Both Catholics and Evangelicals have lost their moorings

[Ignatius33]

1. Council of Ephesus (431 AD): The legate of Pope Celestine came to “ratify [the Council’s] determination” in the name of the Pope, stating “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. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod.” (Acts of Council, Session 3).
2. St. Peter Chrysologus: “We exhort you in every respect, humble brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome” (Letter to Eutyches [a monophysite] [449 AD]).
3. Pope St. Leo the Great: “Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. From this formality there arose also a distinction among bishops, and by a great arrangement it was provided that no one should arrogate everything to himself, but in individual provinces there should be individual bishops whose opinions among their brothers should be first; and again, certain others, established in larger cities, were to accept a greater responsibility. Through them the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (Letter of Pope Leo I to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica [ca. 446 AD]).
4. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): “After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Pope 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! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers! . . . Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present and most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria following Cyril’s death] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, Sessions 2 and 3).
5. Theodoret: “This most holy See [Rome] has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace” (Epistle 116 to Renatus [before 466 AD]).
6. Pope St. Gregory the Great: “Your most sweet holiness, [Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles” (Letter to Eulogius [597 AD]).

 

[Ignatius33]

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 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,

As for the primacy of Rome, I’ve done my best to answer that in the above quotes. As for the Filioque, I know Sts. Anselm and Aquinas masterfully dealt with Photius’ objections, so I’ll leave you to read them for more on the doctrine itself. As for the fact that the four eastern patriarchs rejected the Filioque, I don’t think that can be viewed as a decisive indictment against papal infallibility. As I previously mentioned, the East was in a state of schism or heresy for 200 years before 787 AD, so yet another Eastern rejection of the West is no surprise. And, as discussed, I think the doctrine of papal infallibility was implicit in the apostolic deposit of faith. The fact that the four patriarchs missed the boat there is therefore understandable. Indeed, this implicit doctrine was only made fully explicit, as a dogma of the faith, at First Vatican Council in 1870 – an ecumenical council unacknowledged by the East. So again, the fact that the Orthodox do not admit papal infallibility is not decisive. That said, I acknowledge that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides for the sad schism that still persists between the East and the West. For example, regarding the Filioque itself, when Pope Leo IX’s legates excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 AD (the excommunication pertaining to him alone, and of doubtful effect since Leo had died before it happened), they actually accused the East of cutting the Filioque clause out of the original text. Talk about uninformed!

But I do have to defend the RC Church a little here. Unlike the RC Church, the East consists of an array of Churches divided along doctrine (Oriental Orthodox Churches vs Eastern Orthodox Churches) and ethnicity (the various Eastern Orthodox Churches). In other words, unlike the ancient Church, it possesses no true unity (no surprise, given that Christ established the chair of Peter as the source of Church unity ). Consequently, the Eastern Churches (those not in communion with Rome, that is) have no way of holding an ecumenical council anymore – the very paradigm that they acknowledge possesses infallibility. The last one they recognize (the Eastern Orthodox Churches anyway) is Nicaea II in 787 AD. In other words, the East is static. It is frozen in time. But not frozen in the first century. It is frozen in the eighth century, at least after they overcame their Iconoclast heresy (again, Rome took the right side of the issue). Further, unlike the West, the East largely suffered the scourge of caesaro-papism – the notion that the Byzantine Emperor possessed the supreme authority in matters of the Church. Today, the Orthodox Churches are basically ethnic churches; to me, they look nothing like the single, universal Church of the CFs. Finally, I personally think their view that Rome is simply a “first among equals” is simply untenable based on a fair and unbiased study of the ancient Church.

Unfortunately, my job is going to keep me very busy over the next week or two, so I may not be able to post as extensively as I have been, but it really has been an enjoyable experience. I’ll keep you and your (Opus Dei!) wife in my prayers.

 

[denwiles]

I have been thinking recently about how conservative American Christians, both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, lament the “judicial activism” of the American Supreme Court, which adjudicates beyond the supposed “original intent” of the U.S. Constitution to promulgate liberal or left wing policies.

