I realize that this is a Catholic board, but I would like to pose a question to the Protestants here: Why do Protestants revere the Bible as sacred and the one true word of God when it was assembled and deemed the Word of God by the Catholic Church?

(I would like honest answers from our Protestant friends; this is not a "baited question", it is curiosity.)

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), April 21, 2004.

To be Honest then, the "Catholic" Church of the earlier Centuries wa snot called such, nor did it actually give the Bible its posiiton.

The Nicean Counsil, I beelive, was where it was compiled, however, before this cunsil, you had the works within the bible alreayd beign read as Scriptures.

Let me begin at the Begining. No CHurch cannonised the Old testement. The Counsil of Carthage did about 4 Centuries BEFORE Christainity came about. The Jewish Canon was set by Jews, we Christaisn merely inhereted it.

Thus, Genesis through Malachi in the Old testement is not really a Cahtolic Proerty, and anyone hwo claims the Cahtlic Church gave us that part of the Bible is simpley grossly in error.

The queastioned books, the seven additional books Cahtolics possess that are not in Protestnat Bibles, ar elikewise not in the Jewish Cannon, and Rabbinical/Pharaseeac Judaism, form which Modern Judaism emerged, never recognised them as scrpture. They appear in the Greek Translation, the Septuegent, and where used by some sects of Jews int he Diapsora, but rejected by most.

In the early Second Century they where formally renounced.

( Likewise, dispite what most Cahtlcis seem tot hink, even the Catholic Chruch did not actually consider them ful cannon until much later. Several within the Catolic Chruch, including St.Jerome, felt they where not inspired. The matter was descided upon at the Counsil of Trent.)

Nonetheless, and not to enter excruciating detail about the Old testement, I think no one will disagree that it was not compiled by the Cahtolic Chruch.

Now, as tot he New testement. Te Letters of Paul and the Gosples, as well as Acts, where read regularly by Chrisains for Centuries. They where nto considered part of a single book, but rather where scattered, different books. Plural. However, most, if not all, of the New testement was generally agreed upon by the early Christaisn long before the counsil took place, And remember, Protestants do not beelive the Cathlci Church was the Oriigonal Chruch foudned 2000 years ago disrecly by Christ. Not to offendm but you asked and his is a crucial detail. Catholisism is seen as emerging slowly from Chrisyainity, slowly permutating until it becoems what it is now.

Now, their where ony a few disputed books. The letters to timothy and Titus, called "The Pastoral Epistles", and the book of Hebrews, where disputed as scripture, as was the Book of Philimon. Hebrews because of its unknown authorship, Philimon becuse it was a personal letter addressign a spacific situation. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus becuase they where private and not open letters.

Likewise, the Revelations, or apocalypse, was also disputed.

Other than that however, the rest where not disputed, and seen clealry as scripture already.

The counsil largley just affeirmed the scruptures, and combined them into a single Codex.Later this bound volume woudl be called "The Scriptures" and "The Bible".

Now, as to this beign a Cahtlic Coiunsil, Protestants beelive,a nd I know I shall get heat form this, that Catholisism as it is to-day wa snot in evidence at he time. Rather, this was an early Church meeting, before Catholisism evolved.Many Protestnats recognise the efforts of ther Early Chruch fathers, but reject Cathlisism which took on its complete form around 360 AD, and continued to develop throughout the Middle ages, an even today.

Since the counsil itsself did not call itsself Catholic, and since no one called "Pope" showed up, it is reasonable to make a istorical case that the counsil was a general gathering of Chruches, and not nessisarily a Cahtlic Counsil.

Now, I will be yelled at and cursed and asked to leave the board. However, this is the answer you soiught.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Zarove said: Now, I will be yelled at and cursed and asked to leave the board.

I hope not. I think it's good to get your perspective as a non- Catholic. People may say that you're wrong, but at least we know the other side. Indeed, I find it helpful to know what you say as a non- Catholic. I think you presented it rather respectfully, besides the fact that J Biscuits asked for this answer.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.

"To be Honest then, the "Catholic" Church of the earlier Centuries wa snot called such, nor did it actually give the Bible its posiiton".

A: The earliest known written record of the early Church being called the Holy Catholic Church dates from 107 A.D., in the writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who knew the apostles John and Paul personally. That same Church and that Church alone, 4 centuries later, defined the Canon of Scripture for all time.

"The Nicean Counsil, I beelive, was where it was compiled, however, before this cunsil, you had the works within the bible alreayd beign read as Scriptures".

A: The Canon of Scripture was formally defined at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., after much of the preliminary work had been done at the Council of Hippo in 394 A.D. Before this council, some of the works within the Bible, such as most of the letters of Paul, were indeed universally used by the Church. Other writings which became part of the Canon were widely disputed by various local churches, and outright rejected by many. And, writings which are NOT part of the Canon were also disputed, and were used as scripture by many local churches. It was exactly because of this state of confusion regarding the scriptures that the Pope called the councils to settle the questions once and for all.

"No CHurch cannonised the Old testement. The Counsil of Carthage did about 4 Centuries BEFORE Christainity came about. The Jewish Canon was set by Jews, we Christaisn merely inhereted it."

A: That is essentially correct. By the decision of the bishops of the Catholic Church assembled at Carthage in 397, the entire Jewish Canon was accepted as part of the Christian Bible.

"The queastioned books, the seven additional books Cahtolics possess that are not in Protestnat Bibles, ar elikewise not in the Jewish Cannon, and Rabbinical/Pharaseeac Judaism, form which Modern Judaism emerged, never recognised them as scrpture."

A: That is irrelevant. The Gospel of Matthew isn't in the Jewish Canon either, but it is in the Christian Bible by the authority of the Catholic Church. All Christians recognize this decision as infallible. It was by the same authority that the Jewish Canon was accepted, and it was by the same authority that the books Protestants question were also accepted. If the Church erred in accepting the "questioned" books, then the Church's decisions regarding the Canon were not infallible, and there is no reason to accept Matthew as a genuine part of the Word of God either. It's all or nothing here. Either the Church infallibly defined the Canon, and we know with certainty which 73 books comprise the Bible - or the Church erred at least 7 times, in which case it is entirely possible, even probable, that the Church erred on other books admitted to the Canon, in which case we have no way of knowing with certainty that ANY part of the Bible is actually the inspired Word of God.

In the early Second Century they where formally renounced.

A: Yes, by the Jews. Again, that is irrelevant. Nothing was formalized as Christian scripture until the end of the 4th century, and at that time all 73 books were formally ACCEPTED into the Christian Bible.

