Theophilos
Well-known member
Integrated seating by gender is a relatively new innovation. Early churches and synagogues had separate seating for men and women.
Eastern Churches in Europe and the Middle East keep with traditional practice.
What things in the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox church teachings of TODAY are NOT in the Early Church Fathers' Teachings?
- Thread starter Matt-Slick
- Start date
- Status
Eastern Churches in Europe and the Middle East keep with traditional practice.
keep it up with your anti-catholic sentiments. peace be with you.
how can you expect eastern bishops to attend when the rome council is a local council? this is the reason i am citing the council of florence which is an ecumenical council where you have western and eastern bishops. check it out.
No anti-catholic sentiments at all, just speaking the truth. But your prefer the false claims and lies of your institution.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
Nondenom40
Well-known member
You really don't know your history do you? The eastern church sent 3 bishops because the others were going to Constantinople. YOU were the one promoting Rome 382 as an ecumenical council. Now its Florence in the 1400's? Really? Thanks for caving. Rome isn't an ecumenical council when a whole 3 bishops from half the church attended. As Elaine said to the soup nazi NEXT!
please copy-paste my words saying the rome council is ecumenical. thanks.
Nondenom40
Well-known member
Backtracking are we. Its all you've ever said. Rome 382 has always been your go to when it comes to the apocrypha. Now its not? We're making some headway.
Churchmouse
Member
I can trust them because, first, the OT books were entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:2) and handed down to us. Secondly, the Gospels were handed down from the very beginning and accepted by the churches. Lastly, the other books have the attributes for canonicity, the "divine qualities) but here's where your assumption is wrong-- There was no "infallible" declaration of canon by some outside entity, other than Rome, and that was as a response to the Reformation. Prior to that, there were conflicts within the very Roman Catholic Church itself as to what constituted canon. The group headed by Cardinal Seripando, who held the same view contra the apocryphal books, as Jerome and others (such as Cardinal Cajetan and Ximenes), were in complete disagreement with the reactive "canon" that Trent declared. So, for you to assume that men have to "infallibly" discern what books belong is simply a huge assumption built on your assumptive views on infallibility.
ramcam, there's really no shame in your inability to answer the question, but it is something to think about, which I hope you are doing.
those are general councils in the 3-4th century, but if approved by rome it becomes binding to the whole church. ecumenical councils of florence, 14th century, and trent, 15th century, had the same number of books (73) like those mentioned in the general councils of the 3-4th century.
again, general councils in union with the pope have infallible authority. what is decided is the infallible joint action of the teaching church and the holy spirit. this is the seal of supreme authority even if there is dissent and in the end the mind of the church is to prevail. this is what you cannot or just do not want to understand.
what you state are all generalities. why not give us the specifics on how the nt writings in those times were gathered, sifted, and finally became the27 books of the nt. can you do that by giving names, dates, and places???
all you have is what is made up by the men of the RCC and taught to you.
But, but, they say they're infallible! Don't that count for something? ?
[/SARCASM]
--Rich
nope. well, maybe to show how full of self they are!
and you have nothing if you cannot accept that it was the catholic church that determined the canon of the book (esp. 27 nt) where you based your faith and morals.
I we have everything. It is you who has nothing as your institution cannot be trusted with His word. Your institution has no faith or morals, its fruit is there for all to discern.
wrong, very, very wrong. you are the one with nothing except a false religion based on the deceptions of men. I have Christ, I'm His, part of His body, His church. I have His word to read, study, live by and treasure - and the Holy Spirit to guide and teach me. you don't have those with the RCC - man.
His word says to believe in and follow Him. nowhere does it say to believe in and follow man. The way to Him is His way, not the way of men.
All you have is a pretend way made up by men.
keep on attacking the one true church, all you can do is avoid and deny the historical truth that she determined the canon of the bible (esp. the 27 nt books).
the RCC isn't His one true church. it may be considered the one true church of the RCC, but that's no different than claiming the LDS is the one true church of the Mormons.
all you can do is quote from what the RCC has written or said. you can't support what you believe with scripture.
No you just follow revisionist history. I am not attacking one true church.
see, all you can do is avoid and deny. you cannot refute the historical fact the it was the catholic church through her councils that determined the canon of the bible.
- Status