Ironically, I think that both Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism is guilty of a sort of “theological activism” or neglecting the “original intent” of Jesus and the disciples.

Roman Catholics have developed certain innovations such as the immaculate conception, indulgences, purgatory and papal infallibility that go beyond that which can be clearly interpreted from Scripture or from the way the Early Church Fathers interpreted Scripture. Or, alternatively, they cite aberrant Early Church Fathers who may support their innovative ideas and thereby contravene the maxim of Vincent of Lérins that orthodox faith is found in “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus” (“What (was believed) everywhere, always and by everyone”). The “progressive revelation” of the RC Church is remarkably similar to judicial activism.

Evangelicals are just as guilty of ignoring the original intent of the Church. In an effort to rectify Roman Catholic innovations, they turn to Sola Scritura, thereby cutting off Scripture from the historical context of the Church and how it interpreted those Scriptures. If we do not understand St. Paul, why not first look to St. Clement, his disciple? If we do not understand St. John, what about St. Ignatius? Evangelicals turn to private interpretation of Scripture, leading to innumerable different ways of viewing Scripture, ignoring again Vincent of Lérins maxim for epistemology.

Now, I am not suggesting that Scripture cannot have several meanings: Thomas Aquinas showed that the author of the Bible (God) is also the author of history, so the Bible can speak at different levels of meaning.

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.

WOW your bringing in a whole lot of confusion. The Bible is the Word of God and must be our main authority.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

WOW your bringing in a whole lot of confusion. The Bible is the Word of God and must be our main authority.

I am with you on this, bro.

However, I think we have a “lot of confusion” already. I am trying to bring some clarity, really. I agree: “the Bible is the Word of God and must be our main authority”. Yet if using the Bible as our main authority, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leads us to many different, conflicting views, than we need to look for more authority. Somewhere. Where do we Evangelicals currently have conflicts?

• Infant baptism: Is it OK or not?
• Communion: Is it just a memorial meal or something more?
• Liturgy: Is it acceptable, preferable pernicious or irrelevant?
• Hierarchy: Should we have bishops, as Paul and Luke suggest, or not?
• Charismatic gifts: Are these acceptable today, or not?
• Predestination versus Armenianism: How are we saved?
• Faith versus works: Do we co-operate with God in his plan or not?
• What happens to the souls of the lost after death: eternal punishment or conditional immortality?

Godly Evangelicals, using the Bible as the only standard, come to different conclusions on each of these. So, don’t we already have “a whole lot of confusion”.

My point regarding Evangelicals (I have written extensively above about the Roman Catholics and their deficiencies) is that we need to pay attention to how the Early Church Fathers interpret the Bible in order to decide what the Bible says. The Bible wasn’t delivered from space like some golden tablets to Joseph Smith. It took four centuries for the Godly ECFs to select amongst a number of documents that were floating around what would eventually be considered the cannon of Scripture. If the Holy Spirit was working through them to guide them to the truth about what to select and reject, shouldn’t we pay attention to how they interpreted those gospels and letters, again through the power of the Holy Spirit? It would be absurd to think that the Holy Spirit helped them to select certain books for the cannon, while not helping them to interpret those books.

If we love Paul, let’s read his disciple Clement to find out what he says Paul meant. If we love John, let’s read his disciple Polycarp and then Ignatius.

It may make us uncomfortable as Evangelicals to realise that the authentic New Testament Church was rather unlike some of our modern Evangelical churches. It was, in fact, sacramental, liturgical, hierarchical and charismatic, amongst other things. But truth and clarity demands that we pay attention to our Fathers if we love the Bible that they helped to formulate.

 

[Ignatius33]

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.

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

Hi JesusforMadrid,

Oops, I forgot to comment on this. Judge for yourself whether Augustine believed in purgatory:

“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relative who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterwards be able to be helped by these things. For there is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death. There is, indeed, a manner of living so good that these helps are not needed, and again a manner so evil that these helps are of no avail, once a man has passed from this life.” (The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love [421 AD]). The Sacrifice of the Mediator – the Mass – is still offered for the souls in purgatory in the RC Church, the only Church to continue this ancient practice as far as I know.