"Likewise, dispite what most Cahtlcis seem tot hink, even the Catholic Chruch did not actually consider them ful cannon until much later. Several within the Catolic Chruch, including St.Jerome, felt they where not inspired. The matter was descided upon at the Counsil of Trent.)"

A: That is incorrect. Trent did not "decide" anything that had not been decided once and for all at Carthage. Trent merely reaffirmed what had been formally declared at Carthage, restating that the 73 books of the Canon compiled at Carthage were indeed the Word of God. Trent changed absolutely nothing concerning the Canon of Scripture.

"Nonetheless, and not to enter excruciating detail about the Old testement, I think no one will disagree that it was not compiled by the Cahtolic Chruch".

A: Obviously, since it was compiled before the Catholic Church existed.

"Now, as tot he New testement. Te Letters of Paul and the Gosples, as well as Acts, where read regularly by Chrisains for Centuries. They where nto considered part of a single book, but rather where scattered, different books. Plural. However, most, if not all, of the New testement was generally agreed upon by the early Christaisn long before the counsil took place"

A: Yes, as I said before, most of Paul's letters (except Titus and Philemon), the four gospels (with some disagreement about Mark) and the Acts of the Apostles were generally accepted. Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Revelation, and Jude were widely disputed. Several other gospels were also widely accepted. Many letters written by other authors were used in the Church as equivalent to scripture. This is why the Church defined the Canon - so that Christians could know with certainty, for all time, which writings are divinely inspired.

"And remember, Protestants do not beelive the Cathlci Church was the Oriigonal Chruch foudned 2000 years ago disrecly by Christ. Catholisism is seen as emerging slowly from Chrisyainity, slowly permutating until it becoems what it is now".

A: Only someone ignorant of Church history could possibly cling to such an idea. That is completely unrealistic and directly contradicts the historical record. History conclusively shows that there was no mention of any Christian Church on earth but the Catholic Church for a thousand years after the death of the Apostles.

Now, their where ony a few disputed books. The letters to timothy and Titus, called "The Pastoral Epistles", and the book of Hebrews, where disputed as scripture, as was the Book of Philimon. Hebrews because of its unknown authorship, Philimon becuse it was a personal letter addressign a spacific situation. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus becuase they where private and not open letters. Likewise, the Revelations, or apocalypse, was also disputed. Other than that however, the rest where not disputed, and seen clealry as scripture already. "

A: Just the books you mention constitute a serious problem which had to be addressed. However, these were NOT the only disputed books! These are the disputed books which were ultimately accepted into the Canon. However, there were also many equally disputed books which were NOT accepted into the Canon.

"The counsil largley just affeirmed the scruptures, and combined them into a single Codex.Later this bound volume woudl be called "The Scriptures" and "The Bible".

A: The council did not "reaffirm" the scriptures because there was widespread confusion over what constituted the scriptures. The Council of Carthage DEFINED the scriptures, accepting 46 Old Testament writings and 27 New Testament writings, while rejecting well over 100 other New Testament works, including at least a dozen gospels and over 80 epistles. This decision was binding on all Christians for all time. The fact that one rebellious Catholic priest, 1,200 years later, decided to reject the divinely inspired decisions of God's Church and throw out 7 Old Testament and 3 New Testament books doesn't change anything, since he had absolutely no authority to do so. The Canon remains, pure and undefiled. Fortunately Luther's plan to discard the New Testament parts of God's Holy Word was stopped by others, but his attack on the Old Testament (which concentrated on books containing teaching contrary to his new doctrines) unfortunately deprives his followers of several significant parts of God's Revelation, even to this day.

"Now, as to this beign a Cahtlic Coiunsil, Protestants beelive,a nd I know I shall get heat form this, that Catholisism as it is to-day wa snot in evidence at he time. Rather, this was an early Church meeting, before Catholisism evolved."

A: Sorry, but that's plain silly. Everyone present at the Council was a Catholic Bishop, and was so defined at the time. Only Catholic Bishops were summoned to the Council, which makes sense because there was no church on earth but the Catholic Church, and therefore there were no Christian leaders on earth but Catholic leaders - who hold the office of Bishop. The writings of many of those same bishops on the Eucharist, Confession, infant baptism, the Mass, the primacy of the Pope, the intercession of the saints, etc. are still studied by Catholic theology students today - and you say they weren't Catholic?? What were they??

"Many Protestnats recognise the efforts of ther Early Chruch fathers, but reject Cathlisism which took on its complete form around 360 AD, and continued to develop throughout the Middle ages, an even today."

A: How did Catholicism take on its "complete form" in 360 if it has continued to develop until today? In fact, God's Church has continuously developed from Pentecost until the present day, and will continue to develop until the end of time. To say that something is in a process of "development" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In fact, just the opposite! We can be sure that Protestantism was not "developing" prior to the 16th century, since it didn't exist. But it certainly has developed since its introduction into the world. If you can call fragmentation into thousands of conflicting denominations "development".

"Since the counsil itsself did not call itsself Catholic, and since no one called "Pope" showed up, it is reasonable to make a istorical case that the counsil was a general gathering of Chruches, and not nessisarily a Cahtlic Counsil."

A: A general gathering of churches when all the existing churches were Catholic sure sounds to me like a Catholic gathering! Are you suggesting that nothing can be Catholic unless the Pope is present?? The Council was specifically called by the Pope. It was only Catholic Bishops who were called. The Pope rarely attends a Council personally. He defines the need for a Council, calls the Council, and sends a delegation to represent him during the Council.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 21, 2004.

Paul M,

Another interesting, truthful, informed and informative answer.

Simply marvellous!

Thank you for all your efforts.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 21, 2004.

To be Honest then, the "Catholic" Church of the earlier Centuries wa snot called such, nor did it actually give the Bible its posiiton". - zAROVE, EARLIER.

A: The earliest known written record of the early Church being called the Holy Catholic Church dates from 107 A.D., in the writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who knew the apostles John and Paul personally. That same Church and that Church alone, 4 centuries later, defined the Canon of Scripture for all time.

{Which doesnt make the institution so named. It was nopt crested as such as a denominational name u til around the 300's. Until then, the "Catharda Catholis" was, indeed, an epitath, but no Chruch division, or central governance, had been set up.}-Zarove

"The Nicean Counsil, I beelive, was where it was compiled, however, before this cunsil, you had the works within the bible alreayd beign read as Scriptures".

