. There is no inconsistency in my position.
Even if I grant that the Roman Catholic Church compiled the Scriptures, it doesn't follow that I must necessarily trust it with the interpretation. There is again a parallel in history. The Old Testament were compiled and transmitted by the Jews, but Christians do not trust the Jewish religious authorities with the interpretation, believing that the latter were not illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Who (on earth) decided what exactly would equal the Bible that you hold so dear? The universal Church compiles the Scriptures and recognizes the divine inspiration and authority of ..."
Exactly....so I think this gets to the crux of the problem.
1) I asked in the other thread when exactly the Roman Catholic Church was born so don't answer it twice obviously. And if you are just going to say at the Schism (which I just remembered you might say), what changed from the universal catholic Church to the Catholic Church to differentiate it at the exact date? Is there a document from that date that addresses the differences because as a Catholic it seems what we learned in the Faith can be documented all the way back to the beginning, so maybe I am missing some big historical part/documentation.
So back to the crux of the problem....
You apparently don't seem to see the Holy Spirit still having any influence/presence in the Church.....I think this is a key distinction.....As a Catholic we do believe (again I thought!) that the Holy Spirit is present and will protect the Church from error...that seems to be a big difference that you seem to confirm with your analogy to the Jews....they truly were a tradition of men at that point. You seem to be putting the Catholic Faith alongside them.....ah......I am starting to understand where you are coming from....
I've been thinking on Cyprian's treatise and how it fits into the greater context of Christian unity. Jesus prayed at Gethsemane that the Church would be one. We've read about the unity of the Church through various documents and how important this was. Cyprian is another stepping stone here. All this hits a crescendo at the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381) from which emerged the Nicean Creed. (During the latter it was finalized, so it really is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, it gets shortened for obvious reasons). In the Nicean Creed Christians gathered as the Body of Christ, the Church, profess what they believe in and who they are. I find it truly amazing that every Sunday most Christians around the world, including some Protestants, still recite this Creed after all these centuries. It has never become obsolete. With this we not only profess our unity and universality as Christians, but our fidelity to Christ.
Susan wrote: "..You apparently don't seem to see the Holy Spirit still having any influence/presence in the Church...."I've said repeatedly that the Holy Spirit dwells in each believer and guides the believers into all truth, whereas you seem to think that the Holy Spirit guide/protect only the leaders of the Church, not every believer. Do I understand you correctly?
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "..You apparently don't seem to see the Holy Spirit still having any influence/presence in the Church...."I've said repeatedly that the Holy Spirit dwells in each believer and guides..."
So I think that is a distinction, you do not believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church, only the individuals. I like to ascertain distinctions, not that one is better than the other per se, but it is hard to even discuss things and compare the merits of different things without clearly defining where and what the differences are, thanks.
Everyone is so quick to jump to either/or. I believe Jesus founded the Church in the way He did with the protection of the Holy Spirit against error in the doctrine, yes. That does not mean I do not believe the Holy Spirit isn't present and available to all of us...the Holy Spirit may aid in understanding if we pray for it, but I do not believe that individuals are protected from error. That gets back to what I was saying before, I do not believe, with the stakes as high as they are, that Jesus would set up a Church without such. It was said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, so that to me shows there is some Divine protection, as there could be no guarantee that mere men could not allow that to happen. The Holy Spirit doesn't force Himself on anyone, so what if all men became atheists....could the Church not in theory disappear on earth if it is just a group of mere men?
I wrote this sort of quick for me,,,I usually ponder these things a little more, but these are my initial thoughts.
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "..You apparently don't seem to see the Holy Spirit still having any influence/presence in the Church...."I've said repeatedly that the Holy Spirit dwells in each believ..."
You didn't answer my simple and direct question: does the Holy Spirit guide every believer or only the leaders in the Church?
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "..You apparently don't seem to see the Holy Spirit still having any influence/presence in the Church...."I've said repeatedly that the Holy Spirit dwells ..."
Huh? What do you mean by 'guide'? Does that mean forcibly? I said that the Holy Spirit is available to all and we can pray for understanding, in which case, I believe the Holy Spirit would guide us in the correct direction being the Holy Spirit.... I do not think every time someone opens the Bible and reads a verse that the Holy Spirit is there over their shoulder "guiding" them if that is what you mean.....that would be protecting them from error and I don't think I believe that....how about all the contradicting views people hold that read the Bible....can the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?
Let me rephrase the question then, does the Holy Spirit protect every believer from error, or only the leaders in the Church?
