When is a christian NOT a Christian?

[Marymog]

......It is obvious that someone failed to pass things down that way......

Hi,

How is it "obvious"? Are you suggesting that the teachings of Jesus to the Apostles has not been properly passed down for the last 2,000 years?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

And we see the same thing going on in the early Church when the Council of Nicea was convened. How could there have been heretical clergy if they had all been ordained and instructed properly?

People formed parties, the way they form political parties today. They used words and ideas to divide people and to increase their own power.

Hi,

The Church is not one MAN. Just because some men in the leadership of The Church were not instructed properly or formed parties does not mean the authority of The Church ceased.

The Council of Jerusalem was made up of sinners who disagreed with each other. They still made an authorative decision that was good with the Holy Spirit that was bound on all Christians (Acts 15:28-29, Matthew 18:18).

Sooooo your theory is that once the Apostles died the authority to bind laws/doctrine/dogma (whatever you want to call it) upon all Christians died with them?

Curious Mary

 

[Giuliano]

Got it......I sincerely apologize. Your first post on the matter left me with the impression that you thought he was killed at the Council of Chalcedon. I see now you do not believe that.

Sincerely....Mary

No harm done. We now see proof that mistakes don't have to be permanent!

 

[Giuliano]

Hi,

How is it "obvious"? Are you suggesting that the teachings of Jesus to the Apostles has not been properly passed down for the last 2,000 years?

Curious Mary

It's obvious they weren't passed down properly even in the first four hundred years when consecrated Bishops could disagree with each other so much. If they all had teachings passed to them, they received different teachings.

 

[Giuliano]

Hi,

The Church is not one MAN. Just because some men in the leadership of The Church were not instructed properly or formed parties does not mean the authority of The Church ceased.

The Council of Jerusalem was made up of sinners who disagreed with each other. They still made an authorative decision that was good with the Holy Spirit that was bound on all Christians (Acts 15:28-29, Matthew 18:18).

Sooooo your theory is that once the Apostles died the authority to bind laws/doctrine/dogma (whatever you want to call it) upon all Christians died with them?

Curious Mary

Who today believes the decisions reached by the Council of Jerusalem are binding? I do. The Catholic Church does not. They believed they had the authority to undo what the Apostles said at that council. I'm pressed for time; but I can go into it in detail later if you like.

 

[brakelite]

It was the Second Council of Ephesus. It was intended to an Ecumenical Council, but things went seriously wrong. They were still arguing over the Nature of Christ. Flavian the Archbishop of Constantinople was the person who died after being beaten severely.

Second Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia

Evidence given at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradicts the account in the acts of the final scene of the session. It was reported that secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes and it was declared that both Barsumas and Dioscorus struck Flavian. It was further reported that many bishops threw themselves on their knees to beg Dioscorus for mercy to Flavian and also Alexandrine Parabolani, that some signed a blank paper, and that others did not sign at all, the names being afterwards filled in of all who were actually present.

The papal legate Hilarius uttered a single word in Latin, "Contradicitur", annulling the sentence in Leo's name. He then escaped with difficulty. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to the pope, and their letters, only lately discovered, were probably taken by Hilarus to Rome, which he reached by a devious route.

It was said Dioscorus had previously gathered 1000 monks, telling them to wait outside the church during the council and to come when he called them. When Dioscorus began to read the sentence of condemnation against Flavian and Eusebius, some bishops went up to Dioscorus, asking him not to. Dioscorus called the guards, and the 1000 monks who were waiting outside with some soldiers came in and charged at Flavian and his followers. Flavian ran to the altar and grabbed hold of it for his life. The soldiers and monks forcefully took him from the altar beating him, kicking him and then whipping him.

Flavian was deported into exile and died from his wounds a few days later in Lydia.

And that same violent spirit was the root of persecutions against the Arians, the Waldensians, and numerous others who chose not to be submissive to religious tyranny and political intrigue.

No, the church was doing no such thing. Such sharing was on a voluntary basis as the holy spirit led. Ananias and Sapphira, in seeking to maintain good standing in the church, did some property but only have some of the proceeds but lied, pretending they had given all. God struck them dead... Not the church... As a lesson to the early church that deception and lying was a serious business that God would not tolerate.

