a question for "Bible Only" churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquabatix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
80 AD
Thats interesting…even Catholics do not say he was a “Pope” in 80 AD…his “papacy” according to the legends (emphasis on that part) starts in the 90’s
Clement is associated with Paul…who for all practical purposes told them what to do. Of course there were other church leaders around. Say, you do realize that other church leaders wrote to and corrected other cities? Because the Catholics on here have studied the history…I am sure they know that already…
Ah no! You have a profound misunderstanding. The pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας (pappas).The title “Pope” is honorific designation and the papacy is an OFFICE (BISHOPRIC) which was establised by who? The Apostles. Guess what? Clement was a bishop,so yes us Catholics already knew that much.

Care to provide the sources and names of the ‘other’ church leaders who wrote to other ciites to correct them? BTW: But I bet you did not know bishops from both west and east always turned to who went doctrinal issues couldn’t be settled? Oh that is right,the Bishop of Rome. Why go to him,if all were equal?
 
Ah no! You have a profound misunderstanding. The pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας (pappas).The title “Pope” is honorific designation and the papacy is an OFFICE (BISHOPRIC) which was establised by who? The Apostles. Guess what? Clement was a bishop,so yes us Catholics already knew that much.

Care to provide the sources and names of the ‘other’ church leaders who wrote to other ciites to correct them? BTW: But I bet you did not know bishops from both west and east always turned to who went doctrinal issues couldn’t be settled? Oh that is right,the Bishop of Rome. Why go to him,if all were equal?
If Clement wrote in 80 AD and the Catholic Church asserts he became bishop in 90 AD is my point…which you skipped…the two are reconciled how? Anacletus was Pope in 80 AD…
For other church leaders, I will find more but off the top of my head and full knowledge that a link is available is
earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp-intro.html
 
Be safe.
I found an online copy of the book…well sort of. It skips right over the Didache without comment! Ugh. But I am reading quickly. How do you know that seminaries use that, I would have had to look up their textbooks online I suspect.
I got the Seminary book list from Father Christopher Blust because I was sponsoring Seminarians at the Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary, and I wanted to buy their books for them.

The list that he gave me is as follows:

The Sources of Catholic Dogma - Denzinger - Loreto Press
The Church Teaches - Tan Press
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ott - Tan Press
The Faith of the Early Fathers - Jurgens - Liturgical Press, Collegeville
The Jerome Bible Commentary
Sunday Sermons of the Early Fathers
The Documents of Vatican II - Abbott - Guild Press
 
If Clement wrote in 80 AD and the Catholic Church asserts he became bishop in 90 AD is my point…which you skipped…the two are reconciled how? Anacletus was Pope in 80 AD…
The source I was using had him as Pope in 80 AD - my bad. The Letter of Clement to the Corinthians was written when he was Bishop of Rome, so if he didn’t become Pope until 90 AD, then it would have been at around that time, then. 🙂
 

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.
Ddokimas,

Quoting you, “I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine”. My question to you is this, what makes you beleive that the CC started in the 300s and not earlier? Can you provide sound evidence, that this is when it started?
 
If Clement wrote in 80 AD and the Catholic Church asserts he became bishop in 90 AD is my point…which you skipped…the two are reconciled how? Anacletus was Pope in 80 AD…
For other church leaders, I will find more but off the top of my head and full knowledge that a link is available is
earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp-intro.html
The church ‘asserts’ is the key word. Yes the year 90 is preferred date by many scholars,but it is not concrete or conclusive. The same is applicable to St.Peter’s tenure.When one reads St.Clement’s letter he says, “Due to the calamities which have befallen us” to the church at Corinth is a strong reference to Mt.Vesuvius which erupted in 79 A.D,hence the date of 80 A.D. for his letter.Furthermore, some claim he wrote his letter around 96 A.D and said, “Due to the calamities which have befallen us” is a reference to Domitian’s persecutions against Christians.However, there is very little secular evidence of Domitian actually issuing an edict against the Christians.

What many people today fail to understand is that the ancients were not so concerned with dating their letters or events as we moderns do. The actual dates is not the question at hand,but the existence of the office,which was already established. Is the office of the bishop of today the same as the first early centuires? Of course not,but it does not negate its existence. Is the office of the president today the same as it was in 1789? Of course not.