Nemo wrote: "Let me rephrase the question then, does the Holy Spirit protect every believer from error, or only the leaders in the Church?"I don't think the Holy Spirit protects every believer from error.....I think we see that proven as there are contradictory views and heresy....do you think there is or has ever been heresy? Or everything anyone ever thinks is always on the way to perfect understanding? I don't think the Holy Spirit protects every leader either by the way, as has also been all too frequently, and continues to be, proven....it is only under very rare and special circumstances...
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Let me rephrase the question then, does the Holy Spirit protect every believer from error, or only the leaders in the Church?"I don't think the Holy Spirit protects every believer fr..."
If the Holy Spirit protects neither the average believer nor the leaders from error, how does He protect the Church from error?
Nemo wrote: "Short Bio of Cyprian:https://earlychurch.org.uk/cyprian.php
Novatian:
https://earlychurch.org.uk/novatian.php"
I went back and started reading all these threads again re: Cyprian and the unity of the Church, and I just read this short bio of Cyprian - in it is says, "The papacy was not yet born..." - how is that proven and when does this source say the papacy 'was' born?
On to the short bio of Novatian....
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Re: 2 Peter 3:4, my Navarre Bible says, " 'The fathers' may mean the first generation of Christians, and may also mean Old Testament forebears."My Ignatius Bible says, "the fathers: ..."
You said Bishops are not Apostles.....
(I love all these threads and all this discussion....I know I can be a nudge...but all of this is absolutely fascinating and having people from all different beliefs generates so many things to study and think about, and then all of this actually fits right in with all that is going on currently with in the Catholic Church etc., etc., etc....so anyway, thank you...)
do you think St. Paul was an 'Apostle'? Do you think he was a 'priest'? A 'Bishop'? Just thinking about it myself and wondering if there is any consensus....we had been talking about Apostolic Succession so it sort of got me thinking....
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Re: 2 Peter 3:4, my Navarre Bible says, " 'The fathers' may mean the first generation of Christians, and may also mean Old Testament forebears."My Ignatius Bible says, "..."
The word "apostolos" means to be "sent out," and an apostle is someone how is sent out, like a messenger or delegate. So in this sense anyone can be an apostle. Sometimes the words 'apostle' and 'disciple' are used interchangeably. In the Christian meaning it is someone who is sent out by Christ. This explains why we sometimes attach to the lives of saints the title, apostle to... when they were missionaries.
Looking at the twelve Apostles/Disciples we make a distinction to identify Jesus's inner circle, the ones who were tasked with the Great Commission. Yet they were not the only apostles, messengers of the Good News. St. Paul identifies himself as an apostle in the New Testament, and if this were wrong, I don't think we'd have it in the Bible.
Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Re: 2 Peter 3:4, my Navarre Bible says, " 'The fathers' may mean the first generation of Christians, and may also mean Old Testament forebears."My Ignatius..."
Thank you. So would you say there was only 13 'A'postles? vs. 'a'postles? I was trying to pin down actually regarding the aspect of Apostolic Succession. I thought I recalled Nemo making a distinction somehow when it came to Paul (but I could be completely wrong), but it did make me think twice and want to clarify about what I understood....
Susan wrote: "Thank you. So would you say there was only 13 'A'postles? vs. 'a'postles? I was trying to pin down actually regarding the aspect of Apostolic Succession. I thought I recalled Nemo making a distinction somehow when it came to Paul (but I could be completely wrong), but it did make me think twice and want to clarify about what I understood"Yes, that was me making the distinction for Saint Paul.
I have always been taught that the Apostles are persons appointed by Jesus himself. And Saint Paul expressly writes in several letters about how Jesus called him.
And somewhere in an epistle Saint Paul also expressly states that he did not go to Jerusalem to be appointed by the other apostles, but was independently called by Jesus. (Gal 1:15-17) Actually I thought Barnabas was also such an Apostle.
My own background on this is that I grew up in the Catholic Apostolic church, and I learned as a child that there had been 12 new apostles, ordained by Jesus in 1835 in England, in order to restore the unity of the Church. It was always stressed very much that we were not a sect, because this had been an act of Jesus himself.
Currently I very much doubt what exactly their status and intentions were, and so these letters on Church unity have shed an interesting light on this for me.
But even though we may have been misguided, perhaps they were right in pointing out what would make an apostle: the direct calling by Jesus himself. Although it is of course very hard to verify.
Ruth wrote: "Susan wrote: "Thank you. So would you say there was only 13 'A'postles? vs. 'a'postles? I was trying to pin down actually regarding the aspect of Apostolic Succession. I thought I recalled Nemo mak..."How interesting.... I never even heard of the Catholic Apostolic Church! How exactly did they say Jesus ordained 12 new Apostles in 1835? Just personal inspiration?