“‘Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger’ [Ps. 38:2] . . . In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of the corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire . . . For it is said: ‘He shall be saved, but as if by fire’ [1 Cor. 3:15]. And because it is said that he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly, though we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life” (Explanations of the Psalms [inter 392-418 AD]).

“The man who has cultivated that remote land [see Gen. 3:17] and who has gotten his bread by his very great labor is able to suffer this labor to the end of this life. After this life, however, it is not necessary that he suffer. But the man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment” (Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans [389 AD]).

“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment” (The City of God [419 AD]).

“That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish – through a certain purgatorial fire” (The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love [421 AD]).

“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons [411 AD]).

“But the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (Sermons [411 AD]).

“The prayer either of the Church herself or of pious individuals is heard on behalf of certain of the dead; but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy” (The City of God [419 AD]).

“We read in the book of Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the universal Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at His altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (The Care that Should be Taken of the Dead [421 AD]).

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Hi JesusforMadrid,

Oops, I forgot to comment on this. Judge for yourself whether Augustine believed in purgatory:…

(The Care that Should be Taken of the Dead [421 AD]).

Thank you for generously spending time to provide significant background information. I have printed it out and will read your posts.

I think you have shown that Augustine believed in a form of purgatory. I conceed this, though I am not an expert on him (or anyone for that matter!)

My reference regarding purgatory above was to the Early Church Fathers in general, who speak extensively about fire after death, what we might call the “second death”, but rarely refer to purgatory. Also, please note that advocating prayers for the dead does not mean that one believes in purgatory, with its ideas of the suffering for the faithful. Souls of believers may simply be in a state of rest, say the Orthodox and some Jews. So I think it is a streach to reach back, pick and choose a Father or two such as Augustine who seem to agree with a particular innovation and then say that shows continuity of doctrine. If you could show the unanimous consent of the fathers on the modern view of purgatory and indulgences, this would be more convincing. And on the particular issue of purgatory, there are fathers such as Hippolytus who seem to speak directly against purgatory, so it was by no means universally embraced.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

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 think you might be oversimplifying.

Luther originally had no problem with indulgences–he rightly condemned their abuse however. His opposition to indulgences in general came later, long after the 95 theses.

The Council of Trent also condemned “justification by works,” since that is Pelagianism.

Love is Patient

 

[Ignatius33]

I think you have shown that Augustine believed in a form of purgatory. I conceed this, though I am not an expert on him (or anyone for that matter!)

My reference regarding purgatory above was to the Early Church Fathers in general, who speak extensively about fire after death, what we might call the “second death”, but rarely refer to purgatory. Also, please note that advocating prayers for the dead does not mean that one believes in purgatory, with its ideas of the suffering for the faithful. Souls of believers may simply be in a state of rest, say the Orthodox and some Jews.

Hi JesusforMadrid,

Here are some other passages from the CFs, demonstrating that a state other than heaven and hell (i.e., purgatory – what else could it be?) is firmly anchored in Apostolic Tradition. Like many other doctrines (e.g., the Trinity – have you read some of the earlier, less than clear, articulations of the Trinity, a word similarly not in the Bible nor used in the earliest Christian writings?), it became more clear over time. And like original sin, it was St. Augustine, more than any other CF, who fleshed out the doctrine of purgatory for the Church (which, to this day, remains a pretty vague doctrine, taking up just one page of the Catechism [CCC 1030-1032]). As mentioned, the doctrines of purgatory and prayers for the dead dovetail together (just like the doctrines of original sin and infant baptism, or indulgences and penance, for example). I just can’t swallow that “praying for the dead” – a crystal clear practice of the early Church – is better explained by some restful state before heaven. If they are restful, and not suffering, I don’t see much point to praying “for” them. Certainly, the following passages do not speak of some vague “state of rest.”

