Both Catholics and Evangelicals have lost their moorings

[Ignatius33]

1. Immaculate Conception (meaning God applied the merits of the cross to her in a miraculous way, saving her, through Jesus, at the outset of her life, rather than later on like the rest of us)

From the earliest Tradition, Mary was known as “all holy,” as “ever-virgin,” as the “New Eve,” and as the “co-operator” in the plan of salvation. True, her Immaculate Conception was not formally defined by the Catholic Church until 1854 (but then again, the NT canon and Trinity weren’t defined until the 4th century, nor was transubstantiation defined until the 13th century). Yet, the earliest Christians understood an “all-holiness” about her (and early CFs like St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian referred to her as the “New Eve” while others, including St. Hippolytus, St. Ephraim, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, specifically wrote about her sinlessness). Even CFs like Origen, who intimated that Mary sinned once (just once!! – I’ve never seen a CF say Mary was a common sinner like everyone else), elsewhere wrote that she was “all holy.” It took centuries of the most brilliant Christian minds (e.g., St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria and Duns Scotus), aided by the Holy Spirit I believe, to fully realize her special role in Christianity, including her Immaculate Conception, which I believe is the logical conclusion or “fleshing out” of Mary as “New Eve” (Eve was created without sin and Mary was, through God’s grace, even greater than Eve, remaining free from sin throughout her life). Indeed, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is supported by at least three passages in Scripture (Gn. 3:15 “complete” enmity between Satan and Mary could only exist if Mary was never under the bondage of sin]; Lk. 1:28 [Mary was full of grace]; and the passages prefiguring Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant).

1. Indulgences

The Church has the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23; Matt. 16:19, 18:18), i.e., the power to remit the eternal punishment due sin – hell. This is the consensus view of the CFs. In fact, the sole point of difference between the Catholic Church and the Novatians was that the Novatians denied the Church’s the authority to forgive mortal sins committed after baptism. The universal Church affirmed this authority from the beginning. If the Church possesses the authority to remit the eternal punishment due sin, it is not a stretch to believe that it possesses the lesser power of remitting the temporal punishment due sin, i.e., the authority to grant indulgences. Check out Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” for a more detailed explanation of indulgences.

1. Purgatory

Purgatory too is grounded both in Scripture (2 Macc. 12:39-46; Matt. 5:25-26; Matt. 12:32; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; Rev. 21:27) and Tradition. From the earliest Tradition, Christians prayed for the dead (as can be seen in the numerous graffiti in the Roman catacombs). CFs recording this belief include Abercius, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ephraim, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (who said that “the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers”). Clearly, it is pointless to pray for those in heaven or hell – these prayers presuppose a third place, purgatory. Likewise, many CFs wrote about a cleansing or purgatorial fire after death, including Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustine, St. Caesar and St. Gregory the Great. Again, read Thomas Aquinas’s “Summa Theologica” for a more detailed discourse about purgatory.

Finally, I’ll pose this question – if St. Augustine, a contemporary of St. Vincent, were somehow to time-travel to the 21st century, where do you think he would go to church on Sunday? Bear in mind that he believed in the Real Presence, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, apostolic succession, the Roman primacy, a ministerial priesthood to administer the sacraments, confession, salvation “not by faith alone,” purgatorial fire and praying for the dead, a hierarchical/institutional Church – and he called himself “Catholic.”

Hope this helps.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel,

You make a lot of assertions here, without any support. I am happy you are happy to be Roman Catholic. That is not my doubt.

When I refer to “innovations”, I mean such doctrines and dogmas as purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception and others. All of these doctrines/dogmas were formally pronounced in the Western Church and have never been accepted in the East. So Eastern Orthodox do not accept your assertion that these were “taught and believed in every Catholic age”, since until the Great Schism in 1054, the Orthodox Church was the eastern part of that very same church.

Protestants, for the most part also reject these innovations, although not because they were not supported by the ECFs and Tradition but rather because they are not supported by Scripture. They limit their scrutiny to Scripture alone, but come to the same conclusion as the Eastern Orthodox.

So, show me that my “false claim” is refuted by “public” and “historical records”. The standard is that these doctrines/dogmas should be generally accepted by the ECFs everywhere in the Christian world and always. I would be delighted to look at the evidence.

Gabriel of 12;

From your reasoning, because you are not Eastern Orthodox Catholic, it appears you have a misunderstanding of the schism between SOME of the Eastern Catholic Church and the Western Catholic Church. Why you would choose to argue the Doctrines of the Catholic Church from an Eastern Catholic view when you dont profess to be either one is beyond me, would it be better to just speak from what you profess to be than what others believe?

If you are delighted in looking at the True Orthodox Catholic faith grown from a mustard seed into a fruitful tree, then you have come to the right place;

Pick your doctrine, or your protesting view of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church dogma. Myself and others would be happy to indulge you of how the body of Jesus Christ since the resurrection has matured throughout the centuries unchanged to today.

Or maybe a more clearer understanding of the Schism will help you. You do know that most of the Eastern Catholic church is in full communion with the Roman Catholic church, or are you not aware of this fact. To generalize the Eastern Church in Schism is a very poor judgement on your part. That is why I believe, you are unable to argue from an Eastern perspective unless you can be more specific of which Eastern Rite you are addressing. Then the Truth can be more revealing to you, of why the Schism which is close to disappearing.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

On a side not Jesus for Madrid; Your professing an Evangelical belief? All Eastern and Western Catholics believe your new faith innovation is man made, not created by Jesus himself. The Sola theology is man made since its birth from the 16th century, never a biblical teaching or apostolic teaching, never an Apostolic Tradition not taught by Jesus.

This topic may be more to your delight, but in either case choose your topic.

