True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > True2ourselves.com Help > Site Suggestions  > "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-15-2012, 01:26 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuliano View Post
You include some interesting folks in your like, Sid. Some of them did not like each other.

I've read that Eusebius of Caesaria presided over a synod that tried to depose Athanasius of Alexandria -- he refused to attend. A later synod led by Eusebius of Nicomedia succeeded. Oh the quarrels they had then. Today's clerics look sedate and pious by comparison.

Irenaeus of Lyons should be noted for saying that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, appointed by Paul and Peter. Yes, he said that.

Origen and his doctrines were condemned of course by the Second Council of Constantinople -- the very council I wanted to discuss in another context. We could probably argue for days about why Pope Vigililus didn't want to sign on to the canons of that Council; but he did after being imprisoned. So after that, Origen was officially anathema!

Tertullian? Another heretic.

Cyril of Alexandria didn't make it onto your list. He had an interesting life too, starting when he went with his uncle to the synod that condemned and deposed St. John Chrysostom. Years later, at another Council, after John was dead and revered by almost everyone, Cyril couldn't say enough kind things about him.

It may be wise to let sleeping dogs lie.
Just a few points of correction about Constantinople II. Read the acts of the council from Price (expensive, but very good). Vigilius was suspended because he refused to attend the Synod when summoned by it, even though he was in the city, not because of his position, as the council itself says several times. He was not imprisoned but confined to a monastery, as happened with suspended bishops. Again, his suspension had absolutely nothing to do with his position, but in his failing to attend the council. In the end, the council allowed for him to simply reply to the council with his position on the matters, provided that he stopped looming about Constantinople and returned to his own flock in Rome, who had been long without their bishop. He refused to do so, as he did not wish to return to Rome. He did not reply to the council until its close, and was restored to this position afterward.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-15-2012, 02:21 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Just a few points of correction about Constantinople II. Read the acts of the council from Price (expensive, but very good). Vigilius was suspended because he refused to attend the Synod when summoned by it, even though he was in the city, not because of his position, as the council itself says several times. He was not imprisoned but confined to a monastery, as happened with suspended bishops. Again, his suspension had absolutely nothing to do with his position, but in his failing to attend the council. In the end, the council allowed for him to simply reply to the council with his position on the matters, provided that he stopped looming about Constantinople and returned to his own flock in Rome, who had been long without their bishop. He refused to do so, as he did not wish to return to Rome. He did not reply to the council until its close, and was restored to this position afterward.
Sounds like a pleasant fiction to me. A good cover story.

It was really the Emperor calling the shots, I would say, with the Eastern clerics doing his bidding. Who had wanted this council in the first place? Wasn't it Justinian who demanded a council to rubber-stamp what he had already written condemning the Three Chapters? What the Emperor wanted, the Emperor got.

Vigilius was leery about returning to Italy because of the Ostrogoths. It is a fine thing to say he should stop looming and return to Rome. How long did the Patriarchs of Jerusalem reside in Constantinople after the First Crusade? Almost a hundred years Constantinople had to bear us while Patriarchs of Jerusalem loomed?

Why was he there in the first place? As the story goes, Theodora had offered Vigilius money and would ensure he became Pope if he embraced monophysitism. He probably did take the money and he did become Pope; but once back in Rome, he betrayed the Empress. Justinian then sent people who arrested him in the middle of a service and hauled him off to Byzantium. Justinian's hostility to Vigilius was not over the Three Chapters. That was a pretext.

Who presided over this Council? A Patriarch of Constantinople? And under his guidance, they saw fit to render judgment on the lawful Patriarch of the West because he was an inconvenience? And we should think it a mere coincidence that he was set free only he signed on to the Council's findings?

It was raw politics at its worst. That's what I think, and I would say the Pope signed under duress; but if the Catholic Church wants to put their own spin on things, they can call it an Ecumenical Council if they like.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-15-2012, 02:52 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuliano View Post
Sounds like a pleasant fiction to me. A good cover story.

It was really the Emperor calling the shots, I would say, with the Eastern clerics doing his bidding. Who had wanted this council in the first place? Wasn't it Justinian who demanded a council to rubber-stamp what he had already written condemning the Three Chapters? What the Emperor wanted, the Emperor got.

Vigilius was leery about returning to Italy because of the Ostrogoths. It is a fine thing to say he should stop looming and return to Rome. How long did the Patriarchs of Jerusalem reside in Constantinople after the First Crusade? Almost a hundred years Constantinople had to bear us while Patriarchs of Jerusalem loomed?

Why was he there in the first place? As the story goes, Theodora had offered Vigilius money and would ensure he became Pope if he embraced monophysitism. He probably did take the money and he did become Pope; but once back in Rome, he betrayed the Empress. Justinian then sent people who arrested him in the middle of a service and hauled him off to Byzantium. Justinian's hostility to Vigilius was not over the Three Chapters. That was a pretext.