I was hoping you were open to the notion that some doctrines are implicit in the deposit of faith; that the Church gleans a better understanding of apostolic tradition over the course of time; and that the lack of a unanimous consensus of the CFs does not per se defeat a doctrine. But maybe these hurdles are still too high at this point. That’s ok. We’re all on a journey. Anyway, for what it’s worth, here are the relevant passages that I could find. I’m already guessing you are going to find fault with them because the early ones do not use the word “purgatory” or do not use the more developed terminology of Augustine. My response is: if not purgatory, what are all these early Christian titans talking about? The burden is on Protestants and the Orthodox to explain away these passages. And if St. Hippolytus (or anyone else) reacted negatively to the idea of purgatory/purgatorial fire/a third state after death, I’d be interested in seeing what he (they) wrote. I’m totally unfamiliar with these passages.

1. Tertullian

“That allegory of the Lord [Matt 5:25,26] which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense…Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term ‘adversary’ to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord’s) injunction, while you are in the way with him, 'to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels. Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation” (The Soul 35 [ca. 210 AD]).

“Every soul, therefore, is shut up in Hades? Do you admit it? Whether you do or not, it is a fact. And there are already punishments and rewards there; and there you have a poor man and a rich one [Lk. 16:19-31] . . . The soul does not perform all its operations with the assistance of the flesh; and divine judgment pursues even simple thoughts and mere desires. ‘Whoever shall look in lust has already committed adultery in his heart’ [Matt. 5:28]. Therefore and on this account it is most fitting that the soul, without waiting for the flesh, be punished for what it did without the partnership of the flesh. And for pious and benevolent thoughts in which it shared not with the flesh, without the flesh it shall be refreshed . . . In short, if we understand that prison of which the Gospel speaks to be Hades, and if we interpret the last farthing [Matt. 5:25-26] to be the light offense which is to be expiated there before the resurrection, no one will doubt that the soul undergoes some punishments in Hades, without prejudice to the fullness of the resurrection, after which recompense will be made through the flesh also” (The Soul 58 [ca. 210 AD]).

“We offer sacrifices * for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death – birth into eternal life]” (The Crown [211 AD]).

“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy [post 213 AD]).*

 

[Ignatius33]

continued…

1. Aside from the numerous graffiti in the Roman catacombs beseeching prayers for the dead, Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis, composed his own epitaph, which read in part: “Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius” (Epitaph of Abercius [190 AD]).
2. The Acts of Paul and Thecla: “And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’” (Acts of Paul and Thecla [c. AD 160]).
3. St. Clement of Alexandria puzzled over the question of the state or condition of a man, who, reconciled to God on his death-bed, had no time for the fulfillment of penance due his transgression. His answer is: “the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, yet…” (Stomata 6:14 [ca. 202 AD]).
4. The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity: “That very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease…For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other…and * knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then…I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment…[And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment” (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3:4 [ca. AD 202]).
5. Origen: “For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones [1 Cor. 3:10-15]; but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works” (Homilies on Jeremias [ca. 244 AD]).
6. St. Cyprian of Carthage: “The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace * is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing [Matt. 5:25-26]; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [253 AD]).
7. The Apostolic Constitutions: “Let us pray for our brethren that are at rest in Christ, that God, the lover of mankind, who has received his soul, may forgive him every sin, voluntary and involuntary, and may be merciful and gracious to him, and give him his lot in the land of the pious that are sent into the bosom of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, with all those that have pleased Him and done His will from the beginning of the world, whence all sorrow, grief, and lamentation are banished” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:4,41 [ca. third Century]).**

 

[Ignatius33]

continued…

1. St. Lactantius: “But also, when God will judge the just, it is likewise in fire that he will try them. At that time, they whose sins are uppermost, either because of their gravity or their number, will be drawn together by the fire and will be burned. Those, however, who have been imbued with full justice and maturity of virtue, will not feel that fire; for they have something of God in them which will repel and turn back the strength of the flame” (Divine Institutes 7:21:6 [ca. AD 307]).
2. St. Cyril of Jerusalem

“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice is laid out” (Catechetical Lectures [350 AD]).