By prophecy. See wikipedia for more background, it is quite accuratehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...
I know this is about Cyprian, but I think the view of the bishops was possibly the same by this point in time. Ignatius gives us some insight into the reverence of church leadership and the authority and positions they had in terms of apostle etc:
Letter to the Smyrnians, ch.8:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.
Ruth wrote: "....I have always been taught that the Apostles are persons appointed by Jesus himself.."It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus appoined the Apostles himself. As Kerstin mentioned, the Greek word for apostle means literally one who is sent out, so in that sense, Jesus is the first Apostle, because he is sent by the Father.
Luke wrote: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.."There is a similar verse in Scripture:
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
Ephesians 5:22-23 (NKJV)
To keep the unity of the family and the church, it is necessary that all members honor the head. However, as I understand it, bishops are no more in the position of Christ to the believers, than husbands are to their wives. There is no multi-level hierarchy either.
Well in that Ephesians verse, the word for "head" is better understood as "source" rather than in an authoritative sense, especially as Paul often points back to creation in his arguments. So with that in mind, I'm not sure it's technically the same thing as the role of the bishops etc being compared to the hierarchy of the Godhead
Luke wrote: "Well in that Ephesians verse, the word for "head" is better understood as "source" rather than in an authoritative sense, especially as Paul often points back to creation in his arguments..."And in this verse
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God
1 Corinthians 11:3
I don't think Paul is saying there is hierarchy in the authoritative sense in the Godhead, at least not according to the Trinitarian doctrine.
Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.."T..."
Is not the Church responsible to keep the Deposit of Faith without error? I don't know that the husband has that type of responsibility that the Church does. It seems similar in two ways however-
those in leadership positions should always reflect where they get their authority from
those beneath them should show humility and obedience
but the two ways seem related -----
If those in leadership positions choose to not reflect where they got their authority from,....is one still required to show humility and obedience? I think that is what we are trying to get to the bottom of here, and currently what the Catholic Church seems to be hotly debating even to this day.
Is it humility and obedience for the mere fact of humility and obedience, at all costs - or - is it humility and obedience to Truth, at all costs?
Humility/obedience to the point of death is one thing, for Truth (St. Thomas More seems to apply, as I am reading that right now...)
but humility and obedience for the sake of following a 'leader' if the leader is no longer reflecting Him who allows him to be in that position seems foolish and could lead to another type of death...
Where is there no multi-level hierarchy?
There seems to be bishop-presbyter-deacon all over these writings.
Luke wrote: "Well in that Ephesians verse, the word for "head" is better understood as "source" rather than in an authoritative sense, especially as Paul often points back to creation in his arguments. So wit..."
I have read the Ephesians quote a lot, and got it cognitively...but I 'felt' it more from the way you wrote this, to my core...
wow...if marriage was only understood in our world today like it is meant to be.... what a responsibility....
It has so many ramifications for today - why same sex marriage is an impossibility - it is not about feelings or emotions.... it is about Truth...
the whole 'no communion for those divorced and civilly remarried', if I am understanding that correctly - it is an adulterous relationship; like the Church is the bride of Christ
All these things that we think about and discuss on a daily basis in a seemingly 'current event' sort of way, are really so very profound, and eternally substantial....
As a whole, for being so 'educated' - personally I am paying a ton of money for two college aged kids - one in the Northeast seems to be going backward in thought....anyway......people seemed so much more intelligent and just basically 'sound' in the old days, in a much deeper way - this world seems to be as deep as a piece of tissue, being tossed about in this crazy wind I hear outside.....
Susan wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Re: 2 Peter 3:4, my Navarre Bible says, " 'The fathers' may mean the first generation of Christians, and may also mean Old Testament forebea..."In modern parlance we usually refer to the apostles as Jesus's inner circle. Then you have St. Paul who had a separate calling, so yes, there are thirteen (though by the time St. Paul begins his evangelization Judas Ischariot was long gone). And we have to remember that Jesus's followers were many more. As far as I know in the Eastern Tradition they refer to many more apostles outside the inner circle.
As for the Apostolic Succession, the Apostles founded churches, and I would assume that with it came the ordination of clergy including bishops. They did stay in these places for lengthy periods of time to establish them. I am also thinking specifically of Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch who were both disciples of John the Apostle, both held the title of bishop, and who but John could have ordained them (unless another one of the Apostles played a role)?
Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Re: 2 Peter 3:4, my Navarre Bible says, " 'The fathers' may mean the first generation of Christians, and may also mean Old Tes..."Yes, so I am getting a little confused....aren't all Bishops ordained by someone ordained by someone ordained by someone etc...eventually by an Apostle? So.....any ol' presbyter could not just 'name' himself a Bishop? Is 'ordained' a Bishop the correct term? Is it just 'elevated' to Bishop? So, although Bishops may discuss amongst themselves who might become a Bishop, the whole process would involve the laying on of hands from someone with Apostolic succession, distinct to that of ordination to the priesthood? Sorry for my ignorance.
Susan wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Re: 2 Peter 3:4, my Navarre Bible says, " 'The fathers' may mean the first generation of Christians, and may a..."Bishops have their own ordination. They way I understand it, the appointment of a bishop is not the "becoming" of a bishop but the placement into a particular diocese or office.
There is also Ignatius' quote in "Letter to the Trallians" I believe, "in like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church..."And Hippolytus says, "When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop's command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters are as needful...
and "On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power the receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of the presbyter, he but seals while the Bishop ordains."
Susan wrote: "...Where is there no multi-level hierarchy? There seems to be bishop-presbyter-deacon all over these writings. ."
Since when does writing about close-knit groups of people in one paragraph, or one sentence, necessarily imply multi-level hierarchy?
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "...Where is there no multi-level hierarchy? There seems to be bishop-presbyter-deacon all over these writings. ."
Since when does writing about close-knit groups of people in one pa..."
???
When I said "these writings", I meant everything we have looked at from the beginning of this group. I am not sure what "one paragraph, or one sentence means"; I have consistently seen that idea confirmed throughout our readings..
Are you expressing that you do not believe bishop - presbyter - deacon shows multi-level hierarchy?
We've read about bishops, presbyters and deacons, yes, but the writings don't show multi-level hierarchy, not hierarchy in the sense of rank or ruling authority.
Nemo wrote: "We've read about bishops, presbyters and deacons, yes, but the writings don't show multi-level hierarchy, not hierarchy in the sense of rank or ruling authority."Hmmmm.... ok...
Nemo, could you clarify that? From what I've read it seems clear that the bishop is in charge and the one to listen to in an authoritative sense. Much of Ignatius' letters are saying "do nothing without the bishop" and gives strong warnings to those who disobey or go their own way
Luke wrote: "Nemo, could you clarify that? From what I've read it seems clear that the bishop is in charge and the one to listen to in an authoritative sense. Much of Ignatius' letters are saying "do nothing ..."
I'm not sure my explanation will be satisfactory to you, but I'll give it a try. If I understand it correctly, Ignatius is very concerned about the unity of the church, and his comments about the bishop need to be understood in that context.
Ignatius modelled the unity of the Church on the unity of the Trinity. "As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. Ch.VII. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01...). There is no rank or ruling authority in the Trinity, because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal. In the same way, there is no rank or ruling authority in the Church, we are all members of the body of Christ, equal but different in gifts and ministries.
Nemo wrote: In the same way, there is no rank or ruling authority in the Church, we are all members of the body of Christ, equal but different in gifts and ministries.
I started reading the Acts of the Apostles again, hoping to maybe glean something about the set up of the Church and my Ignatius Bible has a long, sorry, but Biblical compilation re: the primacy of Peter that I thought may apply/be worthy of posting re: rank/authority.
Peter in the Gospels: "Simon Peter is at once the most visible and the most vocal apostle in the Gospels. 1) When the evangelists recount how Jesus selected the 12, they put Peter at the top of the apostolic list (Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14), with Matthew even specifying that he was "first" (Mt 10:2). 2) When the evangelists mention the apostles together, Peter is often singled out from the group in a way that is not done with any other apostle (Mk 1:36; 16:7; Lk 9:32). 3) When the collectors of the Temple tax approached the apostles for the annual half-shekel, they approached Peter as the conspicuous representative of the group (Mt 17:24-27). 4) When Peter spoke with Jesus, he often did so on behalf of the 12 (Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:66-69). 5) Peter was one of the three apostles given special attention by Jesus. Together with James and John, he was chosen to witness the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mk5:37), the Transfiguration (Mk 9:2) and the agony of Jesus in the garden (Mk 14:33). These are also the only 3 disciples whom Jesus re-named(Mk 3:16 and 3:17). 6) On the night of his betrayal, when Satan was about to test the disciples, Jesus told Peter that he had prayed for him personally that he might turn again and steady the faith of his brother apostles (Lk 22:31-32). 7) On Easter morning, Peter and John raced to inspect the empty tomb. Though John outran him, he waited for Peter to catch up and in deference allowed him to enter the tomb first (Jn 20: 3-8). 8) Later that Easter Day, Jesus appeared privately to Peter, making him the first witness of the Resurrection among the apostles (Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5). 9) Lastly and most importantly, Jesus made promises to Peter that he never made to any other apostle. He promised to build his Church on Peter, so that he alone would be the foundation stone of Christ's new and living Temple (Mk 16:18), that he alone would be the keeper of the keys of Christ's kingdom (Mt 16:19), and that he alone would be the head shepherd in charge of Christ's sheep (Jn 21:15-17)
Peter in the Book of Acts: This prominence of Peter in the Gospels continued into the earliest days of the Church. Here we see Peter exercising a level of authority and leadership that was unmatched in the ministry of any other apostle.
