L
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay…does he need to mention the bishop on a regular basis to prove it? The argument that “such and such” is not in the Bible or by a specific church father mentions no bishop or whatever holds no weight. Are the NT writers constantly mentioning the exact whereabouts of the other Apostles?
L
Lincoln7
Guest
I think he mentions no bishop as there was no single monarchial bishop in Rome. Rather as I’ve stated as my position before; Rome had a plurality of elders at this time as is attested to by both 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas amongst others. Again, the link I posted a few pages back on this: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
Lincs.
N
Nicea325
Guest
You are making an argument based on: silence and assumptions. Again,the fact he does not mention it does not clearly prove it did not exist. As I said…does Ignatius discuss the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? Does that mean he never did because he never wrote it down? We cannot know for certain an issue based on silence.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
I make it based on evidence, the link has but a small extract from groundbreaking scholarly material on this period… My views on the church in rome in the period are not based just on Ignatian silence, but multiple factors.
Kind regards
Lincs.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Hi, Lincs! Did you address this?
P
PRmerger
Guest
So there is no leader in the Presbyterian church–all decisions are made by vote, in a group? No one is the visible leader?
P
pablope
Guest
I provided this before, I think…and am not sure if you read it…calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/
So, let me ask…in establishing his Consitory in Geneva…wasn’t he, in effect, making himself a pope?
His first request to the city council was to impose a common confession of faith (written by Calvin) and to force all citizens to affirm it…the establishment of the Consistory –t- to judge the moral and theological purity of his parishioners. He also persuaded the council to enforce a set of “Ecclesiastical Ordinances” that defined the authority of the Church, stated the religious obligations of the laity, and imposed an official liturgy. Church attendance was mandatory… Contradicting the ministers was outlawed as blasphemy. Calvin’s Institutes would eventually be declared official doctrine…Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor. Calvin wielded it frequently. According to historian William Monter, one in fifteen citizens was summoned before the Consistory between 1559 and 1569, and up to one in twenty five was actually excommunicated.1 **Calvin used this power to enforce his single vision of Christianity and to punish dissent
.**
(Looks like Calvin wanted to be his own king…or pope…do you agree)
Can you expound further on what happened to Bolsec:
In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.
So…what happened to SS:
He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2
And about authority:
What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3…“Contradicting the ministers” was one of the most common reasons to be called before the Consistory and penalties could be severe…Pierre Ameaux, a citizen of Geneva, was forced to crawl to the door of the Bishop’s residence, with his head uncovered and a torch in his hand. He begged the forgiveness of God, of the ministers and of the city council. His crime? He contradicted the preaching of Calvin. The council, at Calvin’s urging, had decreed Ameaux’s public humiliation as punishment…when Calvin gained the right to excommunicate, he did not hesitate to use it against this “blasphemy.”
**
And because of the lack of authority:**
John Calvin had high expectations for the unity and catholicity of the faith, and for the centrality of Church and sacrament. But Calvinism couldn’t deliver it. Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. …It is not surprising that by the eighteenth century, leading Calvinist Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic had given up on the quest for complete unity. One new approach was to stress the subjective experience of “new birth” (itself a novel doctrine of Puritan origins) as the only necessary concern…He had insisted on the importance of unity and authority, but had rejected any rational or consistent basis for that authority. He knew that Scripture totally alone, Scripture interpreted by each individual conscience, was a recipe for disaster. But his own claim to authority was perfectly arbitrary. Whenever he was challenged, he simply appealed to his own conscience, or to his subjective experience, but he denied that right to Bolsec and others. As a result, Calvin became proud and censorious, brutal with his enemies, and intolerant of dissent. In all my reading of Calvin, I don’t recall him ever apologizing for a mistake or admitting an error.
It eventually occurred to me that Calvin’s attitude contrasted sharply with what I had found in the greatest Catholic theologians. Many of them were saints, recognized for their heroic charity and humility. Furthermore, I knew from reading them, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis de Sales, that they denied any personal authority to define doctrine. They deferred willingly, even joyfully, to the authority of Pope and council. They could maintain the biblical ideal of doctrinal unity (1 Corinthians 1:10), without claiming to be the source of that unity.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Hi Prmerger,
Lincs.
The quickest article I can think of to get an idea of the style of it is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_polity#The_General_Assembly
Lincs.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Pablope,
And of course I have yet to go through the article and actually test what it says.
Lincs.