As for your link,thank you. I have that specific writings in a larger volume called The Faith of the Church Fathers. Yes, bishops wrote letters to correct those within his own jurisdication. Now, as stated, if one reads the early church when will acknowledge time after time many bishops from other regions would go to Rome to take the ‘issue’ at hand so the Bishop of Rome can give the final say. Look up the Easter controversy with St.Victor (circa 180-199) and how eastern bishops went to Rome to settle the exact date to celebrate Easter. Again,if the Bishop of Rome is only an equal in honor,why bother going to him time after time?
 
As for your link,thank you. I have that specific writings in a larger volume called The Faith of the Church Fathers. Yes, bishops wrote letters to correct those within his own jurisdication. Now, as stated, if one reads the early church when will acknowledge time after time many bishops from other regions would go to Rome to take the ‘issue’ at hand so the Bishop of Rome can give the final say. Look up the Easter controversy with St.Victor (circa 180-199) and how eastern bishops went to Rome to settle the exact date to celebrate Easter. Again,if the Bishop of Rome is only an equal in honor,why bother going to him time after time?
This is something I would not normally do but I request that everyone read this post please. Its long. I am typing it from a book because I am not going to cut and paste from a website. It needs to be long to give the context. The book that this is found in is the famous history of the church by Eusebius. Look at what happened versus how this was presented in the above thread. You decide about Pope Victor and how this was viewed by the church.
Eusebius The History of the Church
It was at that stage that a controversey of great significance took place, because all the Asian dioceses thought that in accordance with ancient tradition they out to observe the fourteenth day of the lunar month as the beginning of the Paschal festival…So synods and conferences of bishops were convened, and without a dissentient voice, drew up a decree of the Church, in the form of letters addressed to Christians everywhere, that never on any day other than the Lord’s Day should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated. There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jersualem and from those at Rome a similar one wich Victor names as bishop. .
I am going to stop right there for a minute. Did you read what this says compared to what it was portrayed as by the post above?

Lets continue with blurbs from this.
Eusebius continuing
Thee are others form the Pontic bishops, over which Irenaeus presided, and from the bishops in Osthoene and the cities in that region. There are also personal letters from Bishop bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more who voiced one and the same opinion.
So at this time Polycrates tells Victor who is opposed to the Eastern date what?

" (I) am not scared of threats. Better people than I have said: 'We must obey God rather than men"

So Victor attempts to cut off unity. The men “strongly rebuke” Victor because he wanted to cut off unity. Listen, lets stick to the facts and what actually occured. You can read for yourself that Victor does not solve this and the others rebuke Victor for trying to cut off the unity of those who disagree with what Rome wanted to do.
 
Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia (using as its source material the same document from Eusibius):

The Christians at Rome, who had come from the province of Asia, were accustomed to observe Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, whatever day of the week that date might happen to fall on, just as they had done at home. This difference inevitably led to trouble when it appeared in the Christian community of Rome. Pope Victor decided, therefore, to bring about unity in the observance of the Easter festival and to persuade the Quartodecimans to join in the general practice of the Church. He wrote, therefore, to Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus and induced the latter to call together the bishops of the province of Asia in order to discuss the matter with them. This was done; but in the letter sent by Polycrates to Pope Victor he declared that he firmly held to the Quartoceciman custom observed by so many celebrated and holy bishops of that region. Victor called a meeting of Italian bishops at Rome, which is the earliest Roman synod known. He also wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival. Letters came from all sides: from the synod in Palestine, at which Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided; from the synod of Pontus over which Palmas as the oldest presided; from the communities in Gaul whose bishop of Irenaeus of Lyons; from the bishops of the Kingdom of Osrhoene; also from individual bishops, as Bakchylus of Corinth. These letters all unanimously reported that Easter was observed on Sunday. Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.

This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom (Eusebius, Church History V.23-25). We have no information concerning the further course of the matter under Victor I so far as it regards the bishops of Asia. All that is known is that in the course of the third century the Roman practice in the observance of Easter became gradually universal. In Rome itself, where Pope Victor naturally enforced the observance of Easter on Sunday by all Christians in the capital, an Oriental named Blastus, with a few followers, opposed the pope and brought about a schism, which, however, did not grow in importance (Eusebius, loc. cit., B, xx).
 