You OBVIOUSLY don't know your own Christian history and Scripture (Acts 2:45, Hebrews 13:16, Romans 12:20, Luke 3:10-11, 1 John 3:16-17) .......

Where in any of those references does it suggest that selling all your possessions was compulsory? Do you own your own house? Are those recommendations to give to the poor (which no Christian objects to) that you seem to believe a church led legislative imperative, apply to you?

 

[Grailhunter]

I begin by insisting there must be a message of love in it. God knew Jacob before he was born. Jacob knew God before he was born. Esau had not yet come to know God, and that was the problem especially since the birthright was his. Jacob could not get Esau to come to know God unless he had spiritual authority over him; and Esau had that spiritual authority. So to save him and his descendants, Jacob had to supplant him so he could exercise proper spiritual authority.

Esau did look like the better son. The Jews say he fooled Isaac by asking all the right questions, leading Isaac to think he was devout. He did not fool Rebekkah. Rebekkah can be said to reverse some of the harm done when Eve was fooled by the serpent. Rebekkah was not fooled by the pleasant exterior Esau had. Jacob looked worse, but appearances can be deceiving. . . . Jacob did his job and supplanted Esau's spiritual authority, thus making it possible for God's authority to be exerted.

As for Jacob living with Laban? Laban was desperately wicked. He tried several things to prevent Jacob from returning to the Land of Promise. He had Jacob marry sisters. Although Moses hadn't said it was wrong yet, Laban knew it would be was a source of trouble. Finally Rachel did some theft too, stealing her father's idols when they left. She did not steal them to worship them -- please do not think that. She did it so her father wouldn't have them. He was using them to do black magic, so stealing them weakened him. Part of Laban's strength had been inherited by his daughters too; and that strength got introduced into Israel and purified.

Sometimes it takes a little trickery to get things done. If all authority was ordained by God, what happens if they are abusive and wicked? They get replaced. Little did Pilate know that he was handing over Rome's authority to Jesus when he violated the terms anyone in authority is held too. He knew Jesus was innocent and still condemned him. (Pharaoh had done something similar when ordering children to be killed. He lost his God-given right to rule when he did that and again when he refused to allow religious freedom in his kingdom.) The soldiers who crucified him did not know what they were doing; but when they stole Jesus' clothes, that also gave Jesus authority over them. Those clothes would have been like Elijah's mantle in a way. Those soldiers "sold" their birthright (so to speak) for some clothes.

Some make an association the Romans with the Edomites. Several Jewish authors called Rome Edom.

EDOX, IDUMEA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The name "Edom" is used by the Talmudists for the Roman empire, and they applied to Rome every passage of the Bible referring to Edom or to Esau. In Leviticus Rabbah (xiii.) Rome, under the name of "Edom," is compared to a boar, and the symbolic name "Seir" was used by the poets of the Middle Ages not only for Rome (comp. Ecclus. 1. 26, Hebr.), but also for Christianity (Zunz, "Literaturgesch." p. 620). On this account the word "Edom" was often expunged by the censor and another name substituted (Popper, "Censorship of Hebrew Books," p. 58). In place of "Edom," the word "Ḥazir" (swine) was occasionally used, perhaps as a mere term of reproach (but see Epstein, "Beiträge zur Jüd. Alterthumskunde," p. 35). In Midrash Tanḥuma Bereshit, Hadrian is called "the King of Edom." The Talmudists, however, made an exception in favor of Antoninus Pius, whom they assured would attain paradise, because he had not acted in the manner of Esau ('Ab. Zarah 10b). 'Abodah Zarah 10a, however, explaining Obadiah, verse 2, says that Edom had neither written nor spoken language. This is inconsistent with its application to Rome.

I think Rome had a connection with the Edomites and see the conversion of Rome from paganism to Christianity as part of the continuing struggle between Israel and Edom with God's advancing. At any rate, the Edomites would have been "pink people" since the words means "red."

Thanks for all of that....but I guess, still the answer is no. There is an underlying middle-eastern cultural mind set here that still exists today. Trickery is seen as wisdom. For example the Moslems see any desire to negotiate as weakness on your part and only meet to see what they can get out of it, and never intend to live up to their part of the agreement.
That still does not explain Jacob's overall poor character.