“For I know that there are many who are saying this: ‘If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?’…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but offer up Christ who has been sacrificed for our sins; and we thereby propitiate the benevolent God for them as well as for ourselves” (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10 [c. 350 AD]).

1. St. Basil the Great: “A man who is under sentence of death, knowing that there is One who saves, One who delivers, says: ‘In You I have hoped, save me’ from my inability ‘and deliver me’ from captivity [Ps. 7:2]. I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however, they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest” (Homilies on Psalms [ante 370 AD]).
2. St. Gregory of Nyssa: “If a man distinguish in himself what is particularly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. And if he have inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterwards in a quite different manner be very much interest in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice, and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (Sermon on the Dead [382 AD]).
3. St. Ephraim requested that prayers be said for him after his death: “I conjure you, my brethren and friends, in the name of that God who commands me to leave you, to remember me when you assemble to pray. Do not bury me with perfumes. Give them not to me, but to God. Me, conceived in sorrows, bury with lamentations, and instead of perfumes assist me with your prayers; for the dead are benefited by the prayers of living Saints” (quoted in Faith of Catholics [before 373 AD]).
4. St. Epiphanius of Salamis: “Furthermore, as to mentioning the names of the dead, how is there anything very useful in that? What is more timely or more excellent than that those who are still here should believe that the departed do live, and that they have not retreated into nothingness, but that they exist and are alive with the Master? . . . Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their behalf, even if it does not force back the whole of guilty charges laid on them” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [inter 374/377 AD]).

 

[Ignatius33]

continued…

1. St. John Chrysostom

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them” (Homilies on First Corinthians [392 AD]).

“Weep for the unbelievers! Weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination *, without the seal! These truly deserve our lamentation, our tears. They are outside the royal city and those who have been found guilty, with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [Jn. 3:5]. Weep for those who dies in their wealth, and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it . . . Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extant of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf . . . Not in vain was it decreed by the Apostles that in the awesome Mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. For when the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed to their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf” (Homilies on the Epistle to the Philippians [402 AD]).

1. St. Ambrose wrote about the deaths of the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian as follows: “Blessed shall both of you be, if my prayers can avail anything. No day shall pass you over in silence. No prayer of mine shall omit to honor you. No night shall hurry by without bestowing on you a mention in my prayers. In every one of the oblations will I remember you” (quoted in Faith of Catholics [before 397 AD]). St. Ambrose further insists on his commentary on St. Paul (1 Cor, 3) on the existence of purgatory, and in his funeral oration prays for the soul of another departed Emperor: “Give perfect rest to thy servant Theodosius, that rest which Thou hast prepared for Thy saints . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him until my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mountain of the Lord” (Funeral Oration of Theodosius 36-37 [395 AD]).
2. To quote St. Augustine again: “That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish – through a certain purgatorial fire” (The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love [421 AD]). I’ve already mentioned a number of his other passages demonstrating his belief in purgatory.
3. St. Caesar of Arles: “If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works, we shall have to remain in that purgatorial fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay. But someone is saying: ‘It is nothing to me how long I stay there, so long as I go on finally to eternal life.’ Let no one say that, beloved brethren, because that purgatorial fire itself will be more difficult than any punishments that can be seen or imagined or felt in this life” (Sermons [anted 542 AD]).
4. St. Gregory the Great: “Peter: ‘I should like to know whether or not we must believe in a purgatorial fire after death.’ Gregory: ‘. . . Everyone is presented in judgment just as he is when he departs this life. But nevertheless, it must be believed that there is, for the sake of certain lesser faults, a purgatorial fire before the judgment, in view of the fact that Truth does say that if anyone speak blasphemy against the Holy Spirit it will be forgiven him neither in this world nor in that to come [Matt. 12:32]. In this statement we are given to understand that some faults can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For if something is denied to one in particular, the intellect logically infers that it is granted for some others. But, as I said before, this must be believed to be a possible disposition for small and lesser sins” (Dialogues [593 or 594 AD]).