I have read it. I’m unsure how his disagreements with Calvin as a man therefore mean his doctrine is untrue? or how it somehow demonstrates the early church of Rome had a monarchial bishop and not a multiplicity of elders until the mid second century at least?
And of course I have yet to go through the article and actually test what it says.
Lincs.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the Bishop as the Father, and the Presbyters as the Senate of God and the assembly of the Apostles. For without them we cannot speak of the church” Ignatius of Antioch (Ad Trall 3,1 SCh 10,96)
Seems to me as has been proposed a very long time St Ignatius described the function of the Church no differently than it has cane down through the centuries. Now history tells us of approx. time line of the Saints 7-letters. Here’s how this coincides with St Irenaeus which we already discussed his work which coincides with two others. Thus the 7th century work used by the Vatican today.
Apostle founds the Apostolis See in Rome
St Linus from Tusia 68-79
St Anacletus of Rome 80-92
St Clement Rome 92-99
St Evaristus Greece 99-108
St Alexander Rome 108 or 109 to 116 or 119
The dating of the following Bishop St Teleshorus Greece is also similiar in specifics of recorded dates, this continues with the next “few” Bishops do to persecution. And as we see there was much help from the East with theologians, in writtings and Doctine and Heresy during these years.
Point is the period of Ignatius and his Letters and St Alexander as Bishop of Rome are within the approx. time line. Very well could have coincided within the period a Bishop was to be elected. This would have also been the first election of a Bishop in Rome but would not have been in the East. What we have is Ignatius leaving order to the chain of command in the Church in its elect.
Now as we have mentioned a simliar situation occurs with Presbyter at the Council of Ephesus which we discussed. However if look at the Canons through the Councils we see a pattern resembling what is already established.
Council of Nicaea (AD 325) [First Ecumenical Council]
“The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome.” (Council of Nicaea - Canon 6)
Council of Constantinople (AD 381) [Second Ecumenical Council]
“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor ‘after’ the bishop of Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).
Council of Ephesus (AD 431) [Third Ecumenical Council]
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], 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’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) [Fourth Ecumenical Council]
“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, 'We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
“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!’” (Council of Chalcedon - session 2 - AD 451).
“The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome [Constantinople], reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.” (Council of Chalcedon - Canon 28 - AD 451)
So thus arguement that the Chair of Peter thus Peter himself doesn’t continue is Apostolic Succession is not found within the annals of the Ecumenical Councils or History. Contrary History confirms just has continued to proceed through the Apostolic Churchs. The only Polemics I see is the to "what " degree the honor is of Rome. Here you “why” Pope Benedict is willing to talk “rational” about the position of Rome but He is the Chair of Peter and rightfully so in Succession. And by Divine Providence.
Pretty much bring up to date in Ecumenical Dialogue with the East. Point being Linc that the Apostolic Succession is very real, very documented and Historic and has taken place since Christ appointed the Apostles. Had a heretic, and Anti Pope, or the strident clamour of evil caused a zig instead of a zag in the straight line of Gods Will then the Holy Spirit sent a Soul to guide the Church.
Seems to me as has been proposed a very long time St Ignatius described the function of the Church no differently than it has cane down through the centuries. Now history tells us of approx. time line of the Saints 7-letters. Here’s how this coincides with St Irenaeus which we already discussed his work which coincides with two others. Thus the 7th century work used by the Vatican today.
Apostle founds the Apostolis See in Rome
St Linus from Tusia 68-79
St Anacletus of Rome 80-92
St Clement Rome 92-99
St Evaristus Greece 99-108
St Alexander Rome 108 or 109 to 116 or 119
The dating of the following Bishop St Teleshorus Greece is also similiar in specifics of recorded dates, this continues with the next “few” Bishops do to persecution. And as we see there was much help from the East with theologians, in writtings and Doctine and Heresy during these years.
Point is the period of Ignatius and his Letters and St Alexander as Bishop of Rome are within the approx. time line. Very well could have coincided within the period a Bishop was to be elected. This would have also been the first election of a Bishop in Rome but would not have been in the East. What we have is Ignatius leaving order to the chain of command in the Church in its elect.
Now as we have mentioned a simliar situation occurs with Presbyter at the Council of Ephesus which we discussed. However if look at the Canons through the Councils we see a pattern resembling what is already established.
Council of Nicaea (AD 325) [First Ecumenical Council]
“The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome.” (Council of Nicaea - Canon 6)
Council of Constantinople (AD 381) [Second Ecumenical Council]
“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor ‘after’ the bishop of Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).