It is a fact that Easter is celebrated on a Sunday today, all over the world, even in those Protestant communities that happen to observe Easter, and even in the Eastern Church - so, even if he didn’t succeed in making Easter to be a Sunday celebration in his own time, his view has certainly prevailed in the long run. 🙂
 
Rightlydivide:

**So at this time Polycrates tells Victor who is opposed to the Eastern date what?

" (I) am not scared of threats. Better people than I have said: 'We must obey God rather than men"

So Victor attempts to cut off unity. The men “strongly rebuke” Victor because he wanted to cut off unity. Listen, lets stick to the facts and what actually occured. You can read for yourself that Victor does not solve this and the others rebuke Victor for trying to cut off the unity of those who disagree with what Rome wanted to do. **

The fact that Victor did not solve it is not proof he did not have primacy. Did the Council of Nicea stamp out the Arians and their heresy? No! The issue of Easter also revolved around tradition.

Byzantine historian Eusebius wrote,

A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover…But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world…But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him

Here is what Eusebius records that Polycrates wrote,

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’…I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus

However what you failed you mention was that one bishop Theodotus of Byzantium was a heretic for teaching Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as a mortal man, and though later adopted by God upon baptism, was not himself God until after his resurrection.The fact they disagreed with Victor and their rebukes in no SHAPE or FORM was directed at his PRIMACY.

Pope Victor attempted to cut off from the common unity Polycrates and others for taking this stance, but later reversed his decision after Irenaeus and others interceded.
 
Rightlydivide:

**So at this time Polycrates tells Victor who is opposed to the Eastern date what?

" (I) am not scared of threats. Better people than I have said: 'We must obey God rather than men"

So Victor attempts to cut off unity. The men “strongly rebuke” Victor because he wanted to cut off unity. Listen, lets stick to the facts and what actually occured. You can read for yourself that Victor does not solve this and the others rebuke Victor for trying to cut off the unity of those who disagree with what Rome wanted to do. **

The fact that Victor did not solve it is not proof he did not have primacy. Did the Council of Nicea stamp out the Arians and their heresy? No! The issue of Easter also revolved around tradition.

Byzantine historian Eusebius wrote,

A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover…But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world…But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him

Here is what Eusebius records that Polycrates wrote,

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’…I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus

However what you failed you mention was that one bishop Theodotus of Byzantium was a heretic for teaching Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as a mortal man, and though later adopted by God upon baptism, was not himself God until after his resurrection.The fact they disagreed with Victor and their rebukes in no SHAPE or FORM was directed at his PRIMACY.

Pope Victor attempted to cut off from the common unity Polycrates and others for taking this stance, but later reversed his decision after Irenaeus and others interceded.
Failed to mention. Victor had no primacy according to any of these accounts. Show me primacy from the documents that exist at the time.
Okay lets try this as well. Prove using any patristic sources that he did reverse his decision. He didn’t. That is a apologetic argument not based in history.
 
Failed to mention. Victor had no primacy according to any of these accounts. Show me primacy from the documents that exist at the time.
Okay lets try this as well. Prove using any patristic sources that he did reverse his decision. He didn’t. That is a apologetic argument not based in history.
His decision to require that Easter be observed each year on a Sunday was never reversed - it remains even until now, the practice of the entire Church, including all who at present are in schism. There are no Catholics and no schismatics today who celebrate Easter on the 14th of Nissan in the years that it does not fall on a Sunday.

Those who opposed him went into schism, but their sects didn’t last very long.
 
Failed to mention. Victor had no primacy according to any of these accounts. Show me primacy from the documents that exist at the time.
Okay lets try this as well. Prove using any patristic sources that he did reverse his decision. He didn’t. That is a apologetic argument not based in history.
Read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans. There is clearly a primacy given to Rome, ans it was in the very early 2nd century.
 
Ddokimas,

Quoting you, “I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine”. My question to you is this, what makes you beleive that the CC started in the 300s and not earlier? Can you provide sound evidence, that this is when it started?
He also states the early church was not catholic! Maybe he can also tell us what church christ founded if it was not the catholic church.

Matthew
 
Read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans. There is clearly a primacy given to Rome, ans it was in the very early 2nd century.
No it does not. It clearly states that it presides “in the place” “of the region” “of the Romans” ie the area around Rome.
 
His decision to require that Easter be observed each year on a Sunday was never reversed - it remains even until now, the practice of the entire Church, including all who at present are in schism. There are no Catholics and no schismatics today who celebrate Easter on the 14th of Nissan in the years that it does not fall on a Sunday.