 

[Waiting on him]

Greek: καταισχύνω
Transliteration: kataischunō
Pronunciation: kat-ahee-skhoo'-no
Definition: From G2596 and G153; to shame down that is disgrace or (by implication) put to the blush: - confound dishonour (be a- make a-) shame (-d).
KJV Usage: ashamed (7x), confound (3x), dishonour (2x), shame (1x).
Occurs: 18
In verses: 12

1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV
[27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


Tecarta Bible

 

[epostle]

It's obvious they weren't passed down properly even in the first four hundred years when consecrated Bishops could disagree with each other so much. If they all had teachings passed to them, they received different teachings.

Heretical bishops were not taught heresies, they taught their own heresies in opposition to the historic Church. See my signature.

"Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains: "The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."​

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency

 

[epostle]

Who today believes the decisions reached by the Council of Jerusalem are binding? I do. The Catholic Church does not. They believed they had the authority to undo what the Apostles said at that council. I'm pressed for time; but I can go into it in detail later if you like.

But you don't believe the Council of Jerusalem is the model for future councils. Yes, go into detail. I would expect scholarly references from Ph.D. historians written after 1960, and not the usual post-enlightenment crap that has been refuted a million times. Your remark is offensive.

The Catholic Church teaches that the decisions reached by the Apostles and elders at the Council of Jerusalem are infallible.

 

[brakelite]

You OBVIOUSLY don't know your own Christian history and Scripture (Acts 2:45, Hebrews 13:16, Romans 12:20, Luke 3:10-11, 1 John 3:16-17) .......

You really shouldn't quote scripture... Is like a hammer in the hands of a child. You use it as a club, but have no idea of its true purpose. BoL is the same.

 

[Giuliano]

Heretical bishops were not taught heresies, they taught their own heresies in opposition to the historic Church. See my signature.

How could this be if bishops were properly consecrated? Saying a bishop who was properly ordained could invent heresies casts doubt on the whole concept of the role of a bishop and how he is trusted with the spiritual welfare of his flock. Why vould anyone respect and trust his bishop if this is so?

"Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains: "The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura: Formal versus Material Sufficiency

This is not worth much comment since the concept of "sola scriptura" didn't exist in the Fourth Century. Indeed there was no official list of what books were canonical at the time.

But you don't believe the Council of Jerusalem is the model for future councils. Yes, go into detail. I would expect scholarly references from Ph.D. historians written after 1960, and not the usual post-enlightenment crap that has been refuted a million times. Your remark is offensive.

Why take offense? My ideas aren't that important.

First of all, the Council of Jerusalem was not called for political reasons. The first Ecumenical Council was highly political. A synod decided they couldn't solve the Arian problem. Constantine was asked to intervene. Some precedent. He summoned the bishops. Is that your idea about how a godly council should be assembled? I would think, myself, that the purpose of a synod would be to solve their own problems. If they couldn't, ask someone higher up in hierarchy. I would also think a bishop should follow Paul's advice and get rid of heretics in his diocese. Isn't that part of his job as a bishop?

The Catholic Church teaches that the decisions reached by the Apostles and elders at the Council of Jerusalem are infallible.

Why then did a later council say Catholics could consume blood when that had been prohibited by the Apostles?

Council of Florence 1431-1445 A.D. <17ecum11.htm>

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food.

The reason given is simply not correct since other things that offended the Jews were not prohibited by the Apostles. It also does not take into account the Covenant made with Noah and the animals -- on which the Jewish idea of righteous Gentiles is based. The Jews have always taught it is not necessary for Gentiles to convert. If they keep the provisions of the Noahic Covenant, they are reckoned as righteous Gentiles. Like so many other Jewish ideas, rabbis have different ideas about what those provisions are; but it should not be a shock that their lists of what is required of Gentiles is very similar to the list given by the Apostles. The prohibition against consumed blood or strangled things goes back to the days of Noah, predating the Law of Moses, and it is binding on all of Noah's descendants.

 

[epostle]

How could this be if bishops were properly consecrated? Saying a bishop who was properly ordained could invent heresies casts doubt on the whole concept of the role of a bishop and how he is trusted with the spiritual welfare of his flock. Why vould anyone respect and trust his bishop if this is so?

You are blaming the Church for the existence of heretics. Why would you trust bishops to compile the books of the Bible?