Council of Ephesus (AD 431) [Third Ecumenical Council]
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], 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’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) [Fourth Ecumenical Council]
“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, 'We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
“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!’” (Council of Chalcedon - session 2 - AD 451).
“The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome [Constantinople], reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.” (Council of Chalcedon - Canon 28 - AD 451)
So thus arguement that the Chair of Peter thus Peter himself doesn’t continue is Apostolic Succession is not found within the annals of the Ecumenical Councils or History. Contrary History confirms just has continued to proceed through the Apostolic Churchs. The only Polemics I see is the to "what " degree the honor is of Rome. Here you “why” Pope Benedict is willing to talk “rational” about the position of Rome but He is the Chair of Peter and rightfully so in Succession. And by Divine Providence.
Pretty much bring up to date in Ecumenical Dialogue with the East. Point being Linc that the Apostolic Succession is very real, very documented and Historic and has taken place since Christ appointed the Apostles. Had a heretic, and Anti Pope, or the strident clamour of evil caused a zig instead of a zag in the straight line of Gods Will then the Holy Spirit sent a Soul to guide the Church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
BTW just a continued part…
Purgatory is also very old, while the Florence and Trent phrase the word “purgatory” this dates back to the Apostle Paul, then foward to Gregory the Great. Paul spoke of the Fire of Purification and the Third Heaven. This has been discussed throughout history. The fact that the name “purgatory” doesn’t exist in Bible is not a mystery we know as I shown where it came from, whats being missed is the theology behind it which existed very early on and by St Paul himself as he clearly was a student of OT tradition written and oral.
Marion docrines date to pre 100-AD with St Mark in Alexandria with the “Immaculate” just as with Acts of Andrew, while the Catholic Church didn’t elevate the work to Canon, it does recognise the Historic validity of the Saints Work, so too this Dogma continues through the centurys. The Assumption/Dormition are no brainers. A play on words with the Assumption because a lacking document in referrence to the Dormition.
Again this comes back to Ignatius when he spoke the Three Mysterys in Silence. And yes the heresy was the Divinity of Jesus Christ in this period through St Athanasius was exiled 5X from Alexandria in a continued effort to fight heresy. Point being the Church had its hands full establishing the Human/Divine Natures of Jesus Christ. How were they to come public with their beliefs in the Immaculate Conception.
There is no mistake in Apostolic Succession, Mary or the Eucharist. The only aspect in the Sacraments which developed in time was “penance” since the early church “shunned” those with committed “adultry” thus reverting to “extreme” penance etc. Until the Bishops decided on the Confessional. Penance has been a very real part of the Christian faith since Christ and is directly rooted in the Eucharist.
Peace
Purgatory is also very old, while the Florence and Trent phrase the word “purgatory” this dates back to the Apostle Paul, then foward to Gregory the Great. Paul spoke of the Fire of Purification and the Third Heaven. This has been discussed throughout history. The fact that the name “purgatory” doesn’t exist in Bible is not a mystery we know as I shown where it came from, whats being missed is the theology behind it which existed very early on and by St Paul himself as he clearly was a student of OT tradition written and oral.
Marion docrines date to pre 100-AD with St Mark in Alexandria with the “Immaculate” just as with Acts of Andrew, while the Catholic Church didn’t elevate the work to Canon, it does recognise the Historic validity of the Saints Work, so too this Dogma continues through the centurys. The Assumption/Dormition are no brainers. A play on words with the Assumption because a lacking document in referrence to the Dormition.
Again this comes back to Ignatius when he spoke the Three Mysterys in Silence. And yes the heresy was the Divinity of Jesus Christ in this period through St Athanasius was exiled 5X from Alexandria in a continued effort to fight heresy. Point being the Church had its hands full establishing the Human/Divine Natures of Jesus Christ. How were they to come public with their beliefs in the Immaculate Conception.
There is no mistake in Apostolic Succession, Mary or the Eucharist. The only aspect in the Sacraments which developed in time was “penance” since the early church “shunned” those with committed “adultry” thus reverting to “extreme” penance etc. Until the Bishops decided on the Confessional. Penance has been a very real part of the Christian faith since Christ and is directly rooted in the Eucharist.
Peace
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
OK lets look at Marcus Grodis work on the same topic from EWTN. For he quote another aspect of St Ignatius letter which I will show an alternative translation also.
“You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. 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 appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107
Now the Romans
“Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110
Heres the next verse not from Marcus sight but the abive is repedted word for word in 1:1.
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Now lets look at Irenaeus.
“The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is one and the same.”