A: The Canon of Scripture was formally defined at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., after much of the preliminary work had been done at the Council of Hippo in 394 A.D. Before this council, some of the works within the Bible, such as the letters of Paul, were indeed universally used by the Church. Other writings which became part of the Canon were widely disputed by various local churches, and outright rejected by many. And, writings which are NOT part of the Canon were also disputed, and were used as scripture by many local churches. It was exactly because of this state of confusion regarding the scriptures that the Pope called the councils to settle the questions once and for all.

{The Pope called it? I was mistaken on which cousnil it was, and other boosk where disputed, that is granted ( As I was only trying to cover ground rapidly to gove an overview) But I do not recall in History books the Pope beign named as the one who issued this. }

"No CHurch cannonised the Old testement. The Counsil of Carthage did about 4 Centuries BEFORE Christainity came about. The Jewish Canon was set by Jews, we Christaisn merely inhereted it."

A: That is essentially correct. By the decision of the bishops of the Catholic Church assembled at Carthage in 397, the entire Jewish Canon was accepted as part of the Christian Bible.

{Again, if we are discussing a protestant veiw, why must I accept that the counsil was Catholic? Or will I be able to, wihtout offence, deliver the protestant take of Hisotry? Or, for that matter, the secular worlds?}-Zarove

"The queastioned books, the seven additional books Cahtolics possess that are not in Protestnat Bibles, ar elikewise not in the Jewish Cannon, and Rabbinical/Pharaseeac Judaism, form which Modern Judaism emerged, never recognised them as scrpture." -Zarove, earlier

A: That is irrelevant. The Gospel of Matthew isn't in the Jewish Canon either, but it is in the Christian Bible by the authority of the Catholic Church. All Christians recognize this decision as infallible. It was by the same authority that the Jewish Canon was accepted, and it was by the same authority that the books Protestants question were also accepted. If the Church erred in accepting the "questioned" books, then the Church's decisions regarding the Canon were not infallible, and there is no reason to accept Matthew as a genuine part of the Word of God. It's all or nothing here. Either the Church infallibly defined the Canon, and we know with certainty which 73 books comprise the Bible - or the Church erred at least 7 times, in which case it isd entirely possible, even probable, that the Church erred on other books admitted to the Canon, in which case we have no way of knowing with certainty that ANY part of the Bible is actually the inspired Word of God.

{Ahain, I wasnt makign a comprehensive list of disputed books. Just delivering the basics. Likewise, your insistance that it WAS the Catholci Church will, I rregret to think, lead to the impossibility of dialouge. I will either accept it was Catholic, the Cahtolci Chruhc was founded directly by Christ, and that tany objection tot his is fully unsupportable by history, or else I will defend the psoition, and be seen as an aggressor for answering the earlier queatsion. Again, the counsil is not seen as Catholic by most protestants, regardless of the position you hold, we are discussing the proteatant veiw on this thread.

Also, notice, the "Irrelevant" information I gave was not Irrelevant.Cathiolics also seem to be confused as to why the apocryphal works ( And yes, I know its offensive to call them this, but this IS a protestant thread) are not in the Protestant Bibles. They whren't removed oon a whim. It stands to reason that the Jews woudl reject Mathew, this does NOT mean that the dispute pver the additional books is irrelevant, since the Apocrypha was written ebfore the new testement. It is, in Catholic Bibl,es, part of the Old Testement. Thus, it rightly belings wihthte Jews. They tejected Jesus as the messiah, so they reject Chrisyain s criptures. But the paocrypha is not Chrisyain in origin.}- Zarove

In the early Second Century they where formally renounced.

A: Yes, by the Jews. Again, that is irrelevant. Nothing was formalized as Christian scripture until the end of the 4th century, and at that time all 73 books were formally ACCEPTED into the Christian Bible.

{It is relevant to understand the protestant veiw on things. The additional books are ot Chrisain spacific books, burtt rather are Jewish, and if the Jews had auhtority at the time, why do we reject their counsil now?}-Zarove

"Likewise, dispite what most Cahtlcis seem tot hink, even the Catholic Chruch did not actually consider them ful cannon until much later. Several within the Catolic Chruch, including St.Jerome, felt they where not inspired. The matter was descided upon at the Counsil of Trent.)"

A: That is incorrect. Trent did not "decide" anything that had not been decided once and for all at Carthage. Trent merely reaffirmed what had been formally declared at Carthage, restating that the 73 books of the Canon compiled at Carthage were indeed the Word of God. Trent changed absolutely nothing concerning the Canon of Scripture.

{Actually, you ar eincorrect. before Trent, many Catholcis themselves disputed the books. Trent finilised them as scripture. I can provide links to history sites if you like.}-Zarove

"Nonetheless, and not to enter excruciating detail about the Old testement, I think no one will disagree that it was not compiled by the Cahtolic Chruch".

A: Obviously, since it was compiled before the Catholic Church existed.

{Which is why the Apocrypha/Deuterocannonical nbooks discussion was not Irrelevant. If we accept the Jewish Canon, we accept the Jewish Cannon.}-Zarove

"Now, as tot he New testement. Te Letters of Paul and the Gosples, as well as Acts, where read regularly by Chrisains for Centuries. They where nto considered part of a single book, but rather where scattered, different books. Plural. However, most, if not all, of the New testement was generally agreed upon by the early Christaisn long before the counsil took place"

A: Yes, as I said before, most of Paul's letters (except Titus and Philemon), the four gospels (with some disagreement about Mark) and the Acts of the Apostles were generally accepted. Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Revelation, and Jude were widely disputed. Several other gospels were also widely accepted. Many letters written by other authors were used in the Church as equivalent to scripture. This is why the Church defined the Canon - so that Christians could know with certainty, for all time, which writings are divinely inspired.

{Thus we are in agreement. Good.}-Zarove

"And remember, Protestants do not beelive the Cathlci Church was the Oriigonal Chruch foudned 2000 years ago disrecly by Christ. Catholisism is seen as emerging slowly from Chrisyainity, slowly permutating until it becoems what it is now".

A: Only someone ignorant of Church history could possibly cling to such an idea. That is completely unrealistic and directly contradicts the historical record. History conclusively shows that there was no mention of any Christian Church on earth but the Catholic Church for a thousand years after the death of the Apostles.

{Techniclaly, the point was that the Catholic Chruch developed over time until it had a formalised heirarchy and set regulations. Thus, form both a protestant and secular historian veiwpoint, the Cahtolic Cruch dd NOT exist in the firts century, but rather grew out of the established Chrisyain religion after it spread tot he Roman Empire. Again, I mean not to be offensive, and have generlaly avoided such discussions in the past, but this one was broguht up as a protestant perspective, and I am endeavourign to answer it the best I can.