Peace be with you

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I too used to be an Evangelical Protestant until I took St. Vincent’s advice and began reading the Bible through the lens of Tradition (rather than the lens of the 16th century European Reformers and their progeny, as I had been unconsciously raised to do). Once I did that, I quickly came to believe in the Real Presence, the Eucharist as the centerpiece of liturgical worship, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, and an institutional/hierarchical Church that can never fail. I assume you now believe in these things too, given the consensus view of the CFs on these topics.

Thank you for your thoughtful and extensive reply for this inquirer, a mere sinner. Yes, basically, I have come to the same conclusion, notwithstanding some hesitancy on infant baptism. But still, yes.

As for the so-called defeaters of Catholicism that you mention (papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, indulgences and purgatory), I think each can be adequately defended from Scripture and Tradition. Fundamentally, I think your view of the Catholic notion of the development of doctrine is a little off. The Church teaches that public revelation, i.e., the entire deposit of faith, was completed upon the death of the last Apostle (John, around 100 AD). It does not teach progressive revelation. Rather, it teaches that some doctrines and concepts require generations or even hundreds of years of contemplation, prayer and “hammering out” before their implications are fully realized or understood (the same is basically true in science). Doctrine doesn’t change; our understanding of it does. John Henry Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” is indispensable to properly understanding the Catholic view – I highly recommend it. I now believe that all of the distinctly Catholic doctrines were part of the original deposit of faith and (at least implicitly) believed by the earliest Christians, even if in a primitive and not fully-developed or fleshed-out form. I’ll try to briefly address your four objections in the following post(s).

I have problems with this view and I think it relates to Roman Catholic scholasticism. That is, why would Christ’s church, guided by the Holy Spirit, need 2000 years to “hammer out” doctrines? Are you saying that the disciples were insufficient in their understanding of faith? Is there anything that we know today that the disciples didn’t know regarding faith that is important? Why does God need theological evolution, when He is the God of creation?

This is, by the way, really just the same as the Protestant scholastic tendency, but used to justify different things. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants follow the scholastic tendency of Augustine, Anslem and Aquinas to over-define certain theological tenets, when the disciples and ECFs were more willing to accept as mysteries, such as in the Eucharist.

I will comment below specifically, but my premise is fundamentally different from yours. I believe the disciples and Early Church Fathers had all the same richness of faith and knowledge of God that we have and they didn’t need 2000 years to get that knowledge.

But what about the Trinity and the councils? Yes, the Trinity was defined by the Early Church and doesn’t appear in the Bible. But did the disciples and ECFs believe in the Trinity? Of course they did, although perhaps not formulated exactly as the Nicene or other creed does. Did they accept this always and everywhere? Why yes.

Now, contrast that with the innovations I allege. Did the disciples believe that Pope Peter was infallible (or potentially so, when speaking ex cathedra). No. Did the Early Church Fathers embrace indulgences? I don’t see that.

The problem for the Roman Catholic who accepts your premise on the evolution of our understanding of theology is that you have no idea where it will evolve to? Will the RC church in the future make St. Mary a “mediatrix”? No Roman Catholic can say for sure? How about "Co-Redemtrix or even “Co-Savior”? You cannot predict were the church is going with its “understanding of theology” and hence it has lost its moorings, my initial premise.

Again, I think many Evangelicals, without the ECFs as a reference point, have also lost their moorings, so I point back at myself too.

Perhaps we both need to go East?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

1. papal infallibility

As a Catholic, I believe that Jesus Himself laid the foundations for the papacy and papal infallibility in Matthew 16:16-19/Isaiah 22:20-22, Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17 (inasmuch as every organization or institution needs a physical leader, it seems reasonable to believe that the restored Davidic Kingdom, the Church – “the pillar and foundation of truth” – would have need of one). And the earliest Christian writings display an understanding of Peter’s special primacy, as well as that of his successors, the bishops of Rome.

The classic verse to which you refer, the “You are Peter” verse is hardly evidence that the Pope is infallible. Peter was bishop of Rome, yes. But before that, he was first Bishop of Antioch. Can’t the Antiochian Orthodox Church claim infallibility before Rome, since he was first there? Moreover, up until the 4th century, the universal understanding of this verse was that the “rock” referred to was Peter’s faith. The Eastern churches always accepted this interpretation.

Two chapters later in Matthew, we are told that all disciples have the same authority by Jesus. 'In truth I tell you (hymin, plural) that whatever you tie on earth will have been tied in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven "( Mt. 18:18).The disciples have the same power of “binding and loosening” that Peter has, so he has no special authority. Read Acts. Peter is the first to speak at Pentecost, but nowhere is he considered the de facto leader or infallible. He is corrected by the other disciples.

The Roman Church therefore commits a tautology: Rome says it is uniquely authoritative, because Rome authoritatively says so. It defines its authority as deriving from an interpretation of a verse interpreted differently from the rest of the Body of Christ, for its own self-serving purposes.

I

n the early 2nd century Rome was singled out for special praise and honor by St. Ignatius of Antioch. … And if this understanding of papal primacy is correct, then, when conjoined with the doctrine of the indefectibility of the church, it does logically entail papal infallibility.

Here, with all respect, you are doing just what I accused the RC Church of doing in my first post: reaching back into the Early Church’s penumbra to justify a recent innovation.

The Early Church operated in an concilliar fashion of bishops, which we see beginning in the book of Acts. Of the five most important–Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria, Rome had a place of honour. Rome was often faithful and resisted heresy. Yet none of these things suggests that the Early Church believed the Bishop of Rome infallible.

