Looking for ACCURATE Dates

It is sda doctrine that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast.

That is why anti-Catholicism is sda doctrine.

The sda say that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. (They are right on that one.)

Bob doesn't have the nerve to admit that it is doctrine to him that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast because he is afraid that his anti-Catholic brothers will turn on him.

Do a google search - Seventh Day Adventist, Sunday, Mark of the Beast - and see for yourself.

 

Pope Leo I, (A.D. 440 - 461), appears to be in office when the primacy of the Roman bishop is established. I believe the groundwork for the infallibilty doctrine was started here, and with the document from Gregory VII, it certainly looks like papal infallibilty was accepted, if not taught, by 1075.

LEO I

Indulgences don't seem to have a definate beginning, rather a gradual series of steps, from penance, to indulgence. What is certain, is that as early as 380 A.D., the church was honing this doctrine.....

In 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. ad Letojum) declares that the penance should be shortened in the case of those who showed sincerity and zeal in performing it -- "ut spatium canonibus praestitum posset contrahere (can. xviii; cf. can. ix, vi, viii, xi, xiii, xix). In the same spirit, St. Basil (379), after prescribing more lenient treatment for various crimes, lays down the general principle that in all such cases it is not merely the duration of the penance that must be considered, but the way in which it is performed (Ep. ad Amphilochium, c. lxxxiv).

Another practice which shows quite clearly the difference between sacramental absolution and the granting of indulgences was the solemn reconciliation of penitents. These, at the beginning of Lent, had received from the priest absolution from their sins and the penance enjoined by the canons; on Maundy Thursday they presented themselves before the bishop, who laid hands on them, reconciled them with the Church, and admitted them to communion. This reconciliation was reserved to the bishop, as is expressly declared in the Penitential of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury; though in case of necessity the bishop could delegate a priest for the purpose (lib. I, xiii). Since the bishop did not hear their confession, the "absolution" which he pronounced must have been a release from some penalty they had incurred. The effect, moreover, of this reconciliation was to restore the penitent to the state of baptismal innocence and consequently of freedom from all penalties, as appears from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (lib, II, c. xli) where it is said: "Eritque in loco baptismi impositio manuum"--i.e. the imposition of hands has the same effect as baptism (cf. Palmieri, "De Poenitentia", Rome, 1879, 459 sq.).

SOURCE

Now I may be way off, but that's how I see indulgences.

 

Curtis,

Which anti-Catholic source did you get that one out of? Or was it from a long involved study of the writings of the early Church which are readily available and thus no Protestant has an excuse when distorting them. You ignore ingatius of Antioch, Irenaus, Clement of Rome and many many others which clearly indicate that there was already a primacy of rome long before Leo III.

387 Chrystotom:

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren,' ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

Irenaeus


"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian


"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


The Little Labyrinth


"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).


Eusebius of Caesarea


"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).


Pope Julius I


"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).


Council of Sardica


"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).


Optatus


"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).


Pope Damasus I


"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

...

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).


Ambrose of Milan


"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).


Augustine


"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Ephesus


"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

All before Leo.

And there are many more quotes like these.

 

Only know official ones for these:-

1854
1950
1215 Lateran Council (I think)
1870 Vatican I

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Only know official ones for these:-

1854
1950
1215 Lateran Council (I think)
1870 Vatican I

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]The problem with looking at these official dates is that when Protestants use them it implies that before that time it wasn't really believed. Quite the contrary is actually true and the declaration of these things only means that they were being challenged in such a way that the Church had to make them explicitly clear. For each one of those dates you gave there is much evidence that it was believed and considered orthodox teaching long before the date given.

Blessings though

 

thessolian,

Earlier I said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Apocryphal books were ever included in the Jewish canon which was assembled by the scribes of Israel.

In fact,Jewish historian Josephus stated that the Apocryphal books were never included in the Jewish canon.

And all you can say is it must be true because Rome says that it is true:

You offer absolutely no evidence that demonstrates that the books of the Apocryphal were even included in the Jewish canon of the Jews in Israel but instead you expect us to believe it because Rome says that it is true!

Typical!

In His grace,--Jerry

 

You offer absolutely no evidence that demonstrates that the books of the Apocryphal were even included in the Jewish canon of the Jews in Israel but instead you expect us to believe it because Rome says that it is true!

Typical!

In His grace,--Jerry </font>[/QUOTE]I do except what the Church teaches on the issue, yet I have also studied it and found what they have said to be true so it is you that posts nonsense. I have offered much evidence in other threads. Just haven't gotten around to it with your specific questoins.