Who presided over this Council? A Patriarch of Constantinople? And under his guidance, they saw fit to render judgment on the lawful Patriarch of the West because he was an inconvenience? And we should think it a mere coincidence that he was set free only he signed on to the Council's findings?

It was raw politics at its worst. That's what I think, and I would say the Pope signed under duress; but if the Catholic Church wants to put their own spin on things, they can call it an Ecumenical Council if they like.
Guiliano. On many topics you are very knowledgable. But right now I feel like a Calculus III teacher arguing with a person who learned up to Algebra II and never read a calculus book about the existence of the fundamental theorem. Read the actual sources, and then I will discuss this further.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-15-2012, 03:17 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Guiliano. On many topics you are very knowledgable. But right now I feel like a Calculus III teacher arguing with a person who learned up to Algebra II and never read a calculus book about the existence of the fundamental theorem. Read the actual sources, and then I will discuss this further.
I would think different people would make different versions of events. Whoever wins gets to write history.

A few points come from Pope Vigilius.

Some come from Wikipedia Pope Vigilius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some come from Catholic Encyclopedia: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Vigilius -- here's some of it.

In order to draw Justinian's thoughts from Origenism, Theodore Askidas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, called his attention to the fact that the condemnation of various representatives of the Antiochene school, who had championed Nestorianism, would make union with the Monophysites much easier. The emperor, who laid much stress upon winning over the Monophysites, agreed to this, and in 543 or 44 he issued a new edict condemning the Three Chapters (see COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE). The Oriental patriarchs and bishops signed the condemnation of these Three Chapters. In Western Europe, however, the procedure was considered unjustifiable and dangerous, because it was feared that it would detract from the importance of the Council of Chalcedon. Vigilius refused to acknowledge the imperial edict and was called to Constantinople by Justinian, in order to settle the matter there with a synod. According to the Liber pontificalis on 20 November, while the pope was celebrating the feast of St. Cecilia in the Church of St. Cecilia in Trastevere, and before the service was fully ended, he was ordered by the imperial official Anthimus to start at once on the journey to Constantinople. The pope was taken immediately to a ship that waited in the Tiber, in order to be carried to the eastern capital, while a part of the populace cursed the pope and threw stones at the ship. Rome was now besieged by the Goths under Totila and the inhabitants fell into the greatest misery. Vigilius sent ships with grain to Rome but these were captured by the enemy. If the story related by the Liber pontificalis is essentially correct, the pope probably left Rome on 22 November, 545. He remained for a long time in Sicily, and reached Constantinople about the end of 546 or in January, 547.

Vigilius sought to persuade the emperor to send aid to the inhabitants of Rome and Italy who were so hard pressed by the Goths. Justinian's chief interest, however, was in the matter of the Three Chapters, and as Vigilius was not ready to make concessions of this point and wavered frequently in his measures, he had much to suffer. The change in his position is to be explained by the fact that the condemnation of the writings mentioned was justifiable essentially, yet appeared inopportune and would lead to disastrous controversies with Western Europe. Finally, Vigilius acknowledged in a letter of 8 Dec., 553, to the Patriarch Eutychius the decisions of the Synod of Constantinople and declared his judgment in detail in a Constitution of 26 February, 554. Thus at the end of a sorrowful residence of eight years at Constantinople the pope was able, after coming to an understanding with the emperor, to start on his return to Rome in the spring of 555. While on the journey he died at Syracuse. His body was brought to Rome and buried in the Basilica of Sylvester over the Catacomb of Priscilla on the Via Salaria.


That's their take on it, and it looks a little white-washed to me as a way of justifying his signing on after refusing -- and still maintaining a Council can't err if a Pope signs on to it.

Last edited by Giuliano : 02-15-2012 at 03:20 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-15-2012, 10:27 PM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I use this link to read what they wrote, in addition to the much more common summaries and claims of what they wrote.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-15-2012, 11:02 PM
Sid
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenic101 View Post
Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I use this link to read what they wrote, in addition to the much more common summaries and claims of what they wrote.

I see it all summed up in Matthew 13:31-32 and set in the backdrop of the surrounding verses 1-52.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-21-2012, 04:21 PM
AHJE's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,014
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

The Early Church Fathers tell us much of the substance pointed to when Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now." (St. John 16:12, DRB)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-21-2012, 10:31 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHJE View Post
The Early Church Fathers tell us much of the substance pointed to when Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now." (St. John 16:12, DRB)
Does this refer to Bishops receiving new dogmas? Let's look.

John 16:1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.


Some of the early Church Fathers were busy persecuting Jews. How could this refer to them in literal terms?

If we take it to mean "churches," would this better refer to Athanasius of Alexandria or to Arius?

3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

And the Trinitiarians perhaps added, "nor the Holy Spirit," as they persecuted Arius and his followers.

4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.

Jesus was talking to his disciples here, not to future generations of Bishops.

5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.


If this chapter refers to the early Church Fathers, we would have to believe they had not Holy Spirit when they were ordained.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.


We know some of the early Church Fathers acted as if they could judge the world. History shows however that they often did the bidding of the Emperors.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.