1) Soon after Jesus ascended into Heaven, it was Peter who initiated and oversaw the replacement of Judas with another longtime disciple, Matthias, to complete the number of the 12 (Acts 1: 15-26)
2) When the Spirit rained down upon the apostles at Pentecost, it was Peter who delivered the inaugural sermon of Church history to the throngs in Jerusalem (Acts 2: 14-36)
3) When the crowds accepted his testimony and wondered how to respond, it was Peter who urged them to repent and receive Baptism (Acts 2: 37-41).
4) It was Peter who performed the first recorded healing in Church history (Acts 3: 1-10).
5) When Peter and John were arrested and asked to account for their actions, it was Peter who addressed the Sanhedrin and gave powerful witness to the gospel (Acts 4:5-12)
6) It was Peter who handled the first recorded case of ecclesial discipline exercised in Church history (Acts 5: 1-11).
7) When the gospel first spread beyond Judea into the neighboring region of Samaria, it was Peter who brought the Spirit to endorse this new missionary development (Acts 8: 14-17).
8) When God arranged for the first Gentile conversions in Church history, he sent Peter to preach and administer Baptism (Acts 10: 1-48).
9) Lastly and most importantly, when the first recorded council in Church history convened in Jerusalem, it was Peter who stood up to end the debate with a solemn proclamation of Christian doctrine (Acts 15: 6-11).
What is the "Ignatius Bible"? I'm intrigued and possibly want to own it lol
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: In the same way, there is no rank or ruling authority in the Church, we are all members of the body of Christ, equal but different in gifts and ministries.
I started reading the Act..."
Prominence, leadership and authority are different things. I think it is important to distinguish them. Prominence is easy to recognize, but leadership and spiritual authority are not. What does leadership consist in? What does authority consist in? I'm afraid I'm not qualified to write about the subject, having no knowledge nor experience of it.
Susan wrote: "I started reading the Acts of the Apostles again, hoping to maybe glean something about the set up of the Church and my Ignatius Bible has a long, sorry, but Biblical compilation re: the primacy of Peter that I thought may apply/be worthy of posting re: rank/authority."Wow Susan, once it is all compiled together this is impressive. I wasn't aware Peter features this prominently among the twelve apostles in the New Testament, and that's without the Old Testament typology. This isn't just a verse here and a verse there to make a point, but as the commentary says, this is "staggering." When you look at John or Paul, the two theologians, their role is decidedly different than that of Peter. Peter is the leader, the administrator, and spokesperson. What this underscores for me, is that he fulfilled the shepherd's role to an extend as no other apostle did.
Luke wrote: "What is the "Ignatius Bible"? I'm intrigued and possibly want to own it lol"Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament, named after the publisher, Ignatius Press.
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (other topics)Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols (other topics)
The Fathers of the Church: An Introduction to the First Christian Teachers (other topics)
Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries (other topics)
Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church (other topics)
I can see where you might get the impression.
Jesus established his Church, he didn't hand us the Bible. I firmly believe ..."
I understand (I think), different letters and things were being circulated around, some of them eventually confirmed in the canon and some not....there seem to have been all kinds of written pages floating around! But some were not eventually considered inspired, correct?; some that floated right alongside the ones that were considered inspired....so how do you (Nemo) explain how they were confirmed in the canon of the Bible? Who (on earth) decided what exactly would equal the Bible that you hold so dear? And if it was the Catholic Church as I believe, why would you trust them with the actual compilation of the Bible (throwing some out, while keeping some in) and yet, not trust them with the interpretation of such? Does that not seem like a discrepancy?
And then if again, if you believe the perfection of the Bible so much (well deserved), why would Protestants again, add a word, put it back, or switch the books around.... from where did the authority come to do that? But there doesn't seem to be any issue with that somehow...I honestly do not understand.