Here are some articles I have read on this issue in the past. It is all I feel is worth wasting my time on with you as you are apparently not open to anything I have to say.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htmhttp://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/dindex.html

Here is a list of NT verses by Jesus and the Apostles, known by their wording, which differs from other canons to have come from the septuagint that is known to have contained the Apocrypha.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Earlier you said:

"Here are some articles I have read on this issue in the past. It is all I feel is worth wasting my time on with you as you are apparently not open to anything I have to say.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htmhttp://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/dindex.html"

thessolians,

You should check your sites before you post them.I clicked on this site and nothing happens.

You also said:

Here is a list of NT verses by Jesus and the Apostles, known by their wording, which differs from other canons to have come from the septuagint that is known to have contained the Apocrypha.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html"

Again,nothing here proves that any of the Apocryphal books were ever included in the canon put together by the scribes in Israel.

It is obvious that you have no interest in the truth but that you will believe anything,no matter how ridiculous,just because Rome says that it is true.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

Jerry:

You are assuming that the Jews had a uniform closed canon. This is not true.

According to the book Scribes and Schools__the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures by Philip R. Davis Professor in the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield, England:

The idea of a closed Jewish canon that the Protestants can point to, and assume was always there, did not exist at the time of Christ. The Hebrew Old Testament was not uniform or closed.

God Bless

 

Dear Jerry,

Looking at Thess's post, and the link that didn't work, it looks as if he might accidentally have run two links together into one.

Try them separately, and they might work better:

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/dindex.html
and
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

Hope this helps,

Mark

 

Kathryn,

Evidently Jerome was not of that opinion.

Joseph was a Jew and he knew what was contained in the OT canon.Eusebius (a early Christian), by quoting Josephus' view of "only twenty-two books," lends his support to this Jewish view (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966, p. 97). Eusebius also quotes Origen (185-254), an early Christian scholar, who said that "it should be observed that the collective books, as handed down by the Hebrews, are twenty-two, according to the number of letters in their alphabet" (Ibid, p. 244).

You might ask,can the testimony of Josephus be trusted?

Here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says about him:

"The early Christians were zealous readers of Josephus's "History of the Jews", and the Fathers of the Church, such as Jerome and Ambrose, as well as the early ecclesiastical historians like Eusebius, are fond of quoting him in their works. St. Chrysostom calls him a useful expounder of the historical books of the Old Testament"!

Here is more from the same source:

"The fact that the "Antiquities" testifies to the truth of Divine Revelation among the Jews as among the Christians, and confirms the historical facts related in the Bible by the incontrovertible testimony of pagan authors, renders this work of Josephus of extreme value for the history of the chosen people".

Josephus said that the writings done in the intertestamental period "are not of equal merit of the earlier writings because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets."("Against Apion 1:8")People knew that after Malachi there were no inspired writers.

Again,Jerome (of whom the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says that "the Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient exegetes") said:

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not in the canon"(Jerome,"Preface to the Books of the Kings").

In His grace,--Jerry

 

Jerome included the books in the Catholic Bible that were in the Septuagint that the early Christians were using. The number of “canons’ that the Jews were using in various places contributed to the discussions of what is “inspired by God” and should be in the Christian Bible. Protestants point to a singular “Jewish canon” that did not exist.

From Scribes and Schools The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures Philip R. Davies Professor in the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield, England.

The Jewish canon was not closed. It was not a singular canon. There were numbers of canons or collections, breaking up into other canons.



God Bless

 

"It is obvious that you have no interest in the truth but that you will believe anything,no matter how ridiculous,just because Rome says that it is true."

Trust not in your own understanding Jerrys. It's a proverb. 3:5. God will give us shepherds who will give us knowledge and understanding. It's a scripture verse. Jer 3:15. Trust not in men like Jerrys Shugart. Psalm 119. Now dazzel us with some scripture since that is what you guys are supposed to be good at. Preach that Gospel of love you have in your heart to us. I thought you guys were supposed to rebuke and correct us with scripture. Your horrible historians. Of course you don't have much to work with because before 1600 there were none of you.

Blessings

 

Thess...

I said Leo I, not Leo III.

The info came from the New Advent site, I would have thought you would follow my links. That's where they lead. You may even be familiar with that site.

Also, I made a point not to reflect any personal rancour in my posts here, thanx for letting me know I did the right thing. If it's insults you want, I can certainly oblige. But I thought this may be a discussion. My mistake.

And again, I said my info might be misunderstood, or even wrong. I see my posts asking for correction.