—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies 1, 10, 2, c. AD 190
“It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times… But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”
—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190
Oh we might as well add Eucharist since the dilemma continues.
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”
—St. Justin Martyr
First Apology 66, A.D. 151
The following quote certainly doesn’t describe any form of Protestantism I know. The author implies that the Apostles intended for the Church to be led by bishops who would then be succeeded by other bishops, as apposed to individuals who merely “sensed” that God was calling them into ministry or to start their own church or for a random group of believers to bond together and elect their leader. Here we see the early assumption of a continuous Apostolic Succession:
“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”
—St. Clement of Rome
Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80
There is also no doubt as to the authentic acknowledged letter by the Orthodox or Protestants.
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved … Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
—St. Clement of Rome
Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80
Yes there have been moments of turmoil and conflict is the advancement of evil. The Church has remained should it have stumbled and had to regain its footing in this climatic period, the continued progess of Gods Will is self evident.
The entire link could be read at chnetwork.org or google “The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw” by Marcus Grodi
“You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. 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 appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107
Now the Romans
“Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
—St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110
Heres the next verse not from Marcus sight but the abive is repedted word for word in 1:1.
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Now lets look at Irenaeus.
“The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is one and the same.”
—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies 1, 10, 2, c. AD 190
“It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times… But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”
—St. Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190
Oh we might as well add Eucharist since the dilemma continues.
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”
—St. Justin Martyr
First Apology 66, A.D. 151
The following quote certainly doesn’t describe any form of Protestantism I know. The author implies that the Apostles intended for the Church to be led by bishops who would then be succeeded by other bishops, as apposed to individuals who merely “sensed” that God was calling them into ministry or to start their own church or for a random group of believers to bond together and elect their leader. Here we see the early assumption of a continuous Apostolic Succession:
“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”
—St. Clement of Rome
Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80
There is also no doubt as to the authentic acknowledged letter by the Orthodox or Protestants.
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved … Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
—St. Clement of Rome
Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80
Yes there have been moments of turmoil and conflict is the advancement of evil. The Church has remained should it have stumbled and had to regain its footing in this climatic period, the continued progess of Gods Will is self evident.
The entire link could be read at chnetwork.org or google “The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw” by Marcus Grodi
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Gary,
There is a lot of material here, too much for CAF threads to discuss.
As one other poster has already pointed out, i could likewise go and find a lot of quotes that show something utterly different… The fathers don’t have a unanimous voice on a topic such as this…
All of them need to be studied in context…
Lincs.
There is a lot of material here, too much for CAF threads to discuss.
As one other poster has already pointed out, i could likewise go and find a lot of quotes that show something utterly different… The fathers don’t have a unanimous voice on a topic such as this…
All of them need to be studied in context…
Lincs.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Linc and who are you going to quote from the first couple hundred years? And there is no contradiction in the Ecumenical Councils. I have all the works here which follow the earliest of the church fathers as seen, then to Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, all a resounding voice. Most notable is the works done by the early fathers who are Saints in both “East and West”. There is no discrepancy in the works. So it moves from the 100-AD to the 200-AD period then to the 300-AD period with Ambrose of Milan, Pope Damasus 1, Jerome then to the next Pope Innocent I, Augustine. Then we of course have the councils confirming the thinking.
That is the chronological order you see which we have discussed though this thread.
Apostles, Bishops, and the Saints words. Confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils.
Theres also a lot of “opinion’s” promoted “today” which holds no weight in the living history of the Apostles and there Successors. These Church “still” exist in Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch. Russia, and so forth. This isn’t by chance, its a very real history. And as we see they are still walking to Martrydom today just as they did in Rome.
Those of the other Apostolic Churchs who deny St Peters Chair or Benedicts right to that chair, deny their own in Apostolic Succession, ignorance by default in lack of understanding. The Bishops and Father’s we see have a clear understanding. Here is a different story which is what each individual “thinks” is happening. And usually to promote there own Apostolic See which is noble and understandable. Its Obedience, I would expect it from them.
Yes theres a “TON” of reading, and not only that, but re-translating should you want to see the translation and possible diversity of words in meaning. Same arguement we have today with the EO in the Filioque. Which in truth is only a path to understanding the language barriers and terminology.
No this isn’t easy, but its the coorect path we are all called to partake in. For there is to be One Church by Bible.