However, the beelif that the Cahtolic Chruhc was NOT the origional Chruch is not so silly, or so opposed ot the Historical record, as one may think. Remember, Protestants largley think the Catholic Chruch fell astray, and added multiple tradiitons and custoims along the way, and was htus in need of reform. ( Hence the name reform). Most Modern Historrians tend to veiw the Catholci chruch as an amalgamation of Chrisyain devleopment that progressed throug the third and fourht century. This is not an opinion held in Ignorance.}-Zarove

Now, their where ony a few disputed books. The letters to timothy and Titus, called "The Pastoral Epistles", and the book of Hebrews, where disputed as scripture, as was the Book of Philimon. Hebrews because of its unknown authorship, Philimon becuse it was a personal letter addressign a spacific situation. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus becuase they where private and not open letters. Likewise, the Revelations, or apocalypse, was also disputed. Other than that however, the rest where not disputed, and seen clealry as scripture already. "

A: The books you mention constitute a serious problem which had to be addressed. However, these were NOT the only disputed books! These are the disputed books which were ultimately accepted into the Canon. However, there were also many equally disputed books which were NOT accepted into the Canon.

{I never said they where. I was cuttign back for the sake of brevity.I wantesd ot ive an overview of the protestnat reasoning, not a detialed history lesson.}-Zarove

"The counsil largley just affeirmed the scruptures, and combined them into a single Codex.Later this bound volume woudl be called "The Scriptures" and "The Bible".

A: The council did not "reaffirm" the scriptures because there was widespread confusion over what constituted the scriptures. The Council of Carthage DEFINED the scriptures, accepting 46 Old Testament writings and 27 New Testament writings,

{This is why it is not irrelevant to note that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha. Since it is NOT Christain scripture and is instead Jewish, then the Jews had authrity, and still rejected it. een before Christainity came along most Jews rejected them. }-Zarove

while rejecting well over 100 other New Testament works, including at least a dozen gospels and over 80 epistles. This decision was binding on all Christians for all time. The fact that one rebellious Catholic priest, 1,200 years later, decided to reject the divinely inspired decision of God's Church and throw out 7 Old Testament and 3 New Testament books doesn't change anything, since he had absolutely no authority to do so.

{Again, Luther was not alone in his rejection of those books. Again, Jerome also rejected them. Ahain, so did the jews, and yes, the Jews reject the Gospel, accordign to Mathew, that bnook is PURELY Chrisyain in charecter, whereas the addiitonal books are NOT and are part of the Old Testement and thus rightly belong tot he Jews.}-Zarove

The Canon remains, pure and undefiled. Fortunately Luther's plan to discard the New Testament parts of God's Holy Word was stopped by others, but his attack on the Old Testament (which concentrated on books containing teaching contrary to his new doctrines) unfortunately deprives his followers of several significant parts of God's Revelation, even to this day.

{Again, thi is why Ignorance prevails with Catholcis as to what protesats beleive. If semone tries to expain it another comes along to play the apologist. The Deuterocannonical books where rejcted for reasons other than simpley Luther not likign them. Again, the issue is far deeper.}- Zarove

"Now, as to this beign a Cahtlic Coiunsil, Protestants beelive,a nd I know I shall get heat form this, that Catholisism as it is to-day wa snot in evidence at he time. Rather, this was an early Church meeting, before Catholisism evolved."

A: Sorry, but that's plain silly. Everyone present at the Council was a Catholic Bishop, and was so defined at the time. Only Catholic Bishops were summoned to the Council, which makes sense because there was no church on earth but the Catholic Church, and therefore there were no Christian leaders on earth but Catholic leaders - who hold the office of Bishop. The writings of many of those same bishops on the Eucharist, Confession, infant baptism, the Mass, the primacy of the Pope, the intercession of the saints, etc. are still studied by Catholic theology students today - and you say they weren't Catholic?? What were they??

{Christians. Aghain, the beleif is that rather than the Catholic Chruhc comign about in one fell swoop. either by Jesus's institution, Constantines invention, or other, is not held byt he majority of people. Most peopel beleive the Catholic Chruch evolved over time. Incedentlaly, Mass was first mentioned in 394 AD, before this we have no record of Mass.}

"Many Protestnats recognise the efforts of ther Early Chruch fathers, but reject Cathlisism which took on its complete form around 360 AD, and continued to develop throughout the Middle ages, an even today."

A: How did Catholicism take on its "complete form" if it has continued to develop until today?

{Reference was tothe Heirarchy and rorginisation. Developments where things added over time. Such as paupal Infalability which was added in 1870.

Think of it like saying the US was completed as a nation in 1776,then continued to develop.}-Zarove

In fact, God's Church has continuously developed from Pentecost until the present day, and will continue to develop until the end of time. To say that something is in a process of "development" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

{Actually, sayingit developed afferms its existance...}-Zarove

In fact, just the opposite!

{YEs , I know...}-Zarove

We can be sure that Protestantism was not "developing" prior to the 16th century, since it didn't exist.

{But noncatholic Chrisyains did. The Syrian Chruch, for example. Or the Waldenses.Non-catholic Christains existed prior to Luther.}-Zarove

But it certainly has developed since its introduction into the world. If you can call fragmentation into thousands of conflicting denominations "development".

{Again, slamming Protesnats and shaing " We where their first" isnt prodictive to a discussion any more than flagerent disregard for several key isues that distinguigsh protestnatism form Catholisism. One cannot simpley stick tot he Catholci side and understand the other.}-Zarove

"Since the counsil itsself did not call itsself Catholic, and since no one called "Pope" showed up, it is reasonable to make a istorical case that the counsil was a general gathering of Chruches, and not nessisarily a Cahtlic Counsil."

A: A general gathering of churches when all the existing churches were Catholic sure sounds to me like a Catholic gathering!

{But it is disputed that they where all Cahtolic. That Historical issue will be addressed later, but it is important to first see that some poeople see it differently, and not nessisarily ignroant people.}-Zarove

Are you suggesting that noithing can be Catholic unless the Pope is present??

{No, but many poeple beleive their was no Pope to be preasent. The beleif is that several Chruches existed that had a rather loose association with one another.}-Zarove

The Council was specifically called by the Pope.

{This is also disputed, as many claim their was no Pope at the time. Indeed, Carthage I beelive was attended by Constantine. }-Zarove

It was only Catholic Bishops who were called. The Pope rarely attends a Council personally. He defines the need for a Council, calls the Council, and sends a delegation to represent him during the Council.