We know that at the time of the Great Schism, 1054, the other 4 Bishops did not accept Rome’s infallibility or that would have gladly accepted Rome’s addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. That they didn’t surely suggests that there was not any general acceptance, by everybody and everywhere in the Church even as late as the 11th century that the Bishop of Rome was infallible.

There is also corroborating evidence to support papal infallibility. In particular, the inductive argument for papal infallibility was not unnoticed in the early church. …I am not saying that these authors had all the details worked out, but certainly the claim of infallibility seems to be implicit in their statements.

Again, please don’t fall into the trap of citing the remarks of a few ECFs, out of context, to support a modern innovation. We need to show “everywhere, always, by everybody”, not a few isolated quotes.

I think a stronger case can be made that Rome began faithfully and it arrogated increasingly power to itself. And its innovations have caused schism rather than preserving the Faith. The filioque clause led to the Great Schism. Indulgences led to the Protestant reformation (I am simplifying but Luther’s 95 theses were focused on this issue), Papal infallibility led to the Old Catholics leaving. What will naming Mary “Co-Mediatrix” do, were the RC Church to introduce a such new innovation? That is the danger of the RC Church’s belief in the evolution of the “understanding” of doctrine.

The next three will be shorter, I promise!

I hope so; I cannot keep up!

 

[Ignatius33]

Hi JesusforMadrid,

This is fun dialoguing with you, thanks for your openness. I guess I have a couple of thoughts in response. First, I agree with you that the apostles had the fullness of truth. But I don’t agree that the early Church had every detail worked out. Just like science, which is always progressing (not science itself, which is immutable; rather, our understanding of it), so does our understanding of divine revelation, which, of course, is infinitely complex given that we are studying God here! J Do I think the Apostle John (from whom I believe the Tradition of Mary as New Eve came from, given that Polycarp was his disciple and Irenaeus learned from Polycarp) was consciously aware that Mary was sinless? I don’t know the answer to that. But I do believe that, through divine revelation, he called her the “New Eve” – and in that apostolic tradition we find the truth of the Immaculate Conception (Christ as the “New Adam” was also sinless). And I think few would argue that the earliest Christians had everything “hammered out.” That is precisely why God left us the Church (“the pillar and foundation of truth” – the sure guide) and the Holy Spirit – to guide the Church “to all truth.”

Indeed, it is undisputed that the earliest Christians did not have the NT canon hammered out at all (not to mention the OT canon, but I’m not getting into that here!). As far as I know, St. Athanasius, writing in the mid-fourth century, is the first CF to give our 27-book NT canon perfectly. Why didn’t God or the Apostles make clear what writings were Scripture and which weren’t right off the bat? I can’t answer that. But it is clear that they didn’t. Instead, they left us the Church, which later solved the problem for us. And how about justification – one of the most difficult points of Christian doctrine? Did the earliest Christians have this worked out? Even confessional Protestants would admit that they didn’t. What CFs taught salvation by “faith alone” as Luther taught? I know of none. In fact, while Luther found “faith alone” in Romans 3:28, going so far as to add the word “alone” to his German translation of the passage, St. Augustine found something else: “Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: ‘We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law’ [Rom. 3:28] have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he leads a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by [St. Paul], who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, [Gal. 5:6] adds at once, but faith which works by love” (On Grace and Free Will 18). Did the Apostles and the CFs have opposite views on this point? I don’t want to digress into justification now, however, so I’ll move on!!

Second, I think you have to balance St. Vincent’s famous quote “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus” with other passages of his, wherein he affirms the development of doctrine precisely as I previously articulated: Doctrine does not change; rather, the Church’s collective understanding of it improves over time (although it may be a difficult hurdle to overcome, I think this mode of reasoning does in the end support papal infallibility). Through this process, doctrines that are implicit in earlier apostolic beliefs are made explicit over time (e.g., indulgences are implicit in the Church’s authority to absolve sins, even if the early CFs didn’t explicitly say so or weren’t fully conscious of this).

Specifically, St. Vincent (who died before 450 AD) stated that the early Church had embraced some truths less perfectly than later Christians had: “Let that which formerly was believed, though imperfectly apprehended, as expounded by you be clearly understood. Yet teach still the same truths which you have learned, so that though you speak after a new fashion, what you speak may not be new” (Notebooks 53, language modernized). Remarkably, while holding out the earliest period of Christianity as normative, Vincent can still say that “antiquity venerated [doctrines] without understanding [them].” Nevertheless, he says, the truths are always the same; it is the way of expressing them that changes. In short, they are expressed more clearly and fully later than they were initially.

St. Vincent goes on to state expressly that there will be “progress” in the Church’s knowledge of Christian doctrine:

“But perhaps someone is saying: ‘Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?’ Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith. What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion” (Notebooks 54).

To be continued!

 

[Ignatius33]

Third, I may be misinterpreting what you are saying (forgive me if I am – I’m working fast here), but it seems to me like you are reading St. Vincent’s famous dictum to mean that we cannot accept as truth anything that didn’t achieve unanimous or near unanimous assent of all the CFs. Obviously this view ends up supporting doctrines like baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence, which are ubiquitous in the writings of the CFs. But I don’t think that’s a fair way to read the CFs. The fact is, the CFs each have to be read, individually and in context, with respect to the specific topics that they addressed in their writings. Each CF wrote about things that were relevant to the topic at hand, which largely depended on the era in which they lived. It is not enough to say that X number of CFs were “silent” on a given doctrine, as if that proved that the doctrine was not true. Arguments from silence are always the weakest.