And this isn’t to say for example when a protestant area states well Cross and Calvery and Bible only isn’t a help to bring Souls to Christ, We say AMEN. However its little bit over the top to proceed from there and call the Apostolic Churchs cults, apostasy, fiction, etc. For whatever unknown the particular reason may be, and there are many. How does it help the One Church Christ prayed for? It simply doesn’t for it divides, here in the midst of persecution once again is the Great falling away the Protestants continue to speak on. How that help’s the Coptics of Alexandria today and the rest of the middle-east, while they are marched of to death is beyond me.
To bring about the Supernatural Grace and Blessing of God, we must Obey to the letter. Its not “Well God we couldn’t do that, so we did this instead” As we have witnessed with Israel God does not bless that kind of pride, and will not. Its a very clear History in the Supernatural also.
That is the chronological order you see which we have discussed though this thread.
Apostles, Bishops, and the Saints words. Confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils.Theres also a lot of “opinion’s” promoted “today” which holds no weight in the living history of the Apostles and there Successors. These Church
Those of the other Apostolic Churchs who deny St Peters Chair or Benedicts right to that chair, deny their own in Apostolic Succession, ignorance by default in lack of understanding. The Bishops and Father’s we see have a clear understanding. Here is a different story which is what each individual “thinks” is happening. And usually to promote there own Apostolic See which is noble and understandable. Its Obedience, I would expect it from them.
Yes theres a “TON” of reading, and not only that, but re-translating should you want to see the translation and possible diversity of words in meaning. Same arguement we have today with the EO in the Filioque. Which in truth is only a path to understanding the language barriers and terminology.
No this isn’t easy, but its the coorect path we are all called to partake in. For there is to be One Church by Bible.
And this isn’t to say for example when a protestant area states well Cross and Calvery and Bible only isn’t a help to bring Souls to Christ, We say AMEN. However its little bit over the top to proceed from there and call the Apostolic Churchs cults, apostasy, fiction, etc. For whatever unknown the particular reason may be, and there are many. How does it help the One Church Christ prayed for? It simply doesn’t for it divides, here in the midst of persecution once again is the Great falling away the Protestants continue to speak on. How that help’s the Coptics of Alexandria today and the rest of the middle-east, while they are marched of to death is beyond me.
To bring about the Supernatural Grace and Blessing of God, we must Obey to the letter. Its not “Well God we couldn’t do that, so we did this instead” As we have witnessed with Israel God does not bless that kind of pride, and will not. Its a very clear History in the Supernatural also.
B
BenedictFTW
Guest
Just let us have a couple for the same era as quoted by Gary
B
BenedictFTW
Guest
Excellent.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thanks for the great posts, Gary.
Fellow Christians do not realize the great heritage and constancy of faith the universal Church provides down through the ages.
When looking at our entire Church history, of which I am still learning, and seeing the additional cultural, economic, political complexities existing in Christiandom at the time prior to the Reformation, to break away under the leadership of single men is very much outside the intent of Christ and His Church.
Fellow Christians do not realize the great heritage and constancy of faith the universal Church provides down through the ages.
When looking at our entire Church history, of which I am still learning, and seeing the additional cultural, economic, political complexities existing in Christiandom at the time prior to the Reformation, to break away under the leadership of single men is very much outside the intent of Christ and His Church.
B
Brandon_Rimmer_1
Guest
I think that this sentiment is essentially correct.
It seems impossible to have any authority genuinely higher than one’s reason.
If you say, “No, the Bible is my authority!” then I ask, why did you choose the Bible to be your authority? Responses may involve certain outside influences, such as the Grace of God, but ultimately, the reason you choose to believe what the Bible says is because you find it reasonable to do so.
The same with the Church. Why do you accept the authority of the Church? Because it seems reasonable to do so.
Therefore, the final authority and decision-maker in everyone’s lives is their reasoning. The individual is the final authority. Each person is his or her own pope.
How could it be any other way?
It seems impossible to have any authority genuinely higher than one’s reason.
If you say, “No, the Bible is my authority!” then I ask, why did you choose the Bible to be your authority? Responses may involve certain outside influences, such as the Grace of God, but ultimately, the reason you choose to believe what the Bible says is because you find it reasonable to do so.
The same with the Church. Why do you accept the authority of the Church? Because it seems reasonable to do so.
Therefore, the final authority and decision-maker in everyone’s lives is their reasoning. The individual is the final authority. Each person is his or her own pope.
How could it be any other way?
N
Nicea325
Guest
We do not accept church authority based on one’s own self-reasoning. Catholics accept the authority of the church because of God. God left His church as the authority, God did not leave it up to us to decide based on our finite reasoning.
- Status