​

This is not worth much comment since the concept of "sola scriptura" didn't exist in the Fourth Century. Indeed there was no official list of what books were canonical at the time.

The Arian heresy is a good example of where heresies come from, and how the historic Church dealt with it. You seem to have your own private history so discussion on anything historical is pointless.

Why take offense? My ideas aren't that important.

Posting things like "They believed they had the authority to undo what the Apostles said at that council." is not important, but it's just another anti-Catholic trolling zinger. You post it anyway. Then you go on to reject the Council of Nicae.

First of all, the Council of Jerusalem was not called for political reasons. The first Ecumenical Council was highly political. A synod decided they couldn't solve the Arian problem.

Arius was deemed a heretic and excommunicated. Your false history is annoying.

Constantine was asked to intervene. Some precedent.

Another falsehood. Constantine went to the Pope and they agreed a council was needed. It is impossible to convene an ecumenical council without papal approval.

He summoned the bishops. Is that your idea about how a godly council should be assembled?

Again, your history is fabricated. Constantine may have been present at the Council of Nicae, his concern was for temporal order, but he had absolutely no spiritual jurisdiction. You have no evidence that he did. His name is not even mentioned in any of the canons.

I would think, myself, that the purpose of a synod would be to solve their own problems. If they couldn't, ask someone higher up in hierarchy. I would also think a bishop should follow Paul's advice and get rid of heretics in his diocese. Isn't that part of his job as a bishop?

The reason why Emperor Constantine collaborated with the Pope and called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even a counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Your false history denies this. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

The assembly of bishops proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior to the First Council of Nicaea who was in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church. Your fabricated early church history denies the facts.

Why then did a later council say Catholics could consume blood when that had been prohibited by the Apostles?

Catholics don't "consume blood". We eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood in the form of consecrated Bread and Wine, as He commanded. This has not changed in 2000 years, and the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

 

[aspen]

It’s funny

People seem to think
Finding one corruption
In the enemies camp
Nullifies everything

“Hillary did this!”
“The Catholic Church did that!”
“Progressives did everything else!”

Then I realized a similarity

“If the Bible has one error it is all wrong!”
“Believing in Evolution nullifies your faith!”
“Denying the Flood is calling Jesus a liar!”

Maybe America is a Christian nation after all

 

[Heart2Soul]

You are blaming the Church for the existence of heretics. Why would you trust bishops to compile the books of the Bible?

​

The Arian heresy is a good example of where heresies come from, and how the historic Church dealt with it. You seem to have your own private history so discussion on anything historical is pointless.

Posting things like "They believed they had the authority to undo what the Apostles said at that council." is not important, but it's just another anti-Catholic trolling zinger. You post it anyway. Then you go on to reject the Council of Nicae.

Arius was deemed a heretic and excommunicated. Your false history is annoying. Another falsehood. Constantine went to the Pope and they agreed a council was needed. It is impossible to convene an ecumenical council without papal approval. Again, your history is fabricated. Constantine may have been present at the Council of Nicae, his concern was for temporal order, but he had absolutely no spiritual jurisdiction. You have no evidence that he did. His name is not even mentioned in any of the canons.
The reason why Emperor Constantine collaborated with the Pope and called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even a counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Your false history denies this. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

The assembly of bishops proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior to the First Council of Nicaea who was in agreement with each other. Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church. Your fabricated early church history denies the facts.
Catholics don't "consume blood". We eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood in the form of consecrated Bread and Wine, as He commanded. This has not changed in 2000 years, and the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

My church takes communion like this as well.

 

[farouk]

My church takes communion like this as well.

I do like the simplicity of 1 Corinthians 11.26: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

 

[Giuliano]

You are blaming the Church for the existence of heretics. Why would you trust bishops to compile the books of the Bible?

You did not answer my question. Let me repeat it:

How could this be if bishops were properly consecrated? Saying a bishop who was properly ordained could invent heresies casts doubt on the whole concept of the role of a bishop and how he is trusted with the spiritual welfare of his flock. Why vould anyone respect and trust his bishop if this is so?

You're the person who said Bishops created heresies, and I asked how could that be?

​

The Arian heresy is a good example of where heresies come from, and how the historic Church dealt with it. You seem to have your own private history so discussion on anything historical is pointless.

I thought each bishop dealt with any heretics without any need to convene a council with invitations sent to all bishops known in the world.