Apostles or future generations? We find the early Councils claiming that what they taught was not new with them. Bishops would disagree violently, some would be condemned; and then the winners would claim their beliefs were not new but what had been given to the Apostles.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?


Could this refer to the early Church Fathers?

18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith A little while? we cannot tell what he saith.
19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me?
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful , but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come : but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.
22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice , and your joy no man taketh from you.
23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask , and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.


He said this to the Apostles. He had spoken to them in proverbs. Things would be clearer to them later. Yet Catholic theology now has this meaning the Apostles did not have things made all that clear to them. It was left up to later generations, the early Church Fathers, to have things made clearer.

26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. 30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered , every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.


If this applies in any way to future generations, the question has to be who got scattered? Was it the official church, under the protection of Constantine, or was it the heretics who were persecuted and scattered?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-22-2012, 12:11 AM
AHJE's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,014
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

^ Are you really being intellectually honest when you make these questions?

I never said that they were not certain of anything regarding the Truth of God.

The Apostles had the entire deposit of faith, the same TRUST that the Catholic Church has today. They had it in their possession but there is alot that they needed to grow in uderstanding of, which is why Jesus told them that they cannot bear it now. This probably had to do primarily with the Trinity or the Incarnation. These were of primary importance in the first centuries.

I do not know the history behind Arius and his heretical views, but he did cause a lot of division. There were many, many who followed on his side. But it just goes to show that by Divine Providence, the truth prevailed. I can do more research on this, but it seems to me that you favor the underdog when it comes to any relations with the Catholic Church. Arius is probably the greatest heretic of them all. It seems that persons such as these get your vote just because they seemed to you to be persecuted by the Catholic Church. Its as if you sanctify them (I could be wrong, but let me know).

Whenever I mention heresy its because it is relevant to our discussion and not because I'm attacking you. Many times I speak of Heresy in general to show what it is or to show what kinds of things the heretic does. You were never a Catholic right?

How come I don't hear you speaking about the Saints of the Catholic Church? Is there anything praiseworthy that you see in this Fold?

God bless you.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-22-2012, 01:49 AM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Early Church Fathers" as a new TOPIC

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHJE View Post
^ Are you really being intellectually honest when you make these questions?

I never said that they were not certain of anything regarding the Truth of God.

The Apostles had the entire deposit of faith, the same TRUST that the Catholic Church has today.
Now it's my turn to ask if you are being intellectually honest. You can't change things and then claim nothing really changed.

Quote:
They had it in their possession but there is alot that they needed to grow in uderstanding of, which is why Jesus told them that they cannot bear it now. This probably had to do primarily with the Trinity or the Incarnation. These were of primary importance in the first centuries.
Are you saying the Apostles did not know about the Trinity? But later people did?

Quote:
I do not know the history behind Arius and his heretical views, but he did cause a lot of division. There were many, many who followed on his side. But it just goes to show that by Divine Providence, the truth prevailed.
I would call it violence more than Divine Providence.

Quote:
I can do more research on this, but it seems to me that you favor the underdog when it comes to any relations with the Catholic Church. Arius is probably the greatest heretic of them all. It seems that persons such as these get your vote just because they seemed to you to be persecuted by the Catholic Church. Its as if you sanctify them (I could be wrong, but let me know).
I happen to think he was murdered. Violence was not unknown at some of these councils. He was the one thrown out and persecuted. If you want to apply John 16, to whom would it apply better?

Quote:
Whenever I mention heresy its because it is relevant to our discussion and not because I'm attacking you. Many times I speak of Heresy in general to show what it is or to show what kinds of things the heretic does. You were never a Catholic right?
It's an ugly word. And you're idea of what a heretic is relative. Maybe to me, you're the heretic. I could use even stronger words than that, but what good would using harsh epithets do?
Quote:
How come I don't hear you speaking about the Saints of the Catholic Church? Is there anything praiseworthy that you see in this Fold?
I see very little of it when you promote the authoritarian side of the Catholic Church. You seem obsessed with it. Just calling someone a heretic indicates something to me, "I'm right and you're a heretic." Nothing of substance in that. It's name-calling and an attempt to vilify people you disagree with.

I see people vilifying the Catholic Church at times -- in an attempt to polish up their own credentials. I oppose that too. When a Jehovah's Witness attacks the Pope, I don't defend the Pope because I think he's the underdog. I will defend him if I think the criticism is a distortion of the truth.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Authority" and the Orthodox Church Josiah Theology 33 12-14-2014 01:20 AM
Santorum "frankly appalled" by separation of church and state Giuliano Christianity & Politics 2 01-09-2012 06:23 AM
Is the church getting "worldly" in order to reach the world for Christ ? ElpidioLGagolinan General Discussions 50 09-02-2010 03:03 PM
The True "Church" Seeker100 Theology 104 12-17-2009 09:23 PM
Am I "Good Enough" To Join a Church? Anne General Discussions 14 06-25-2009 07:49 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29