I’ve seen secondary sources also cite St. Jerome, St. Hilary and Amrosiaster as writing about purgatory, but I’m unfamiliar with those passages.*

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

That is my point: certain RC doctrines that were developed after the patristic period, generally agreed to have ended with St. John Damascene (d. 749), cannot be supported by the unanimous consent. These doctrines would include purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. The also are doctrines that were accepted after the Great Schism, so the Eastern Church never latched onto them.

[SIGN]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.[/SIGN] This is a red herring. Contraception was not available in the early Church and, by the way, the Orthodox are against contraception except in unusual circumstances. Divorce was accepted both in the Old Testament and by Christ, for reasons of adultery, so there we could have a good argument and there certainly is not a ECF consensus on this issue.

I think your first sentence in the quote above reveals the flaw of your premise. Why 749? That date is arbitrary. Why not 200 a.d.? Why not the Council of Chalcedon? Why not Nicea? If you would set your arbitrary date at 200 instead of 749, you would have to reject the “Bible” as we know it, because it was only decided later which books should be part of the Bible. You would also have to reject the dogma of Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the Nicene Creed, and the dogma of Theotokos (Mary as Mother of God). The Oriental Orthodox (OO) drew their arbitrary line at the Council of Chalcedon, they rejected the two natures of Christ, and went into schism (although I heard it said, that disagreement was more of an excuse in a power play, to break away from Constantinople politically, and today the OO understanding of the natures of Christ is the same as the Catholic and EO understanding). The Eastern Orthodox drew their arbitrary line at the first seven Ecumenical Councils, went into schism, and rejected dogmas that were proclaimed later, including the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.

Then, Protestant reformers threw out some books from the Canon of Scripture.

Protestants and EO have an understanding of divorce that’s incompatible with Jesus’ teaching. I don’t know when the Protestants invented their divorce, however I know that the Russian EO have it for some 300 years. That means, their divorce is an innovation that didn’t exist for the first 17 centuries. With the Russian EO, one can be divorced and remarried 2 times with Church sanction, for a total of 3 marriages. Why 2 divorces and remarriages allowed? Why not 1? Why not 5 or 7? In the Romanian EO Church, I don’t know what’s the limit or if there is any limit on Church-sanctioned divorces and remarriages, but there are definitely people in my native city in Romania who have been divorced and remarried 5 or 6 times with the approval of the EO Church. And frankly, I wouldn’t date an EO woman who’s understanding of marriage is “OK, this is going to be my first marriage in the Church, I’ve got x more chances if it doesn’t work out”. Where x is 2, 5, 7, or whatever number.

Regarding contraception, it is widely known that the Episcopal Church approved it at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, and other Protestant denominations followed later. Thus, this is an innovation. All Protestants and EO forbade it for the first 19 centuries. And contraceptive methods are as old as humanity itself - they existed thousands of years ago. It’s only the pill and modern surgical methods that were recently invented. Condoms and various spermicidal agents existed forever. With the EO, some Churches approve contraception nowadays, and some don’t. I even remember an EO lady posting here that their priest “blessed” a husband to go and have vasectomy. That’s sad.