{Assuming this was liek that, I will get intot he hisory more when I ave examined it for all the facts, but again, we are discussing the protestant veiws.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

To Zarove,

Here are some writings of the early Church Fathers, whom I shall call Catholic because they call themselves that as well. These are writings that show that the Christians accepted the Deuterocanonical works throughout history and before their canonization in 397 AD.

The Didache

"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

Irenaeus

"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

Hippolytus

"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).

Cyprian of Carthage

"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1– 2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).

Jerome

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

I will send some more writings of the Church Fathers against your claims.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

To Zarove,

Concerning your suggestion that the Mass wasn't mentioned or celebrated until 394 AD

The Didache

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Pope Clement I

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ" (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]).

Serapion

"Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation" (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12–16 [A.D. 350]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need" (Catechetical Lectures 23:7–8 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory Nazianzen

"Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword" (Letter to Amphilochius 171 [A.D. 383]).

Ambrose of Milan

"We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered" (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).

John Chrysostom

"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?" (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).

"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!" (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]).

"‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).

"In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself" (ibid., 24:2).

"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).

Augustine

"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).

"For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).

Sechnall of Ireland

"[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy sacrifices" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13 [A.D. 444]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only- begotten God the Word himself became flesh [and] offered himself in an odor of sweetness as a sacrifice and victim to God on our behalf; to whom . . . in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament . . . the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine. In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which has now been given us is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious" (The Rule of Faith 62 [A.D. 524]).

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

To Zarove,

I apologize for the lengthy quotes, but I am afraid I was pushed to write these due to the lack of proof for your statements that the Catholic Church was not present in the 1st-4th Centuries. These writings will show that the word Catholic was and always will be used in the same throughout history; it is not simply changed in meaning in the 4th century, when suddenly Protestants think the Catholic Church fell away. There is no change in anything believed, which makes it complete ignorance to those who believe the Church suddenly fell away due to new customs and beliefs. If you still hold firm to this belief that the Church changed things or believed new things, I will once more send you quotes from the Fathers showing the consistency of belief from the beginning.

On the meaning of Catholic in the early Church from the Fathers

Ignatius of Antioch

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

The Muratorian Canon

"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian

"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected. . . . There [in John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another" (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).

Council of Nicaea I

"But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,’ and ‘before he was born, he was not,’ and ‘because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes" (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, ‘the Clean,’ if at any time they come to the Catholic Church, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy. However, because they are accepting and following the doctrines of the Catholic and apostolic Church, it is fitting that they acknowledge this in writing before all; that is, both that they communicate with the twice married and with those who have lapsed during a persecution" (Canon 8).

...

"Concerning the Paulianists who take refuge with the Catholic Church, a decree has been published that they should be fully baptized. If, however, any of these in times past have been in the clerical order, if indeed they have appeared spotless and above reproach, after being baptized, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church" (Canon 9).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description" (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).

"And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God" (ibid., 18:26).

The Apostles’ Creed

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen" (Apostles’ Creed [A.D. 360 version, the first to include the term "Catholic"]).

Council of Constantinople I

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).

"Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristeri, Quartodecimians or Tetradites, Apollinarians— these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of God" (Canon 7).

Augustine

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

...

""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (ibid., 5:6).

In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Vincent of Lerins

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: that whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine law [Scripture], and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. But here some one perhaps will ask, ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?’ For this reason: Because, owing to the depth of holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are men. . . . Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various errors, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation" (The Notebooks 2:1–2 [A.D. 434]).

Council of Chalcedon

"Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, this sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptized among heretics, they are to bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church" (Canon 14 [A.D. 451]).

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

to clear up any doubts about the existence, prevalence, and continuation of the Papacy from Peter

the Fathers also recognized that Peter ordained a successor to his episcopacy in Rome and that the bishop of Rome—the Pontiff—continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church.

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

"[I]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]).

Pope Leo I

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).

"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

Andrew, none of those directly mention Mass. Onlyt eh Eucharist. The Mass, as in the Liturgy et all, was what I was addressing. NOT the Celebration of the eucharist, which is part of Mass, but not the totality of Mass.

Also, the las t of your sources post date 394. Belowe are the quotes that are irrelevant tot he discussion, as they are after the time I proscribed. Even they do not, however, direclty Msdention Mass.

"In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself" (ibid., 24:2). "What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3 (6) [A.D. 403]). Augustine "In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]). "For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]). Sechnall of Ireland "[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy sacrifices" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13 [A.D. 444]). Fulgentius of Ruspe "Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only- begotten God the Word himself became flesh [and] offered himself in an odor of sweetness as a sacrifice and victim to God on our behalf; to whom . . . in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament . . . the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine. In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which has now been given us is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious" (The Rule of Faith 62 [A.D. 524]).

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

to clear up any doubts about the existence, prevalence, and continuation of the Papacy from Peter the Fathers also recognized that Peter ordained a successor to his episcopacy in Rome and that the bishop of Rome—the Pontiff—continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church.

{The real Queatsion is when. As I did not give a statement as to when the papacy was institutied, your own line of defence is weak. For instance, if I claim the Papacy came in at 360 AD, all quotes after 180 AD woudl be foolish to post. ( Rather liek the above post and the misquotations.) ( Incedentaly, I am not staing it came about in 360 AD...)}-Zarove 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]).

{This does not really mention a supreme Pontif. Likeiwise, I woudl prefer to look into it, rather than accept argument by Spound Bite.}- Zarove 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]).

{Again, this isnt relevant. For starters, many peopel beleive the Papacy began in the 180's. Likewise, simpley ordainign someone at Rome doesnt mean they concecrated him Pope.}-Zarove 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).

{Not relevant, since it discusses the Catholic Beleif, and does not addrss the protestant beleif, which I wil show later.}-Zarove 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]).

{Tjis quote is after the establishment of the papacy, and not a first century quotaiton, and is thus irrrelevant, as are the below.}-Zarove "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 "[I]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]). Pope Leo I "As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]). "Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]). Peter Chrysologus "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]). Council of Chalcedon "After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Just a note about the apocrypha. These books were as you pointed out, were rejected by Jews in the 2nd century. This was during and around the time when Christians and Jews were formalizing their differences with one another. Many feel that Rabinic Judaism rejected the apocryphal books of the septuagint mainly because they were so widely used by Christians. Yet another way to make the separation complete. The Church however, didn't feel this was a good enough reason to to remove them.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 21, 2004.