As an example, I’ll take the doctrine of original sin (1 Cor. 15:21-22; Rom. 5:12-21; Eph. 2:3). I don’t know whether you personally believe in this doctrine or not, but Catholics do. Yet, you would be hard-pressed to find much discussion of original sin among the early CFs – it just wasn’t relevant to what they were writing about. But when Pelagius’ teachings broke out in the 5th century – primarily teaching that there was no original sin and, consequently, we could earn our way into heaven even without God’s grace because we are not born in a state of separation from God – this issue came to the forefront and the Church was obligated to render its view on the question explicitly. St. Augustine was the Church’s champion, greatly furthering our understanding of original sin. Does this mean that original sin was an innovation? Hardly. It just means that, when the time was right, the Church delved deeper into its meaning (again, did the Apostles clearly understand original sin? I don’t know the answer to that, but it would seem that the earliest Christians had little use for exploring the doctrine).

Take another example. Neither St. Clement nor St. Ignatius explicitly wrote about the Trinity (that I’m aware of anyway – I suppose I could be wrong, but I’m too lazy to peruse their works at the moment). In fact, the word “Trinity” wasn’t even used, that we know of, until the late second century by St. Theophilus. Does this mean that Vincent’s dictum has been violated and that the Trinity was a post-apostolic innovation? Of course not. Clement and Ignatius wrote about certain limited topics. What they didn’t write about proves nothing.

Again, I gave you a number of CFs that believed in purgatorial fire and praying for the dead (with St. Augustine making clear that the “whole” Church practiced this custom, which I suppose should fit even your view of St. Vincent’s dictum). Does it matter that other CFs were silent about purgatory or praying for the dead? I don’t think so. What’s interesting is that I know of no CF that condemned praying for the dead or purgatorial fire. That is, no CF read Tertullian or Origen or Augustine and then said, “What the heck are they talking about – purgatorial fire is false” or “praying for the dead is worthless.” Nobody ever wrote that. The same with papal infallibility. I gave you a number of CFs who, when discussing the very issue, wrote that Rome could not err. The fact that other CFs were silent on the issue doesn’t disprove papal infallibility – it just proves that they didn’t write or think about it. The fact is, you won’t find a single CF calling out St. Irenaeus or St. Cyprian when they say that all churches must agree with Rome or false faith can have no access to Rome, or St. Jerome when he says that whoever is not in communion with Rome “will perish,” or St. Augustine when he declared that “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” The fact is, no CF said that “Rome can err” when discussing the Roman primacy.

One more thought below!

 

[Ignatius33]

JesusforMadrid,

At bottom, I do see a fundamental difference between the way you and I read the CFs. I believe that, aside from Tradition, Christ left us an infallible Church to which I docilely submit. Theologians on one side or another may debate a point, but once the Church (with the aid of the Holy Spirit, of course, who guides the Church, corporeally, to all truth, not each individual Bible-reading Christian) decides the matter once and for all, it is over. As St. Augustine remarked: “It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true.” Or as St. Thomas Aquinas later put it: “The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith” (Summa Theologica II-II, Q.5, Art. 3).

As far as going to the “East” (unless you are talking about an Eastern Rite Catholic Church) – I’ll stick with St. Augustine, who said: “There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church . . . The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius], keeps me here.” And St. Thomas Aquinas, who added: “Hence since the whole Church is one body, it behooves, if this oneness is to be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church, above the Episcopal power whereby each particular Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing a division in the unity of the Church” (Summa Theologica Suppl., Q.40, Art. 6).

I hope I haven’t overloaded you.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Interesting and in depth all around, but if I could cut to the chase:

JesusforMadrid clearly gets it but seems hung up on the book’s jacket, not the content of the Book. I doubt you feel you must agree with all of America’s laws in order to call your self a honorable and legal American citizen and I think it applies to faith as well similarly. The US ‘decided’ abortion is a legal protected civil right and the Church has determined Mary is (like Enoch) a pure human being befitting Christ to come into the world. Evolution of understanding in an institution (Church or government) is little different that that of an individual. It makes me wonder if you accept human evolution the scientific community now demands explain Creation when the ECF likely believed otherwise

It seems odd in a way that for all your seeming rationale and acceptance of the knowledge of the promise of Abraham and the religious isolation God demanded of the Jews for centuries with established liturgical practices, the insistence of purity for the Ark and Temple that held His Word/Law… I see the stumbling blocks (for being Catholic) you see as pretty minor with all due respect to their significance and your contemplation of them. An established legitimate spiritual authority on Earth for all humanity is culminated in the Church. We can’t escape our humanity even in the Church be it by doubt or sin but truth remains true despite our individual inability to follow it fully if we believe it, or give obedience to truth as defined by the Church if we don’t believe it or don’t fully understand it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Interesting and in depth all around, but if I could cut to the chase:

JesusforMadrid clearly gets it but seems hung up on the book’s jacket, not the content of the Book. I doubt you feel you must agree with all of America’s laws in order to call your self a honorable and legal American citizen and I think it applies to faith as well similarly. The US ‘decided’ abortion is a legal protected civil right and the Church has determined Mary is (like Enoch) a pure human being befitting Christ to come into the world. Evolution of understanding in an institution (Church or government) is little different that that of an individual. It makes me wonder if you accept human evolution the scientific community now demands explain Creation when the ECF likely believed otherwise

It seems odd in a way that for all your seeming rationale and acceptance of the knowledge of the promise of Abraham and the religious isolation God demanded of the Jews for centuries with established liturgical practices, the insistence of purity for the Ark and Temple that held His Word/Law… I see the stumbling blocks (for being Catholic) you see as pretty minor with all due respect to their significance and your contemplation of them. An established legitimate spiritual authority on Earth for all humanity is culminated in the Church. We can’t escape our humanity even in the Church be it by doubt or sin but truth remains true despite our individual inability to follow it fully if we believe it, or give obedience to truth as defined by the Church if we don’t believe it or don’t fully understand it.