Posting things like "They believed they had the authority to undo what the Apostles said at that council." is not important, but it's just another anti-Catholic trolling zinger. You post it anyway. Then you go on to reject the Council of Nicae.

The Council of Florence did saw people could consume blood. The Council of Jerusalem forbade it.

Arius was deemed a heretic and excommunicated. Your false history is annoying. Another falsehood. Constantine went to the Pope and they agreed a council was needed. It is impossible to convene an ecumenical council without papal approval. Again, your history is fabricated.

I got some of my information from Wikipedia.

The First Council of Nicaea was convened by the Roman emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by the bishop Hosius of Corduba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east.[16] To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls.[17]In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea, a place reasonably accessible to many delegates, particularly those of Asia Minor, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

This was the first general council in the history of the Church and was summoned by Constantine. According to Carroll, in the Council of Nicaea, "The Church had taken her first great step to define revealed doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."[18]

Constantine may have been present at the Council of Nicae, his concern was for temporal order, but he had absolutely no spiritual jurisdiction. You have no evidence that he did. His name is not even mentioned in any of the canons.

I based my comment on something found at CCEL which gives the sources for what they wrote:

How great the contrast between this position of the church and the time of her persecution but scarcely passed! What a revolution of opinion in bishops who had once feared the Roman emperor as the worst enemy of the church, and who now greeted the same emperor in his half barbarous attire as an angel of God from heaven, and gave him, though not yet even baptized, the honorary presidency of the highest assembly of the church!

After a brief salutatory address from the bishop on the right of the emperor, by which we are most probably to understand Eusebius of Caesarea, the emperor himself delivered with a gentle voice in the official Latin tongue the opening address, which was immediately after translated into Greek, and runs thus:1323

“It was my highest wish, my friends, that I might be permitted to enjoy your assembly. I must thank God that, in addition to all other blessings, he has shown me this highest one of all: to see you all gathered here in harmony and with one mind. May no malicious enemy rob us of this happiness, and after the tyranny of the enemy of Christ [Licinius and his army] is conquered by the help of the Redeemer, the wicked demon shall not persecute the divine law with new blasphemies. Discord in the church I consider more fearful and painful than any other war. As soon as I by the help of God had overcome my enemies, I believed that nothing more was now necessary than to give thanks to God in common joy with those whom I had liberated. But when I heard of your division, I was convinced that this matter should by no means be neglected, and in the desire to assist by my service, I have summoned you without delay. I shall, however, feel my desire fulfilled only when I see the minds of all united in that peaceful harmony which you, as the anointed of God, must preach to others. Delay not therefore, my friends, delay not, servants of God; put away all causes of strife, and loose all knots of discord by the laws of peace. Thus shall you accomplish the work most pleasing to God, and confer upon me, your fellow servant,1324 an exceeding great joy.”

After this address he gave way to the (ecclesiastical) presidents of the council1325 and the business began. The emperor, however, constantly, took an active part, and exercised a considerable influence.

Why do you think that impossible then? We know another Emperor picked Nectarius to become Bishop of Constantinople when he was an unbaptized person. He was baptized and ordained in one day, made a bishop and then presided over an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Giuliano]

The reason why Emperor Constantine collaborated with the Pope and called the Council of Nicaea was to resolve the controversy over Arius’ teaching that Christ Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father. Therefore, it then follows that for there to have been a heresy or even a counter belief to create a controversy, there must have been prior to Arianism a well-established belief about the nature Jesus Christ in a Church community that all agreed with this understanding. Your false history denies this. Otherwise, the teachings of Arius would not have caused such a controversy.

I think perhaps you're the one with a fictional history.

The assembly of bishops proves that there were well-organized dioceses and churches prior to the First Council of Nicaea who was in agreement with each other.

Why then did they struggle to come up with something they could agree on? Why was Eusebius of Nicemedia there when he was an Arian? How did he get promoted later to become Bishop of Constantinople? Again from CCEL:

The Arians or Eusebians numbered perhaps twenty bishops, under the lead of the influential bishop Eusebius of Nicemedia (afterwards of Constantinople), who was allied with the imperial family, and of the presbyter Arius, who attended at the command of the emperor, and was often called upon to set forth his views.1328 To these also belonged Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Menophantus of Ephesus; embracing in this remarkable way the bishops of the several seats of the orthodox ecumenical councils.