However, the Jews are notorious forheir own preservaton of scripture. Likewise, the Apocrypha was not merely rejectedbecause Christains widely sued them. In fact, Christians didn't widely use them.

The mostwidely used books where the Gospels and Paul's letters, then Mses's 5 books and the psalms, proverbs, and the Prophets.

The Apocrypha was not relaly as widely used as the Torah or the Prophets and yet the jews kept them.

Besodes that, most Jewish groups rejected the Apocrypha before the seocnd Cdntury.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Zarove,

I think the septuagint was widely used because it was written in Greek. As Christianity spread away from Judea, most of the the population found the Greek version to be more useful because it was understandable. There were more Greek speakers ripe for conversion than Hebrew, and the septuagint was already in place in the diaspora.

When do you believe the apocrypha was rejected as canon by Jews? I'm pretty sure it had to be after the destruction of the temple. It would have involved Hebrew speaking Jews first, and later Greek speakers, but it would still during the time Christians and Pharisaic/Rabinic Jews were separating from each other.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 21, 2004.

To all concerning the Jewish Canon,

In saying "The Deuterocanonical Books aren't accepted by Protestants because the Jews don't have them in their canon" is not a detailed analysis of the situation. I will show you why this is so:

As said a long time ago, there were TWO groups of Jews living near the time of Christ. One group was comprised of Palestinian Jews, and they used the Masoretic Hebrew script. Then there were the Hellenized Jews of the diaspora that lived away from the Palestinian area. These Jews scattered around spoke Greek and worshipped in synangogues, unlike the Palestinian Jews who worshipped in temple.

3 centuries before the birth of Christ the Diaspora Jews desired a Greek translated text from Hebrew, and this gradual translation included the Deuterocanonical works which the Jews subsequently used in their synagogues (called the LXX Septuagint). But in the 2nd century AD, as the Christians were thrown out of the synagogues, their Greek scriptures were replaced with one that did not contain the Deuterocanonical. This is the fact that most Protestants know and attack for validity. But the other information is key as well.

The spread of Christianity to all parts of the world brought the LXX Septuagint scriptures with them, unlike the Hebrew text that the synagogue Jews replaced in the 2nd century when purifying itself from Christians. This was canonized in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. This is why we use the Bible as the Christian Church canonized it. The argument against the LXX that the 2nd century Jews replaced it MUST be understood in context; the Jews were angry at Christians during this time, and knowing that the LXX Septuagint WAS used by Christians, replaced the Scriptures in order to rid themselves of Christian connection. To those who disagree, read Eusebius, read Dionysus, and other historians at the time who will clear everything up.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

"""""However, the Jews are notorious forheir own preservaton of scripture. Likewise, the Apocrypha was not merely rejectedbecause Christains widely sued them. In fact, Christians didn't widely use them. The mostwidely used books where the Gospels and Paul's letters, then Mses's 5 books and the psalms, proverbs, and the Prophets.

The Apocrypha was not relaly as widely used as the Torah or the Prophets and yet the jews kept them.

Besodes that, most Jewish groups rejected the Apocrypha before the seocnd Cdntury. """

Zarove, these arguments without any evidence sound like guesses. If you going to make arguments against the Apocrypha, research and find quotes from Christians and historians at the time to back it up. Otherwise, no one will believe you. This is true if you argue anything anywhere. These claims you made have no evidence either for or against it. Next reply, please provide historical evidence in Church documents, quotes from the Fathers (Jerome as well as others), and other things please.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

Zarove, I think the septuagint was widely used because it was written in Greek. As Christianity spread away from Judea, most of the the population found the Greek version to be more useful because it was understandable. There were more Greek speakers ripe for conversion than Hebrew, and the septuagint was already in place in the diaspora.

{Yes, this is true, still, most Jews, even in the Diapsora, refused to acept the Addiitonal books. They where, however, included becaise a large Minoroity did use them.}-Zarove

When do you believe the apocrypha was rejected as canon by Jews? I'm pretty sure it had to be after the destruction of the temple. It would have involved Hebrew speaking Jews first, and later Greek speakers, but it would still during the time Christians and Pharisaic/Rabinic Jews were separating from each other.

{This is correct for n official pronouncement. Before this time hwoever many rejected the Apocryphal writigns. Thier was simpley no agreement.}-Zarove

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 21, 2004.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

To all concerning the Jewish Canon, In saying "The Deuterocanonical Books aren't accepted by Protestants because the Jews don't have them in their canon" is not a detailed analysis of the situation. I will show you why this is so:

{No need. I wasn't aiming for details, I am trying to introduce a concept.}-Zarove

As said a long time ago, there were TWO groups of Jews living near the time of Christ. One group was comprised of Palestinian Jews, and they used the Masoretic Hebrew script. Then there were the Hellenized Jews of the diaspora that lived away from the Palestinian area. These Jews scattered around spoke Greek and worshipped in synangogues, unlike the Palestinian Jews who worshipped in temple.

{Yes, again, old news, and not really relevant.}-Zarove

3 centuries before the birth of Christ the Diaspora Jews desired a Greek translated text from Hebrew, and this gradual translation included the Deuterocanonical works which the Jews subsequently used in their synagogues (called the LXX Septuagint).

{Now we tread weakly. Not all Jews used them in Synagouge. Most did not, only a Minority, thouhg a large Minority, accepted them.}-Zarove

But in the 2nd century AD, as the Christians were thrown out of the synagogues, their Greek scriptures were replaced with one that did not contain the Deuterocanonical. This is the fact that most Protestants know and attack for validity. But the other information is key as well.

{I am not attackign anyhting, I am explainjgn, however, you fail to do enough research.This is why I get bored with apologetics. You ar einerested in provign Catholisism.Period. Not in the full facts.

Now, I will post ater,if pressed, more detailed information, however, I am well researched and not really a sloppt sortt. What I say is generally true.I make mistakes, but I do not often.

That said, please beelive me for now that the Jews did not accept these boosk as s cripture as a rule, and only a small percent did. As I said, i wil provide more referencework later, but for now, as all I am doing is tryign to get accross the basic concept, please accept this.}-Zarove

The spread of Christianity to all parts of the world brought the LXX Septuagint scriptures with them, unlike the Hebrew text that the synagogue Jews replaced in the 2nd century when purifying itself from Christians. This was canonized in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. This is why we use the Bible as the Christian Church canonized it. The argument against the LXX that the 2nd century Jews replaced it MUST be understood in context; the Jews were angry at Christians during this time, and knowing that the LXX Septuagint WAS used by Christians, replaced the Scriptures in order to rid themselves of Christian connection. To those who disagree, read Eusebius, read Dionysus, and other historians at the time who will clear everything up.

{I have read Eusibus, and others. However, the Apocrypha was not univerally accepted by the Diaposa Jews untl the seocnd Century, so this context is itsself flawed as i asusmes they DID until the Chrisaisn came along and they wanted rid of them.

Again, it is also flawed reasonign tot hink these book where removed by the Jews to distance themselves form the Chrisyains, since these books where supposeldy univerally accepted by the Jews PRIOR to the Chrisyain Chruch's inception Circa 30 AD. Why woudl they purge their Scriptures of books they had used for about a century before Jesus came and died?}-Zaorve

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

"""""However, the Jews are notorious forheir own preservaton of scripture. Likewise, the Apocrypha was not merely rejectedbecause Christains widely sued them. In fact, Christians didn't widely use them. The mostwidely used books where the Gospels and Paul's letters, then Mses's 5 books and the psalms, proverbs, and the Prophets. The Apocrypha was not relaly as widely used as the Torah or the Prophets and yet the jews kept them.

Besodes that, most Jewish groups rejected the Apocrypha before the seocnd Cdntury. """

Zarove, these arguments without any evidence sound like guesses.

{Andrew, tis isnt an argument, its a statement designed to intriduce a concept as part of a Dialouge.You are the young apo;ogist, I am simpley a scholar. I am presenting ponly the reaosns why, I am not makign an argument. I intended to progressively give detials as things went on, I did not intend to argue for or againt anything. This is not a debate baord, nor is htis a debate thread. }-Zarove

If you going to make arguments against the Apocrypha, research and find quotes from Christians and historians at the time to back it up.

{Again, I am not makign arguments agaisnt anyhting. I am simpley explainign that these books where disputed long, ong before Lutheo I don't have to hear anothe r" Luther didnt like those books thats why Protestants don't use them" line spouted.

Protestnats do what they do for a reason, just like Catholcis, and understandign that reason allows one to better communicate and get by with someone of that belif.Dismissal of their reasons and ascription of reasons to them that are derogetory only add further incitement to harbour ill will.

That said, please sop treating my comments on this thread as an argument. It isn't designed to be an argument, but merely clarification of what some people beleive and why. It is also not suppore to be so heavilyu detailed and long that people will have to wade through the posts. SHort, simple, and tot he point,That is how I am tryign to make it.}-Zarove

Otherwise, no one will believe you. This is true if you argue anything anywhere.

{I beelive I have built up enough credibility so that peopel will beleive that I have a basic understanding. And again, I am not arguing. I am explaining. Their is a huge difference, and I was tryign to keep this short and far more compact, just to give peopel the overall idea of things.}-Zarove

These claims you made have no evidence either for or against it.

{Actualy, they do if you care to research it. My task I had undertaken was to generate a basic clarification of the reasosn for Protestants to use the Bible and what they beleive. Not to argue the case for protestantism. If the poster hasd asked of Mormonism, I likely woudl havefered their explanation as wlel, even htough I am not a Mormon. Evidence is pending firther inquery, but at the same time why shoudl I offer pages of information just to answer a basic queasion?}- Zarove

Next reply, please provide historical evidence in Church documents, quotes from the Fathers (Jerome as well as others), and other things please.

{Again, I will if duely asked, but you are askign for these htigns so you can debate them, which is foolhearty since I am not offerign a debate.}-Zarove

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 21, 2004.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Dito what SAra said, like a beach thriller novel but true... gripping stuff! thanks Paul :)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 22, 2004.

Andrew,

the Deutero Books were only canonized By the Western part of the Catholic Church which follows the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Trent by 1572.

The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 22, 2004.

Elipido,

Read the documents from the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393 and 397 AD, and you will see the entire Catholic Bible as it is today. It was canonized then by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, the Councils being called by the Bishop of Rome. The Council of Trent, as Carthage did in 397, ratified this decision.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 22, 2004.

Did the Pope opened their session? Did he write some of the discussions there?

If so, then Carthage and Hippo are valid.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.

The Pope is the Bishop that calls Councils together, so yes it is so

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 23, 2004.

There were times when no one was Pope. While it has been a contiuous line of Cardinals/Bishops designating one of their number as Pope, in no way has it been a line of one (dying) Pope laying hands on another and anointed him Pope-elect (no line of Elijah/Elisha style). At least 4 times the office has been vacant for a year or more. And if one of these time coincided with the time of the start of that council, then Z would have his proof for that point. I do not want to dig this out myself.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.

Sean,

Here is the list of the 264 UNBROKEN Popes in Catholic Christianity for 2000 years. What you are probably thinking of, and what is your mistake, concerns the Great 14th c. Schism and other anti-Popes. During the Great Schism, 3 or 4 other people claimed to be Pope, but that doesn't mean that the true Pope wasn't Pontiff.

* St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18 * St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21 * St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) * St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3 * St. Evaristus (97-105) * St. Alexander I (105-115) * St. Sixtus I (115-125) * St. Telesphorus (125-136) * St. Hyginus (136-140) * St. Pius I (140-155) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Anicetus (155-166) * St. Soter (166-175) * St. Eleutherius (175-189) * St. Victor I (189-199) * St. Zephyrinus (199-217) * St. Callistus I (217-22) * St. Urban I (222-30) * St. Pontain (230-35) * St. Anterus (235-36) * St. Fabian (236-50)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Cornelius (251-53) * St. Lucius I (253-54) * St. Stephen I (254-257) * St. Sixtus II (257-258) * St. Dionysius (260-268) * St. Felix I (269-274) * St. Eutychian (275-283) * St. Caius (283-296) * St. Marcellinus (296-304) * St. Marcellus I (308-309)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Eusebius (April-August 309 or 310) * St. Miltiades (311-14) * St. Sylvester I (314-35) * St. Marcus (January-October 336) * St. Julius I (337-52) * Liberius (352-66) * St. Damasus I (366-83) * St. Siricius (384-99) * St. Anastasius I (399-401) * St. Innocent I (401-17)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * St. Zosimus (417-18) * St. Boniface I (418-22) * St. Celestine I (422-32) * St. Sixtus III (432-40) * St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) * St. Hilarius (461-68) * St. Simplicius (468-83) * St. Felix III (II) (483-92) * St. Gelasius I (492-96) * Anastasius II (496-98) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* St. Symmachus (498-514) * St. Hormisdas (514-23) * St. John I (523-26) * St. Felix IV (III) (526-30) * Boniface II (530-32) * John II (533-35) * St. Agapetus I (535-36) * St. Silverius (536-37) * Vigilius (537-55) * Pelagius I (556-61)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- * John III (561-74) * Benedict I (575-79) * Pelagius II (579-90) * St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) * Sabinian (604-606) * Boniface III (February-November 607) * St. Boniface IV (608-15) * St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18) * Boniface V (619-25) * Honorius I (625-38) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Severinus (May-August 640) * John IV (640-42) * Theodore I (642-49) * St. Martin I (649-55) * St. Eugene I (655-57) * St. Vitalian (657-72) * Adeodatus (II) (672-76) * Donus (676-78) * St. Agatho (678-81) * St. Leo II (682-83) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* St. Benedict II (684-85) * John V (685-86) * Conon (686-87) * St. Sergius I (687-701) * John VI (701-05) * John VII (705-07) * Sisinnius (January-February 708) * Constantine (708-15) * St. Gregory II (715-31) * St. Gregory III (731-41) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* St. Zachary (741-52) * Stephen II (March 752) * Stephen III (752-57) * St. Paul I (757-67) * Stephen IV (767-72) * Adrian I (772-95) * St. Leo III (795-816) * Stephen V (816-17) * St. Paschal I (817-24) * Eugene II (824-27) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Valentine (August-September 827) * Gregory IV (827-44) * Sergius II (844-47) * St. Leo IV (847-55) * Benedict III (855-58) * St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67) * Adrian II (867-72) * John VIII (872-82) * Marinus I (882-84) * St. Adrian III (884-85) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Stephen VI (885-91) * Formosus (891-96) * Boniface VI (April 896) * Stephen VII (896-97) * Romanus (August-November 897) * Theodore II (November-December 897) * John IX (898-900) * Benedict IV (900-03) * Leo V (July-December 903) * Sergius III (904-11) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Anastasius III (911-13) * Lando (913-14) * John X (914-28) * Leo VI (May-December 928) * Stephen VIII (929-31) * John XI (931-35) * Leo VII (936-39) * Stephen IX (939-42) * Marinus II (942-46) * Agapetus II (946-55) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* John XII (955-63) * Leo VIII (963-64) * Benedict V (May-June 964) * John XIII (965-72) * Benedict VI (973-74) * Benedict VII (974-83) * John XIV (983-84) * John XV (985-96) * Gregory V (996-99) * Sylvester II (999-1003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* John XVII (June-December 1003) * John XVIII (1003-09) * Sergius IV (1009-12) * Benedict VIII (1012-24) * John XIX (1024-32) * Benedict IX (1032-45) * Sylvester III (January-March 1045) * Benedict IX (April-May 1045) * Gregory VI (1045-46) * Clement II (1046-47) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Benedict IX (1047-48) * Damasus II (July-August 1048) * St. Leo IX (1049-54) * Victor II (1055-57) * Stephen X (1057-58) * Nicholas II (1058-61) * Alexander II (1061-73) * St. Gregory VII (1073-85) * Blessed Victor III (1086-87) * Blessed Urban II (1088-99) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Paschal II (1099-1118) * Gelasius II (1118-19) * Callistus II (1119-24) * Honorius II (1124-30) * Innocent II (1130-43) * Celestine II (1143-44) * Lucius II (1144-45) * Blessed Eugene III (1145-53) * Anastasius IV (1153-54) * Adrian IV (1154-59) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Alexander III (1159-81) * Lucius III (1181-85) * Urban III (1185-87) * Gregory VIII (1187) * Clement III (1187-91) * Celestine III (1191-98) * Innocent III (1198-1216) * Honorius III (1216-27) * Gregory IX (1227-41) * Celestine IV (October-November 1241) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Innocent IV (1243-54) * Alexander IV (1254-61) * Urban IV (1261-64) * Clement IV (1265-68) * Blessed Gregory X (1271-76) * Blessed Innocent V (January-June 1276) * Adrian V (July-August 1276) * John XXI (1276-77) * Nicholas III (1277-80) * Martin IV (1281-85) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Honorius IV (1285-87) * Nicholas IV (1288-92) * St. Celestine V (July-December 1294) * Boniface VIII (1294-1303) * Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04) * Clement V (1305-14) * John XXII (1316-34) * Benedict XII (1334-42) * Clement VI (1342-52) * Innocent VI (1352-62) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Blessed Urban V (1362-70) * Gregory XI (1370-78) * Urban VI (1378-89) * Boniface IX (1389-1404) * Innocent VII (1406-06) * Gregory XII (1406-15) * Martin V (1417-31) * Eugene IV (1431-47) * Nicholas V (1447-55) * Callistus III (1445-58) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Pius II (1458-64) * Paul II (1464-71) * Sixtus IV (1471-84) * Innocent VIII (1484-92) * Alexander VI (1492-1503) * Pius III (September-October 1503) * Julius II (1503-13) * Leo X (1513-21) * Adrian VI (1522-23) * Clement VII (1523-34) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Paul III (1534-49) * Julius III (1550-55) * Marcellus II (April 1555) * Paul IV (1555-59) * Pius IV (1559-65) * St. Pius V (1566-72) * Gregory XIII (1572-85) * Sixtus V (1585-90) * Urban VII (September 1590) * Gregory XIV (1590-91) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Innocent IX (October-November 1591) * Clement VIII (1592-1605) * Leo XI (April 1605) * Paul V (1605-21) * Gregory XV (1621-23) * Urban VIII (1623-44) * Innocent X (1644-55) * Alexander VII (1655-67) * Clement IX (1667-69) * Clement X (1670-76) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89) * Alexander VIII (1689-91) * Innocent XII (1691-1700) * Clement XI (1700-21) * Innocent XIII (1721-24) * Benedict XIII (1724-30) * Clement XII (1730-40) * Benedict XIV (1740-58) * Clement XIII (1758-69) * Clement XIV (1769-74) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Pius VI (1775-99) * Pius VII (1800-23) * Leo XII (1823-29) * Pius VIII (1829-30) * Gregory XVI (1831-46) * Bl. Pius IX (1846-78) * Leo XIII (1878-1903) * St. Pius X (1903-14) * Benedict XV (1914-22) * Pius XI (1922-39) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

* Pius XII (1939-58) * Bl. John XXIII (1958-63) * Paul VI (1963-78) * John Paul I (August-September 1978) * John Paul II (1978-)

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 25, 2004.