Books of the Bible: The Unnaccepted.
76Ever wonder why there are 3 different major Christian groups (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) and 3 different versions of the Bible for each of them? They all claim to be the true version. While Orthodox trace the Bible used to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea the Catholics didn't trust the decision reached at that council, and Luther trusted it even less. Both Protestant and Catholic took different books out because they did not believe the process of the Council to be divinely appointed. How can this be since both Catholics and Protestants trusted other decisions made at that council, including the Creed for a period of time. However, another point reached that is agreed on by all denominations is the 100% divine/100% human nature of Jesus Christ. So why would Catholics and Protestants trust some of the decisions as being true and reject others because they didn't believe the process was divine regardless of its necessity in determining what they DO believe to be true? We will discuss this here.
For a little over a thousand years Catholics and Orthodox charted nearly the same course in matters of doctrine. What was ecclesiastically accepted in the West was generally accepted in the East, if only for points of goodwill. However, over time the West tended to adopt different practices that were routinely condemned by East through what was known as a General Council of the Church. In both the East and West this was accepted as the only sure way to decide matters of doctrine. They were convened through different means though generally by the Eastern Roman Emperor or the Patriarch of Constantinople. Over a period of months representatives from all Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople) would gather in a city of the "conveners" choosing. Matters were brought to the councils attention and voted on, passing by simply majority. The decisions were binding and were to be accepted by all. The East recognizes 7 of these councils called for various issues (iconoclasm, creed, Patriarchates) and the West recognizes about 20.
In 325 A.D. a council was called by Basileus Constantine the Great to convene in Nicaea. These issues resolved were numerous. The representatives voted on everything from the Nature of Christ to the Creed (later to bear the name Nicene Creed). However, the books of the Bible were also voted on. Those books accepted were the books you see in the Orthodox Bible today.
Through the passage of time the Latin (Catholic) Church began to drift from the decisions it was bound to accept as per the vote. "Research" was done in the few centuries after 1054 (the year of the Church Split) and books were dropped as Rome no longer accepted the decisions as binding. On a side note it was also this drift which led to the insertion of the "filioque", though that process started sooner than 1054. So the Latin church dropped a number of the books leaving 73 books.
In Martin Luther's "Reformation" a great push was made to be "Anti-Catholic". As a result further "research" was performed which resulted in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible we see today. Sot we see that though the Protestants accept some decisions of the council as being divinely inspired they reject others leading one to ask who decided which was which. The answer is this: the whims of a few men incited by an intense dislike of tradition, led by Martin Luther.
Orthodox, on the other hand, kept the decision made by the council. The Books remain. The Creed remains in its original form. Orthodox Christianity represents an unbroken chain of belief and belief systems since the Apostles preached. It remains so because the decisions of doctrine were not left to the whims of one man (The Patriarch of Rome) or the whims of a small group of men (Luther, Zwingli, Huss). The doctrines were determined by a General Council divinely inspired and greatly led. The result is an unbroken, pure, and doctrinally homogenous Tradition.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I sure hope you do! I would LOVE to read it.
Councils of NicaeaRespectively, the first and seventh Ecumenical Councils
view page scan
High Resolution Scan ———————————
————* Published by Encyclopedia Press, 1913.
Nicaea, COUNCILS OF, respectively the First and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, held at Nicaea in Bithynia (see above).
I. THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church), held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (see Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his "Epistola encyclica", to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control. Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-23. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the reestablishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counselor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.
The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the Pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Silvester came to an agreement (see Pope Saint Sylvester I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. The choice of Nicaea was favorable to the assembling of a large number of bishops. It was easily accessible to the bishops of nearly all the provinces, but especially to those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The sessions were held in the principal church, and in the central hall of the imperial palace. A large place was indeed necessary to receive such an assembly, though the exact number is not known with certainty. Eusebius speaks of more than 250 bishops, and later Arabic manuscripts raise the figure to 2000 an evident exaggeration in which, however, it is impossible to discover the approximate total number of bishops, as well as of the priests, deacons, and acolytes, of whom it is said that a great number were also present. St. Athanasius, a member of the council, speaks of 300, and in his letter "Ad Afros" he says explicitly 318. This figure is almost universally adopted, and there seems to be no good reason for rejecting it. Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. The assembly numbered among its most famous members St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Cmsarea, and Nicholas of Myra. Some had suffered during the last persecution; others were poorly enough acquainted with Christian theology. Among the members was a young deacon, Athanasius of Alexandria, for whom this Council was to be the prelude to a life of conflict and of glory (see Saint Athanasius).
The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea There is less agreement among our early authorities as to the month and day of the opening. In order to reconcile the indications furnished by Socrates and by the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, this date may, perhaps, be taken as May 20, and that of the drawing up of the symbol as June 19. It may be assumed without too great hardihood that the synod, having been convoked for May 20, in the absence of the emperor held meetings of a less solemn character until June 14, when after the emperor's arrival, the sessions properly so called began, the symbol being formulated on June 19, after which various matters—the paschal controversy, etc.—were dealt with, and the sessions came to an end August 25. The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be reestablished. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius.
The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival. Eusebius of Caesarea and his two abbreviators, Socrates and Sozomen, as well as Rufinus and Gelasius of Cyzicus, report no details of the theological discussions. Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius. (For the part played by the Eusebian third party, see Eusebius of Nicomedia. The adoption of the term Greek: omoousios by the Council is fully treated under Homoousion. For the Creed of Eusebius, see Eusebius OF CAESAREA: Life.) St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence. The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation:—
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [Greek: ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [Greek: omoousion to patri] through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and for our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third da
Jessica W says:
10 months ago
Thank You for this article. My feelings on it are so vast that I might have to write an article on the omnipotency of God and His Will.