The majority, whose organ was the renowned historian Eusebius of Caesarea, took middle ground between the right and the left, but bore nearer the right, and finally went over to that side. Many of them had an orthodox instinct, but little discernment; others were disciples of Origen, or preferred simple biblical expression to a scholastic terminology; others had no firm convictions, but only uncertain opinions, and were therefore easily swayed by the arguments of the stronger party or by mere external considerations.

The Arians first proposed a creed, which however was rejected with tumultuous disapproval, and torn to pieces; whereupon all the eighteen signers of it, excepting Theonas and Secundus, both of Egypt, abandoned the cause of Arius.

Then the church historian Eusebius, in the name of the middle party, proposed an ancient Palestinian Confession, which was very similar to the Nicene, and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general biblical terms, but avoided the term in question, ὁμοούσιοςconsubstantialis, of the same essence. The emperor had already seen and approved this confession, and even the Arian minority were ready to accept it.

But this last circumstance itself was very suspicious to the extreme right. They wished a creed which no Arian could honestly subscribe, and especially insisted on inserting the expression homo-ousios, which the Arians hated and declared to be unscriptural, Sabellian, and materialistic.1329 The emperor saw clearly that the Eusebian formula would not pass; and, as he had at heart, for the sake of peace, the most nearly unanimous decision which was possible, he gave his voice for the disputed word.

Then Hosius of Cordova appeared and announced that a confession was prepared which would now be read by the deacon (afterwards bishop) Hermogenes of Caesarea, the secretary of the synod. It is in substance the well-known Nicene creed with some additions and omissions of which we are to speak below. It is somewhat abrupt; the council not caring to do more than meet the immediate exigency. The direct concern was only to establish the doctrine of the true deity of the Son. The deity of the Holy Spirit, though inevitably involved, did not then come up as a subject of special discussion, and therefore the synod contented itself on this point with the sentence: “And (we believe) in the Holy Ghost.”1330 The council of Constantinople enlarged the last article concerning the Holy Ghost. To the positive part of the Nicene confession is added a condemnation of the Arian heresy, which dropped out of the formula afterwards received.

Almost all the bishops subscribed the creed, Hosius at the head, and next him the two Roman presbyters in the name of their bishop. This is the first instance of such signing of a document in the Christian church. Eusebius of Caesarea also signed his name after a day’s deliberation, and vindicated this act in a letter to his diocese. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea subscribed the creed without the condemnatory formula, and for this they were deposed and for a time banished, but finally consented to all the decrees of the council.

Further research into this area will demonstrate the precise areas in which they agreed, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, about many of the books which were thought to be inspired Scripture, and the Bishop of Rome being the successor of Peter and the head of the universal Church. Your fabricated early church history denies the facts.

So you say . . . without citing any sources. I know of no discussions about the Real Presence or about which books were inspired.

The role of the Bishops of Rome is in one of the canons.

Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Sorry, but that says nothing about "head of the universal Church." It didn't have to since everyone already agreed about his role. No need to discuss that.

Catholics don't "consume blood". We eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood in the form of consecrated Bread and Wine, as He commanded. This has not changed in 2000 years, and the evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Your knowledge of Church history could be improved. Before throwing hot words at me, you might want to do some reading yourself. I was not talking about the Eucharist. I was talking about how the Council of Florence reversed the Council of Jerusalem when they said Christians could consume the blood of animals. They said what the Apostles had said no longer applied.

 

[Giuliano]

My church takes communion like this as well.

He misrepresented what I said. The Apostles said to abstain from the blood of animals. The Council of Florence said it was okay.

This discussion started earlier, perhaps you missed that part. Epostle said I was wrong, that a Catholic Ecumenical Council had never changed anything from the Council of Jerusalem. He had written, "The Catholic Church teaches that the decisions reached by the Apostles and elders at the Council of Jerusalem are infallible." The Apostles said consuming animal blood was not okay; and the Council of Florence said it was okay.

 

[Giuliano]

I do like the simplicity of 1 Corinthians 11.26: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

And that has nothing to do with the "blood" that the Apostles said Christians should not consume when they wrote this:

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The Council of Florence said Christians didn't have to abstain from the blood of animals, writing:

It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs.