The Gospel of Judas (Your views)

[dacs]

---

from council of nicea to the last council which is the 2nd vatican council..... all catholic.

Mosimos, I'm not sure of this but I think you need to re-check when the Catholic Church was first established. The first canon in Nicea I believe have been centuries long before Catholicism was founded. I suppose you meant Christianity.

From the Council of Jerusalem (recorded in the Acts of the Apostles) to the Second Vatican Council, all of them are convoked by the Catholic Church.

Incidentally, hear what canon xxxix (Arabic canon attributed to the first ecumenical council of Nicaea) said :

Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

That did not support your case, n'gel.

[dacs]

A little information on councils/synods:

Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the Church, or part of the Church, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at Jerusalem, and throughout her whole history whenever faith or morals or discipline are seriously threatened. Although their object is always the same, the circumstances under which they meet impart to them a great variety, which renders a classification necessary. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds of synods are distinguished.

1. Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.
2. The second rank is held by the general synods of the East or of the West, composed of but one-half of the episcopate. The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.
3. Patriarchal, national, and primatial councils represent a whole patriarchate, a whole nation, or the several provinces subject to a primate. Of such councils we have frequent examples in Latin Africa, where the metropolitan and ordinary bishops used to meet under the Primate of Carthage, in Spain, under the Primate of Toledo, and in earlier times in Syria, under the Metropolitan -- later Patriarch -- of Antioch.
4. Provincial councils bring together the suffragan bishops of the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province and other dignitaries entitled to participate.
5. Diocesan synods consist of the clergy of the diocese and are presided over by the bishop or the vicar-general.
6. A peculiar kind of council used to be held at Constantinople, it consisted of bishops from any part of the world who happened to be at the time in that imperial city. Hence the name synodoi enoemousai "visitors' synods".
7. Lastly there have been mixed synods, in which both civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries met to settle secular as well as ecclesiastical matters. They were frequent at the beginning of the Middle Ages in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. In England even abbesses were occasionally present at such mixed councils. Sometimes, not always, the clergy and laity voted in separate chambers.

Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the Church organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of bishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connection. They were most frequent in the fourth century, when the metropolitan and patriarchal circumscriptions were still imperfect, and questions of faith and discipline manifold. Not a few of them, summoned by emperors or bishops in opposition to the lawful authorities (such as that of Antioch in 341), were positively irregular, and acted for evil rather than good. Councils of this kind may be compared to the meetings of bishops of our own times; decrees passed in them had no binding power on any but the subjects of the bishops present, they were important manifestations of the sensus ecclesiae (mind of the Church) rather than judicial or legislative bodies. But precisely as expressing the mind of the Church they often acquired a far-reaching influence due, either to their internal soundness, or to the authority of their framers, or to both.

It should be noted that the terms concilia plenaria, universalia, OR generalia are, or used to be, applied indiscriminately to all synods not confined to a single province; in the Middle Ages, even provincial synods, as compared to diocesan, received these names. Down to the late Middle Ages all papal synods to which a certain number of bishops from different countries had been summoned were regularly styled plenary, general, or universal synods. In earlier times, before the separation of East and West, councils to which several distant patriarchates or exarchates sent representatives, were described absolutely as "plenary councils of the universal church". These terms are applied by St. Augustine to the Council of Arles (314), at which only Western bishops were present. In the same way the council of Constantinople (382), in a letter to Pope Damasus, calls the council held in the same town the year before (381) "an Ecumenical synod" i.e. a synod representing the oikoumene, the whole inhabited world as known to the Greeks and Romans, because all the Eastern patriarchates, though no Western, took part in it. The synod of 381 could not, at that time, be termed Ecumenical in the strict sense now in use, because it still lacked the formal confirmation of the Apostolic See. As a matter of fact, the Greeks themselves did not put this council on a par with those of Nicaea and Ephesus until its confirmation at the Synod of Chalcedon, and the Latins acknowledged its authority only in the sixth century. (All texts in dark blue are taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm)

Note that the First Council of Nicaea is an ecumenical council - the first of its kind. Therefore, this council is under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. In this council, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester.

[mosimos]

Mosimos, I'm not sure of this but I think you need to re-check when the Catholic Church was first established. The first canon in Nicea I believe have been centuries long before Catholicism was founded. I suppose you meant Christianity.

When Jesus Christ told Peter that Peter upon this rock I will build my Church, that was the beginning of the Catholic Church. There is only one Church established by God and that is the Catholic Church although it has undergone some changes for the past 2000 years. Its still the original Church.

[Gwynhuever]

Mosimos, I'm not sure of this but I think you need to re-check when the Catholic Church was first established. The first canon in Nicea I believe have been centuries long before Catholicism was founded. I suppose you meant Christianity.

When Jesus Christ told Peter that Peter upon this rock I will build my Church, that was the beginning of the Catholic Church.Â* There is only one Church established by God and that is the Catholic Church although it has undergone some changes for the past 2000 years.Â* Its still the original Church.

...yeah and the changes it has undergone does not make it in accordance to Christ's ORIGINAL teachings and intentions anymore......

[shoeless_rebel]

Mosimos, I'm not sure of this but I think you need to re-check when the Catholic Church was first established. The first canon in Nicea I believe have been centuries long before Catholicism was founded. I suppose you meant Christianity.

When Jesus Christ told Peter that Peter upon this rock I will build my Church, that was the beginning of the Catholic Church. There is only one Church established by God and that is the Catholic Church although it has undergone some changes for the past 2000 years. Its still the original Church.

...yeah and the changes it has undergone does not make it in accordance to Christ's ORIGINAL teachings and intentions anymore......

how can it be still the original church when it has undergone alot of changes the past 2000 years..? once a thing is changed/altered it can no longer be called original.

[flik]

the sad thing there is we are too literal about the gospel texts...i guess thats the root of every religion debate.

wether you are christian,muslims,gnostics,buddhist or whatever,we all have rules and principles to live by.right? and that what i think is the purpose of every scripture...

you may believe in an ominpotent one or not but as long as you do what is right and logical then i guess we will not be arguing on which religion is correct or wrong.

all gospels are not made to harm the humanity...just read the definition of this word para mahibalo mo.Judas also has his point.he may have have other story but the bottom line is he preaches or says what is right and holds true for other gosples.

the main purpose of religion is salvation.am i right or am i right?so why are we debating on this if we know we have a common destination?same ra gud na sa byahe,we take different paths but maabot ra ghapon ta in a common destination.

in short make love not war....

[n`gel]

@mosimos: My mistake about the councils. Yes, indeed they are all catholic. That's why I said I'm not sure of it. What I had in mind was about Catholicism and its roots.

In this line, other christian denominations like protestants do not agree that the roman catholic church WAS the early church. To them, catholicism was established during Constantines' reign, 300 years after the death of Christ. To the catholics, Peter was the first pope. But there weren't popes in the early church. There were only bishops and priests. And, there was no account that Peter referred himself that he has authority over a church. Not one account. Neither did Paul, no reference to Peter in Rome to have church authority. Instead, Peter regarded himself as a servant, not a leader. While catholicism is centered in papal authority.

Before Constantine, christians were highly persecuted. The apostles who started Jesus' preachings in different places were also accounted to have a sad fate, Peter, beheaded in Rome. Although many historians disagree that Constantine was indeed converted, the fact remains that he wanted to have a religion. Thus, organized religion existed. Catholicism. The canonical councils were of course part of their religious structure. Books supporting Catholic doctrines were added.

Then on, suddenly christianity meant power. Accounts of persecution against other denominations like gnostics were suppressed.

[dacs]

In this line, other christian denominations like protestants do not agree that the roman catholic church WAS the early church.

Where did you ever get such an idea? I bet it is not from reputable history books. How could the Christians of the early church could be anything but Catholic? They all have Catholic bishops, Catholic priests, Catholic doctrines, Catholic rituals, etc. Read the Acts of the Apostles. It tells you that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians at Antioch. How could these Christians have the belief of Bible-alone as the sole rule of faith when they don't have the Bible you have now? Like it or not, you are just forcing the issue without historical or biblical support.

To them, catholicism was established during Constantines' reign, 300 years after the death of Christ.]

Darn, you should not be reading the books where you get this 'information'. Hear the words of Ignatius of Antioch (A.D> 110) in his epistle to the Romans:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..."

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), in his work 'Against Heresies', said:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

You should also read 'The Unity of the Church' (A.D. 251/256) by Cyprian:

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided."

To the catholics, Peter was the first pope. But there weren't popes in the early church. There were only bishops and priests.

Oh my!