Those who opposed him went into schism, but their sects didn’t last very long.
The date for Easter was not set at the end of the second century. What are you talking about?!?! It continued to be celebrated at different times until the early fourth century and then in other parts until later.
The Council of Nicaea ruled that all churches should follow a single rule for Easter, which should be computed independently of the Jewish calendar, as at Alexandria. However, it did not make any explicit ruling about the details of the computation, and it was several decades before the Alexandrine computations stabilized into their final form, and several centuries beyond that before they became normative throughout Christendom.
 
The date for Easter was not set at the end of the second century. What are you talking about?!?! It continued to be celebrated at different times until the early fourth century and then in other parts until later.
But always, after that, on Sundays. We still have two different methods of calculating Easter Sunday, which often results in the Eastern and Western Churches celebrating Easter on different Sundays (usually about a week or so apart), but it is always a Sunday. 🙂
 
Failed to mention. Victor had no primacy according to any of these accounts. Show me primacy from the documents that exist at the time.
Okay lets try this as well. Prove using any patristic sources that he did reverse his decision. He didn’t. That is a apologetic argument not based in history.
I do not think so! On the contrary, it shows quite the opposite. You still have not answered me:

If the Bishop of Rome had NO primacy as you so claim and believe,then why bother even taking the whole Easter fiasco to the papacy? Furthermore,I can give you ample of sources from the early church where it is very clear the Bishop of Rome had a primacy. As I stated,time and time again bishops from both West and East went to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes.In fact,I cannot remember which bishop of Rome clearly makes it clear to a specific group of bishops who failed to bring their speciic case to Rome,due to it was a common practice as he stated.

Second, he reversed his decisions not to cut them off,because the Easter issue continued on.However,your charge does not prove he had no primacy. That is no different when people try to use the scriptural verse where Paul confronts Peter.Paul is not challenging Peter’s primacy,but his lack of practicing of what he preached.

No matter how much you wish it to be not true,the evidence is there,whether you care to accept it or not.

Show the sources that exist at time of the primacy of Rome? I can start with scripture and it is very clear which Apostle had the primacy over the others.
 
=Prodigal Son1;6461123]Use the scriptures your referencing. Paul did not teach the Eucharist was just a meal. He very well distinguished it from being just a meal in the letter to the Corinthians.
Where are the scriptures showing that Churches fully appointed clergy? While they may have put forth men, they did not use, or have authority to use, the impostion of hands. You’re basing your statement on a private interpretation of scriptures.
And in the world today, are rivers running by, or through every river? This reminds me of Christ correcting those who held the letter of the law as a burden over people.
You know, scriptures can be an easy read, just as the early Church fathers can be, but some have to read them in a way to fit them to theology. If you read all of either, you’re going to find doctrines that you have to read differently, or deny, because their are very clear Catholic doctrines explained.
***If I may add a thought to this wounderful response…

Paul not only did not teach that Eucharist was a meal; he made a definitive defense that it is OH, so much more!*

1Cor.11 Verses 23 to 29

[23] “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself”. **

***One can not eat and drink simple meal bread and wine and “profane the Lord” and even bring damnation unto themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE. Paul knew and taught the TRUTH!

Paul and and thought [in this Epistle, which many historians claim to hve been the first written book of the NT, perhaps 30 yars after the Death of Christ. This is the precise practice and understanding, nearly 2000 years later:thumbsup:****
 
Nicea325;6467131]I do not think so! On the contrary, it shows quite the opposite. You still have not answered me:
If the Bishop of Rome had NO primacy as you so claim and believe,then why bother even taking the whole Easter fiasco to the papacy?
Show me “taking…to the papacy” in this case. This is Eusebius writing in the quote below. Show me “taking it to the papacy”. You keep saying that like it was not a case of several different regional synods.
So synods and conferences of bishops were convened, and without a dissentient voice, drew up a decree of the Church, in the form of letters addressed to Christians everywhere, that never on any day other than the Lord’s Day should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated. There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jersualem and from those at Rome a similar one which Victor names as bishop
Next topic. We are now discussing Victor and your claim that he “reversed” his decision. Show your proof of that. That is apologetics. It is opinion based upon nothing. There are no facts which support him reversing anything. If I am wrong, show me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top