Gabriel of 12;
Very good summary; I must concurr, the topics here really do not deal with the “Spirtual Realities” but with the reasons why others have opposed them, that for me does not justify the protest but only reveals the pride of men, for these refuse to obey scripture. And when scripture directly points to these doctrines, the protester comes up with another biblical interpretation. This is why Jesus gave us a teaching Magisterium, so that man cannot change his teachings.

When taken in retrospect of the Old Testament that introduces these protested Catholic doctrines including Papal infallibility, Purgatory, Immaculate conception etc. the Prophets make mention of them. The Septuagint corresponds to these teachings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem himself as well as other Saints define “Purgatory” “Transubstantiation” without ever using the term, but the belief maintains unchanged to today in the Catholic Church.

If Evangelicals or Protestants reject books from the Septuagant from which Jesus and the Apostles taught from, reject Apostolic Authority, how are they going to succumb to the full deposit of faith? Surrender ones intellect, self pride to the Holy Spirit, and let God.

This all begins IMHO the biblical understanding of “Church” first, before the Apostolic Oral Traditions, along with Sacred Scritpture interpretations can be fully indulged.

Interesting dialogue, and will watch with interest; A discussion over revealed “Spiritual Realities” from all the doctrines of the Catholic Church to the mortal intellect of man does not mix. When trying to join these two to reason, faith suffers. When one is dropped, God is rejected by man himself, or God gives the increase to man who succumbs to the will of God.

What puzzles me, is that when the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus revealed all, no more new revelation; The Roman Catholic church gets accused of defining an already believed faith to new age for understanding of inventing something new. What entity could survive 2000 years unchanged if she continued to invent and change belief’s. Not even the powerful Roman Empire survived its man made theologies. But if it is of God, then it remains “Rock”.

Peace be with you

 

[JesusforMadrid]

JesusforMadrid,

At bottom, I do see a fundamental difference between the way you and I read the CFs. I believe that, aside from Tradition, Christ left us an infallible Church to which I docilely submit. Theologians on one side or another may debate a point, but once the Church (with the aid of the Holy Spirit, of course, who guides the Church, corporeally, to all truth, not each individual Bible-reading Christian) decides the matter once and for all, it is over. As St. Augustine remarked: “It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true.” Or as St. Thomas Aquinas later put it: “The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith” (Summa Theologica II-II, Q.5, Art. 3).

I hope I haven’t overloaded you.

Thank you for your gracious and thought-provoking response. Your quotes challenge me to look greater into the development of theology in the Church.

I too willingly submit to both Tradition (the Scriptures and ECFs understanding of it) and the Church, so here we agree. However, if that church, or one Bishop in it, leads the Church in a direction that is not justified by Tradition, in the sense of Scripture or the universal consent of the ECFs, I must first submit to that which was first transmitted.
For you, these are two separate sources of faith. Yet for me, these must be the same. This is a big difference in our perspectives.

I also agree with you and St. Vincent on the development of doctrine and that it can be deepened but not innovated. Were indulgences part of the “deposit of faith” or rather a later addition? I think they were not. You seem to think they were.

I am saying that St. Vincent sets a high standard of “unanimous consent” of the ECFs to interpret Scripture. I would go so far as to say that I would call “unanimous consent” of the ECF something akin to infallibility in doctrine. The Council of Trent used this very phrase to justify interpretations of Scripture by Rome, yet by this standard, none of the later innovations can be justified, certainly not like the eucharist, to which you refer.

I still struggle with your belief that the Church always, whether implicitly or explicitly, accepted the infallibility of Rome, notwithstanding the evidence you provide. I have read extensively the ECFs, the Didache, and I do not see it. Where is the supremacy in the first Christian history by Eusebius? Not there, so your claim remains doubtful.

Moreover, I would still like to understand how you reconcile your belief that the Church (and not just the Western part) always accepted the infallibility of Rome with the clear fact that Rome addded the filioque to the Nicene Creed, clearly a Western innovation that came from my dear Spain, and was rejected by the entire Eastern Church (what are now the Orthodox churches). If the Eastern bishops submitted to the infallible authority of Rome, surely that would accept the Filioque without reservation. Yet the four other patriarchs all rejected it! Please reconcile this.

And thanks for your time. Blessings to you

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Interesting and in depth all around, but if I could cut to the I see the stumbling blocks (for being Catholic) you see as pretty minor with all due respect to their significance and your contemplation of them. An established legitimate spiritual authority on Earth for all humanity is culminated in the Church. We can’t escape our humanity even in the Church be it by doubt or sin but truth remains true despite our individual inability to follow it fully if we believe it, or give obedience to truth as defined by the Church if we don’t believe it or don’t fully understand it.

By the mercy of God I submit to His authority both on earth and in heaven. However, the Church was and, I think, should be concilliar, not a monarchy, as Rome to me appears. When that authority is abused, which it would be were innappropriate innovations added, it no longer becomes legitimate. I suspect you would agree. Hence, our only dispute is that nature of appropriate innovations.

I stand with both the Eastern and Protestant churches in raising a big red flag about some of those innovations, as I have mentioned above (papal infallibility, indulgences, etc.).

 

[FAB]

My question is this: why do both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals succomb to innovations that ignore or at least do not fully appreciate the consensus of the saintly Fathers of the church?

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church, with their focus on the Early Church Fathers, more respectful of the original intent of the Scriptures?

As a matter of disclosure, I am an Evangelical and my wife is an Opus Dei RC, so I have no axe to grind in my questions.

You have an ironious opinion on Catholic teaching. It is all scriptually based with a focus on orginal intent. But we are also a church of tradition which started with how the early church fathers and thier interpetation of scripture.
You would have to expand on what you mean by what inovations that are not scriptually based.

Peace,
FAB

 

[JesusforMadrid]

JesusforMadrid,

As far as going to the “East” (unless you are talking about an Eastern Rite Catholic Church) – I’ll stick with St. Augustine, who said: “There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church . . . The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius], keeps me here.” And St. Thomas Aquinas, who added: “Hence since the whole Church is one body, it behooves, if this oneness is to be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church, above the Episcopal power whereby each particular Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing a division in the unity of the Church” (Summa Theologica Suppl., Q.40, Art. 6).

I hope I haven’t overloaded you.

Good quotes. Probably why none of these is considered saints in the Orthodox Church (although Augustine gets to be called “blessed”).

To your previous question about where Augustine would attend church were he alive today, I would have to check with a biographer, but I would submit both the Romans Catholics and many Protestants claim him as one of their own (hero to both Luther and Calvin).

For cultural reasons, he might go Copt Orthodox or Alexandrian Orthodox. Just a guess.

 

[Ignatius33]

Good quotes. Probably why none of these is considered saints in the Orthodox Church (although Augustine gets to be called “blessed”).

To your previous question about where Augustine would attend church were he alive today, I would have to check with a biographer, but I would submit both the Romans Catholics and many Protestants claim him as one of their own (hero to both Luther and Calvin).

For cultural reasons, he might go Copt Orthodox or Alexandrian Orthodox. Just a guess.

JesusforMadrid,

I’ll try to address your other questions later, but for now, I’ll just address these little comment. I thought the two Orthodox Churches you mentioned reject both purgatorial fire and the primacy of Rome (not just a figural first among equals). St. Augustine clearly believed in both. So I don’t see how he could belong to either of those Churches, each of which is not simply silent on these points, but outright rejects them (as far as I know, anyway).

As far as Protestants claiming Augustine as one of their own, I’m glad my Christian brothers and sisters read him, but he was certainly no Protestant. I’m unaware of any Protestants that pray for the dead or believe in purgatorial fire. I’m unaware of any that ask the saints to pray for us. I’m unaware of any that would say “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” I’m unaware of any that believe in confession of sins to a priest. I’m unaware of any that are open to Mary’s sinlessness. I’m unaware of any that believe in a physical Church that is the “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church. Very few believe in apostolic succession or the necessity of apostolic Tradition. Few believe in the Real Presence (however you want to define it) and fewer believe in baptismal regeneration. Some believe in infant baptism. Yet he believed in all of these things. And I already quoted Augustine as flatly contradicting Luther’s interpretation of Romans 3:28, the verse that, in a way, launched the Protestant Reformation.

On the other hand, does the RC Church reject any doctrine St. Augustine believed in? None that I’m aware of. Did St. Augustine expressly reject any doctrine that the RC Church currently teaches? None that I’m aware of. True, since Augustine’s time, the Church has made explicit some beliefs what were previously implicit (again, I think indulgences were part of the original deposit of faith because they are implicit in the Church’s authority to forgive sins). But I don’t see how Augustine would have any problem at all with that. For Augustine, if the faith allows it, and the Catholic Church (i.e., the magesterium – the bishops in union with the bishop of Rome, the pope) affirms it, it is so. Therefore, I know I can only speak hypothetically, but I don’t think he would have any problem at all with the 13th century Church’s explication of transubstantiation, or the 19th century Church’s explanation of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. Had he lived during those time periods, would I he have opposed them? I doubt it. But even if he did, once the Church made the final decision, I have full confidence that he would, with all humility and docility, submit and affirm them.

 

[RobbyS]

Your analogy is flawed.

The Scriptures were never meant to stand apart from Tradition. They are both *equally *the deposit of faith. They stand together, and those things you ascribe to Catholic “invention” are indeed legitimately doctrines and dogmas found in the deposit of faith via Tradition. And, the Church does not use the “consensus” of the Fathers as the criteria for Tradition. Remember, the Church’s authority is found in the Bishops-- either in ecumenical council, the ordinary magesterium, or the Pope’s extraordinary use of his ex cathedra authority. Otherwise, we’d all be Arians, as the “consensus” of the majority of Bishops in that century was Arian… whole areas of the Empire for a time.

The Constitution, OTOH, was not meant to be interpreted on any basis other than its face. Not its “prenumbra,” not what the Constitution meant to say, not what someone thinks is fair or empathetic, not what a founding father wrote in another document, but rather what the Constitution itself actually DOES say. The Constitution contains within itself procedures for amendment, which is the only part of the document that should be “living.”

And, no the Orthodox have not been faithful to the deposit of faith. Their innovation in the areas of contraception and divorce/remarriage contravene the moral and divine law. But, that’s another thread.

The Constitution, OTOH, was not meant to be interpreted on any basis other than its face. Not its “prenumbra,” not what the Constitution meant to say, not what someone thinks is fair or empathetic, not what a founding father wrote in another document, but rather what the Constitution itself actually DOES say. The Constitution contains within itself procedures for amendment, which is the only part of the document that should be "living."

Just to comment on this part. Absolutely right. Both Jefferson and Hamilton thought
that the Constitution would be revised as state constitutions are revised ever so often. It was John Marshall who established the claim of the judiciary to be the final judge of its meaning and even to alter that meaning. My guess is that it was politicians found it inexpedient to amend the constitiution, to update it, and so let the courts do the job. Especially after 1820, when the slavery issue reared its head.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

On Augustine,this is a side issue of course but an interesting one, since I am a big Augustine fan too.