Let us see to your assumption. Read Matthew 16:15-19. Most Protestants would avoid the Catholic interpretation of these verses. Unfortunately, it would not hold. In insisting that the Greek Petros means small stone and not rock, they forgot the Jesus may be speaking in Aramaic. In Aramaic, the rendition of Peter would be Cephas - and that is the name St. Paul used to call Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and in Galatians 1:18. The early Church recognized that Peter is the rock upon which Christ build His Church.

Take note also that Matthew 16:15-19 also mentions the giving of the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Now, read Isaiah 22:15-25. Eliakim became the most powerful man in the realm - second only to the king. Note also that such office did not die with Eliakim. It was actually passed along to another. When you read Revelations 3:7, remember that the keys belong to Jesus Christ and He is simply delegating the authority to Peter. Eliakim to Peter, simple topology.

Let us study Luke 22:31-32. Christ prayed for Peter that his faith may not fail. Once strengthened, Peter must then strengthen his brethren. Only to Peter! How about John, the beloved disciple? No. Only to Peter!

Now, read the Acts of the Apostles. What do they do when there is doctrinal dispute among the believers? They call a council; the first of which - the Council of Jerusalem - was recorded in the Acts of the Apostle. Did St. Paul decide on his own? Peter settled the dispute; James affirmed Peter's pronouncement as the bishop of Jerusalem. That is always the privilege of the local bishop where a council is held.

And, there was no account that Peter referred himself that he has authority over a church. Not one account.

Read Acts 10:9-43. St. Peter sees a vision of the Gentiles' acceptance into the Church three times before he accepted what the vision implied. The Holy Spirit simply will not let Peter remain in ignorance or error. This is singularly the most vivid and immediate illustration of infallibility. Note that it was St. Peter who was the recipient of this supernatural intervention – not St. Paul, who was at the heart of the controversy, nor St. James, who was Bishop of Jerusalem where the First Council was to be held. Peter needed to give his assent before the teaching could be promulgated by the Church.

Tertullian once wrote of Peter in this manner :

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called, 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth'?"(On Prescription against Heretics, A.D. 200)

Neither did Paul, no reference to Peter in Rome to have church authority. Instead, Peter regarded himself as a servant, not a leader. While catholicism is centered in papal authority.

Read Romans 14:1-3. Are you saying that the papal authority does not come from God? If not, then you are being biblical. If it does, then what it the problem? How would you then interpret Hebrews 13:17? The letter to the Hebrews is addressed to the Hebrews who are now Christians. Who are the leaders referred to here? Is not St. Peter part of these 'leaders'? Leaders are ordained by God. Even the Apostle John acknowledged the function of leadership in 1 John 4:6.

Before Constantine, christians were highly persecuted. The apostles who started Jesus' preachings in different places were also accounted to have a sad fate, Peter, beheaded in Rome. Although many historians disagree that Constantine was indeed converted, the fact remains that he wanted to have a religion. Thus, organized religion existed. Catholicism. The canonical councils were of course part of their religious structure. Books supporting Catholic doctrines were added.

Pretty funny!

Even before Constantine came into the picture, the orthodox bishops are all Catholics. Please read the 'real' history, and not those given to you by some pastors who should have known better.

Then on, suddenly christianity meant power. Accounts of persecution against other denominations like gnostics were suppressed.

'Other denominations'? You mean 'Protestant' denominations? You are not trying to be funny, are you?

[Gwynhuever]

na padung na sad ni lantugi....di na sad mag human....

in my own opinion...all the sages (Christ, Buddha, Mohammad) ...all preached the same thing.....compassion, forgiveness, etc....but most of all LOVE....nagubot lang ni pag abot sa mga maayong laki nga gipang tuis ang TRUTH to suit their own purpose....nya pina document dayon with all the councils etc....

si Galileo bitaw was accused of accursed heresy....it took the church 359 years later to exonerate him.....gi gutay2 tawn si Galileo pag 1663 during the Inquisition...finally pag 1992...ni angkon ang Church nga sayop sila.....aw hulat lang ta ....basin another 3,000 years later mo angkon sad ang church sa uban pa nilang mga sipyat...unsaon unfortunately close mindedness is often undone much much more slowly....individuals who never question their assumptions and beliefs are in the same way close minded....how can we assimilate new observations and new knowledge when our minds are blinded by beliefs and by untested old ideas?

[n`gel]

@dacs: There's no need to insult me dacs. If I planned to be funny I could have just cracked a good joke in the humor section, but i hardly even go there. I suggest you watch your words or you might regret it. I think it's unexusably rude for somebody to say you're funny when you were pretty serious in the discussion.