And talking about EO Churches, I must mention their never ending saga about the Calendar, which is not a matter of dogma, but it effectively led to Old Calendar Churches breaking communion with New Calendar Churches. As a matter of effective church practice, my Russian EO (Old Calendar) acquaintances will not have communion in the Greek and Antiochian EO Churches (New Calendar) in my city, and they routinely drive 2.5 hours (120 miles) away on Sundays to attend their Old Calendar church, even though 2 New Calendar churches are available in the city, 15 minutes away. The Old Calendarists accuse the New Calendarists with innovation in a matter that’s not allowed to be changed, and truly the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as well as other EO only transitioned to the New Calendar in the early 20th century. The Russians stayed with the Old Calendar, and most other EO Churches such as Greek, Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, underwent schism that generated Old Calendar and New Calendar factions not in communion with each other. Who is right and who is wrong. Did the Ecumenical Patriarch have a right to change the calendar, or not?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Oh and I forgot to mention how Papacy works. During the first millennium, Popes approved or rejected the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, they had the final say. Popes were petitioned and decided controversial issues of faith and dogma. Popes
corrected those who taught heresies, and occasionally excommunicated heretical Patriarchs. They had a real authority of final say in matters of dogma and jurisdiction. Today, the EO deny this. However in my book, it is the EO who “innovated” by rejecting the authority of the Pope, an authority that they accepted during the first millennium (although there were attempts and periods of schism, e.g. Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople in 861). The correct understanding of Papacy is a mooring that was lost by EO.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Oh and I forgot to mention how Papacy works. During the first millennium, Popes approved or rejected the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, they had the final say. Popes were petitioned and decided controversial issues of faith and dogma. Popes
corrected those who taught heresies, and occasionally excommunicated heretical Patriarchs. They had a real authority of final say in matters of dogma and jurisdiction. Today, the EO deny this. However in my book, it is the EO who “innovated” by rejecting the authority of the Pope, an authority that they accepted during the first millennium (although there were attempts and periods of schism, e.g. Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople in 861). The correct understanding of Papacy is a mooring that was lost by EO.

Christ is risen!

Your history certainly is very different than mine! We are like two people who witness an accident–the Great Schism–and decribe it in completely different terms.

If the Pope was always orthodox and not schismatic, why did he add the filioque to a creed already defined in Nicea centuries before?

And if he was the final, infallible authority you describe, why didn’t the Eastern churches readily embrace his infallible addition?

The fact is, when Rome exerts strongly its authority, it leads to schism–with the EO, thr Reformers, and the Old Catholics. That doesn’t sound like God’s holy plan for His Body.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Christ is risen!

Your history certainly is very different than mine! We are like two people who witness an accident–the Great Schism–and decribe it in completely different terms.

If the Pope was always orthodox and not schismatic, why did he add the filioque to a creed already defined in Nicea centuries before?

And if he was the final, infallible authority you describe, why didn’t the Eastern churches readily embrace his infallible addition?

The fact is, when Rome exerts strongly its authority, it leads to schism–with the EO, thr Reformers, and the Old Catholics. That doesn’t sound like God’s holy plan for His Body.

Matthew 10:34-37

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

JesusforMadrid, I posted hastily a few thoughts in the morning, after reading six or seven posts. Now I’m trying to catch up with the whole thread, and with your and Ignatius33’s excellent and very detailed material. I will print out this thread, it’s almost like a course book on some very important issues. I will only selectively address a few points dealing with Catholic - EO issues, and I apologize because my knowledge is very limited. However I’m motivated to post here because I recognize in your posts some of the same issues that my EO friends raised in discussions. I appreciate any corrections by you or others.

Whether the Rock refers to Peter the person, or only to his confession: already in the Old Testament, God renamed Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel. Renaming someone was always in some way prophetic and pointed to the future role of that person in God’s plans. If you check John’s Gospel, in the very beginning where Jesus meets and invites the first apostles, you can see that when he first meets Simon, he immediately greets him with a prophecy (John 1, 40-42):

40
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41
He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” 29 (which is translated Anointed).
42
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; 30 you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).​