Regarding purgatory and indulgences, two innovations not accepted by the Eastern half of the church nor by Luther, I again see you reading later doctrines into the ECFs and Scripture. You need to be very careful when you ascribe “purgatoral fire” to the quotes of the fathers, because they may be referring to the fire of the Second Death as described in Revelations. A good case can be made, and some Orthodox and Protestant do, that the ECFs believed in “conditional immortality”; for those who are not followers of Jesus, there is a “second death” of the soul that involves fire. This was almost certainly St. Ignatius’ view.

Likewise, the power to forgive sins is a long way from the medieval concept of the indulgences, treasury of merit, etc. Again, my point is that the RC Church looks for penumbras and then proceeds to emmanate (to use a liberal Supreme Court phase) to new directions that were not the original intent of the ECFs or Scripture.

So would Augustine accept modern emmanations and embrace the RC innovations that followed him? Who can say.

What I can say for sure is that an Augustinian priest named Luther who gets ex comunicated from Rome for speaking against indulgences and justification by works would cause Augustine a lot of confusion.

I do conceed that he would not spend much time at the local Algiers non denom church.

 

[Ignatius33]

JesusforMadrid,

Sorry for the delay. Your questions are very insightful and really have me thinking. I think you are right to give heavy weight to the doctrines that have the unanimous consent of the CFs and are found all over there writings (e.g., Real Presence, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession). Those beliefs are undoubtedly true, we both acknowledge. But I don’t think it follows that doctrines that are not ubiquitous in the writings of the CF are per se false. You have every right to be skeptical. But I think, upon closer examination, all of the distinctly Catholic dogmas can be shown to be part of the original deposit of faith.

As I touched on before, many of the apostolic beliefs enjoyed various levels of explicitness from the beginning (e.g., the Resurrection, Jesus’ divinity, the Real Presence, the episcopacy). And I commend you for having recognized the ones made clear in Tradition, which clarifies many passages in Scripture (e.g., John 3:5; chap 6). Most Protestants never come to this realization. But I also firmly believe that some beliefs were only implicit in apostolic teaching, becoming explicit over time as the greatest Christian minds, aided by the Holy Spirit, slowly pealed away the intricate layers, recognizing the full glory and depth of the deposit of faith that lay beneath (e.g., New Eve = Immaculate Conception). Let me explain what I mean by the implicitness of divine revelation in a little more detail.

In Catholic terminology, the clear teachings of the apostles are called “formally explicit,” whereas the unclear teachings are referred to as “formally implicit.” There are many doctrines contained in the apostolic deposit of faith whose presence is not easy to discern, even after an investigation of the data of history. Original sin is a prime example. But what exactly does it mean to say that the body of revealed truths implicitly “contains” a doctrine? Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange identifies three ways in which a doctrine is implicitly contained in apostolic teaching: (1) the doctrine was intentionally taught, but with vague language that was made more precise by later generations (e.g., the consubstantiality of God the Son with God the Father is contained in the more rudimentary formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”); (2) mysteries that are hidden in the veiled language of the apostles may also contain revealed doctrines (Catholics would put Mary’s sinlessness and Assumption here); and (3) what are called “obiter dicta,” or words and actions performed casually in the early Church, also have prepositional content; for example, the devotional practices of the Church presuppose (i.e., contain) certain dogmatic propositions that are later professed as articles of belief (e.g., the conditions of the validity of the sacraments were not taught explicitly by the Apostles, but are implicitly contained in the uniform ritual actions of the ancient Church).

I think papal infallibility is one of these implicit doctrines (though some might argue that it is explicit in Matt. 16:18-19). I think it is implicit in two beliefs that were more or less explicit in the early Church – the primacy of Rome (which may have been somewhat implicit itself, but was grounded in Peter’s primacy, an explicit teaching) and the indefectibility of the Church (leading to the conclusion that there must currently be a Church in existence with apostolic succession and spotless doctrine). Indeed, it cannot be overemphasized that Jesus intertwined the indefectibility of the Church with the rock, Peter, in the very same verse of the Bible [Matt. 16:18]). I believe you already acknowledged the indefectibility of the Church, so I won’t go further into that here. But some of your comments suggest that you don’t see a true primacy of Rome in the early Church (e.g., you don’t see it in Eusibius’ Church History). Limiting myself to one passage per CF, here briefly is some (but by no means all) of the evidence in favor of the Roman primacy – predicated on the primacy of Peter – and the monarchical institution of the papacy in the ancient Church, the source of the universal Church’s unity, as established by Christ Himself. I think an unbiased review of the data firmly supports the West over the East on this decisive issue (it convinced me at a time in which I personally had no vested interest in either side, anyway).

I’ll begin posting them in the next response.