Also, Leo I's history shows that he exercised the primacy, and the posts wou put up only hint at it. The earliest I found of a definate primacy was from my study of Leo I, from a catholic website.

 

From my link on LEO I.....


"...the complaint was raised that Bishop Celidonius of Besançon had been consecrated in violation of the canons–the grounds alleged being that he had, as a layman, married a widow, and, as a public officer, had given his consent to a death sentence–Hilary deposed him, and consecrated Importunus as his successor. Celidonius thereupon appealed to the pope and set out in person for Rome. About the same time Hilary, as if the see concerned had been vacant, consecrated another bishop to take the place of a certain Bishop Projectus, who was ill. Projectus recovered, however, and he too laid a complaint at Rome about the action of the Bishop of Arles. Hilary then went himself to Rome to justify his proceedings. The pope assembled a Roman synod (about 445) and, when the complaints brought against Celidonius could not be verified, reinstated the latter in his see. Projectus also received his bishopric again. Hilary returned to Arles before the synod was over; the pope deprived him of jurisdiction over the other Gallic provinces and of metropolitan rights over the province of Vienne, only allowing him to retain his Diocese of Arles.

These decisions were disclosed by Leo in a letter to the bishops of the Province of Vienne (ep. x). At the same time he sent them an edict of Valentinian III of 8 July, 445, in which the pope's measures in regard to St. Hilary were supported, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church solemnly recognized "Epist. Leonis," ed. Ballerini, I, 642"

That's the first time I see primacy in the New Advent site, but I will keep looking.

 

I cannot find anything declaring the immaculate conception before...

Finally in 1854, with the Bull Ineffabilis, Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: ".. We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful" (DS 2803).

Also.....

The proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception expresses the essential datum of faith. Pope Alexander VII, in the Bull Sollicitudo of 1661, spoke of the preservation of Mary's soul "in its creation and infusion into the body" (DS 2017). Pius IX's definition, however, prescinds from all explanations about how the soul is infused into the body and attributes to the person of Mary, at the first moment of her conception, the fact of her being preserved from every stain of original sin.

SOURCE

I'm sure it's mentioned before this, but I could be wrong.

 

The point you are missing is regardless of whether primacy was explicitly defined at a particular time, it was being practiced prior to that time. Oral tradition is by nature Oral (duh) and so it does not have to be explicity written dow. That is what my quotes above show. Clement's orders to the Cornithians clearly shows primacy. Irenaus and Ignatius speak of the Roman See being a model for the rest of the Churches and Irenaus quite clearly recognizes it's authority in the quadramecian heresy even though he disagrees with the Popes stance. He never argues with the Popes right to excommunicate them. I meant Leo I but had Leo III in my head over another issue I am studying.
You will never come to a knowledge of the truth Curtis (not unless God gives you the grace) because you only hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see.

Blessings

 

So you can level false charges against me because you have something else in mind. Very nice. How about those sources I posted ? Pretty anti-RCC aren't they ? I don't expect you to apologize.

Dr. Bob asked for specific dates, when they became doctrine, but it doesn't look like our RCC friends want to discuss anything. So I will put up what I find. If it's wrong, or inaccurate, try posting up something concrete, and put the insults away.

And God did give me the grace to open up my eyes, and heart, to the true gospel of Christ, contained only in scripture.

 

Purgatory seems to be another doctrine that came to be in a series of steps....

Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "'that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life;

Source

I can't find a specific date, but I found a very interesting quote on that page....

How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").

Very interesting.

 

I guess it's the accusation of you being an anti-catholic that your peaved about. Perhaps your conscience bothering you. The quotes you posted were not what was bothering me but your spin above it. This is what I was referring to.

posted November 14, 2003 09:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope Leo I, (A.D. 440 - 461), appears to be in office when the primacy of the Roman bishop is established. I believe the groundwork for the infallibilty doctrine was started here, and with the document from Gregory VII, it certainly looks like papal infallibilty was accepted, if not taught, by 1075."

This is not what the article says. This is a spin out of one of the anti-catholic gems such as Boetner's book of lies that I have seen before. Perhaps you don't even know which one it comes from.

"The primacy of the Roman Church was thus MANIFEST under this pope in the most various and distinct ways. "

Manifest and begin are two different things. You don't understand developement of doctrine and so you see something from the Catholic encyclopedia and you spin it to say begin. The quotes that I posted above refuting your starting date for the doctrines of primacy and infallibility beginning (as you stated, not the article) support what the article says and its intent. Not your anti-catholic spin of it.
You must of course put your own spin on things. Your rantings toward me only support what I have said.

Blessings

[ November 15, 2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]