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Clement: The third successor to St. Peter restored deposed presbyters in the Church at Corinth (Greece), stating: “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by [the Holy Spirit] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger” (Letter to the Corinthians [ca. 80/96 AD]).
2. St. Ignatius of Antioch singled out Rome for special honor, writing that it held the “presidency of love” (Letter to the Romans [ca. 105 AD]).
3. St. Irenaeus: “[A]ll churches must agree [with Rome], that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies [180 AD]).
4. Pope St. Eleutherus was asked to officially assess the Montanist movement in Phrygia (ca. 177 AD).
5. Pope St. Victor threatened to excommunicate various churches in Asia Minor (ca. 190 AD).
6. During the second century, heretics like Marcion, Valentinus, Cerdo and Marcellina made there way to Rome to get their views accepted. Anti-gnostic writers also came to Rome, including St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, Hegessippus and St. Irenaeus. In 250 AD, Novatian claimed to be the bishop of Rome, causing confusion throughout the entire Church and sending his “bishops” throughout the world. Hence, from the very beginning of the Church, both orthodox and unorthodox Christians attempted to influence or control the universal Church by means of gaining credibility in Rome.
7. Tertullian identifies Peter as the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 and says in “Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives” (The Prescription Against the Heretics [ca. 200 AD]). Of course, nothing prevents a double meaning in the passage (i.e., the rock can also be seen as Peter’s confession), but the primary meaning is undoubtedly Peter himself.
8. St. Clement of Alexandria refers to Peter as “the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples” (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? [190/210 AD]).
9. The Letter of Clement to James (221 AD) refers to Peter as “the foundation of the Church.”
10. Origen wrote that Peter was “the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church” (Homilies on Exodus [after 244 AD]).
11. St. Cyprian wrote extensively about the Roman primacy, saying that “false faith can have no access” to Rome and that “sacerdotal unity has its source [in] the chair of Peter” (Letter [252 AD]).
12. Poem Against the Marcionites (267 AD): “In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter, in mighty Rome, commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down . . .”
13. St. Peter of Alexandria referred to Peter as “the first chosen of the Apostles” (Penance [306 AD]).
14. As far as I know, every bishop of Rome up through Constantine’s legalization of Christianity in 313 AD was martyred for the faith. In other words, to be consecrated bishop of Rome was tantamount to a death sentence for Christianity’s first three centuries. After Constantine, the popes were able to come out of hiding in the catacombs and fully become what Christ intended. Relatedly, the United States today looks nothing like it did in 1787, when it ratified our Constitution. Should it come as a surprise that the Catholic Church looked different in the 5th century than in the 1st century? Certainly not.
15. Pope St. Julius rebuked Alexandria for deposing St. Athanasius without first consulting Rome, grounding his rebuke on an earlier custom of the church. He assumed he had the authority to reopen cases which had already been closed in other apostolic sees (Letter [341 AD]).
16. St. Athanasius: “When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having my case before the Church, I spent my time in the public worship” (Letter to Emperor Constantius).
17. Council of Sardica, canon 3 (342 AD): “But if any bishop loses the judgment in some case, and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew, if it pleases Your Charities, let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter, by having those who gave the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that, if it seem proper, he may himself send arbiters, and judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.”
18. St. Ephraim wrote that Jesus made Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies [351 AD]).
19. St. Cyril of Jerusalem stated that Peter was the “chief” and the “first and foremost of the Apostles” (Catechetical Lectures [ca. 350 AD]).
20. St. Hilary of Poitiers said that Peter was “the foundation of the Church” and wrote: “And you [Pope Julius], most dearly loved brother, though absent from us in body, were present in mind concordant, and will . . . For this will be seen to be best, and by far the most befitting thing, if to the head, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter, the priests of the Lord report from every one of the provinces” (Fragment 2 ex opere Historico [ex Epistle Sardic. Concil. Ad Julium [before 367 AD]).

To be continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Optatus observed that in “Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter” and explained that the true Church must always possess the chair of Peter and orthodox doctrine, which clearly entails that Rome could never abandon the orthodox faith (The Schism of the Donatists [367 AD]).
2. St. Epiphanius endorsed the Roman primacy (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [375 AD]).
3. St. Basil the Great: “Nearly all the East is being agitated, right honorable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared . . . I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution to our difficulties . . . I have been constrained to beseech you by letter and to be moved to help us . . . In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our own day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case” (Letter 70 [ca. 379 AD]).
4. St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote that Peter was the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 (Oration 26 [ca. 379 AD]).
5. St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Jesus built the Church on Peter (Oration on St. Stephen [ca. 395 AD]).
6. St. Jerome: “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails . . . Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to [Rome]” (Letter to Pope Damasus [379 AD]).
7. Pope St. Damasus: “The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior [in Matthew 16:18-19] . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (The Decree of Damasus [382 AD]).
8. Ambrosiaster: “Whereas the whole world is God’s, yet is the Church said to be His house, of which [Pope] Damasus is at this day the ruler” (Commentary on the Epistle of First Timothy [366-384 AD]).
9. Pope Siricius: “We – or rather, the blessed apostle Peter in us, who, as we trust, protects and keeps us in everything as the heirs of his government – bear the burdens of all these that are burdened” (385 AD).
10. St. John Chrysostom wrote that Christ entrusted His “sheep” (i.e., Christians) “to Peter and his successors” (The Priesthood [ca. 386 AD]).
11. St. Ambrose: “They [the Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church” (Penance [388 AD]).
12. St. Augustine: “[On this matter of the Pelagians] two Councils [at Carthage and Milevis] have already been sent to the Apostolic See *; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end [due to the authority of Rome]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end!” (Sermons [inter 391 – 430 AD]).
13. Pope St. Innocent: “In seeking the things of God, . . . following the examples of ancient tradition, . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle himself from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have merged . . .They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the total authority of this See” (Letter to the Council of Carthage [417 AD]).
14. St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Pope Celestine asking him to make a ruling on the orthodoxy of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople: “God requires us to be vigilant in these matters and the ancient customs of the Churches persuades that we should communicate with your Holiness [in Rome]. We do not openly and publicly break off communion with [Nestorius] before communicating these things to your Piety. Deign therefore to declare what seems to you right; and whether one must remain still in communion with him, or ought it to be proclaimed publicly that no one communicated with one who professes to teach such errors?” (Letter to Pope Celestine [ca. 431 AD]).
15. In response, Pope Celestine urged Cyril to act with Rome’s authority in condemning Nestorius “assuring to yourself the authority of our See [Rome] and using our stead and place, you will execute this sentence with the utmost severity” (Letter [ca. 431 AD]).
16. Nestorius, deposed at the Council of Ephesus, later wrote bitterly: “Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was Bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything.” In his eyes, Cyril had arrogated to himself the authority and prerogatives of the Pope himself.

to be continued…*