Jesus already tells here that Simon will be renamed to Cephas (which means Rock). This is the same thing as God renaming Jacob to Israel. The Orthodox/Protestant explanation that Rock means only the confession, and not the person, is tortured. I don’t buy it. Here in John 1, way before Simon’s confession which is found later in Matthew 16, it is crystal clear that Jesus refers to the person. Interestingly, Jesus only renamed Simon and not the other 11 apostles - another proof of Peter’s special role in Jesus’ plans.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Regarding the Filioque (I would appreciate any correction since you guys are clearly much better educated than me. Ignatius33, are you a theologian? LOL): I’ve read somewhere (I think a website called CatholicPrelate?) that the Council of Toledo, a regional council in 451, introduced the filioque in response to some heretical views in Spanish territory. What’s strange then, is it like the filioque didn’t bother the EO for hundreds of years, at least not enough to excommunicate those who used it, and yet Photius in 861 “found” that the filioque, the use of unleavened bread, shaving of beards in the West are major flaws (heresies?) that justify the breaking of communion. It sounds like looking for excuses to me, even if they reject the Pope as having the final say. From Catholic perspective, I’ve learned that one of the Popes (8th century? 9th century?) said that the filioque was not heretical, but he advised to avoid its use simply to avoid getting into fights with the Eastern Churches. From EO perspective, since they reject the Pope as final authority, they may not care much that the Popes found the filioque acceptable and not heretic. They (EO) will tell that the Council of Nicaea decided that the Creed is final, therefore a later Pope inserting the filioque condradicts what an earlier Ecumenical Council decided and what was also recognized by the earlier Pope attending that Council (the Council of Nicaea). I’ve heard this EO argument more than once. However the interesting thing is that the Council of Constantinople (381?), some 40 years after the Council of Nicaea, came up with yet another creed, the Creed of Constantinople. Thus, the EO seem inconsistent in their accusations of Catholics violating the ban on messing with the creed. I learned that the Catholic position is, the ban referred only to inventing a new creed inconsistent with that of Nicaea. We Catholics believe that adding the word “filioque” is not inconsistent with the original Creed of Nicaea, it rather further clarifies it. When the attendees of the Council of Constantinople composed their creed, they must have interpreted the ban in the same way, and must have felt that they did nothing wrong composing the Creed of Constantinople, which was not inconsistent with the Creed of Nicaea, it only further clarified it.

I will mention that today, my Russian EO Old Calendarist acquaintances are not in communion with New Calendar EO Churches such as the Greek and Antiochian, for the following reasons: the Calendar, the use of pews (Russians don’t have pews), and the use of musical instruments by certain EO jurisdictions (although I’m not sure whether the Greeks and Antiochians use them). I guess these things are “Tradition” rather then dogma, but for them, they are serious enough to warrant the breaking of communion. This shows the terribly fractured nature of the EO Churches, after having rejected communion with Rome. Constantinople is routinely called Second Rome by them, and Moscow as Third Rome. In their interpretation, Rome fell into heresy, thus had to be replaced with Second Rome. Second Rome is a thorny issue for the Russians, they accuse the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) of trying to become a “Pope of the East”. They say there should be no such thing, since all Patriarchs are equal. However they call themselves “Third Rome”, and admit that they are looking to become the leaders of World Orthodoxy, since they have the largest membership (90 million), while the EP today is left with no more than 4000-5000 members. Consider also the fights about whom gives autocephaly to whom. Moscow does not want the Ukrainian and Estonian EO Churches to become autocephalous, but the EP already recognized them as autocephalous Churches. Moreover, the EP insists that him and only him alone has the authority to grant autocephaly. There’s another EO Church (I don’t remember which one) that the EP does not want to become autocephalous, but Moscow granted them autocephaly. Of course the EP is not happy with this. And at the Catholic-Orthodox theological conference of Ravenna, Moscow left the room as a sign of protest because the representatives of the Estonian EOC, recognized by Constantinople but not by Moscow, were present. There’s also a saga in Ukraine. The EOC of Ukraine is split in two fractions: there’s a Metropolitan loyal to Moscow, and there’s a Patriarch recognized by the EP but Moscow considers this Patriarch as illegitimate. I guess I wanted to say all this to illustrate, the EO Churches are torn apart by various disagreements, they really lack unity no matter how much they insist that they agree in everything. Of course to us Catholics, the never ending fragmentation of the EO (and Protestant) Churches is a cautionary tale of what happens to those who reject Peter. They will end up driving 120 miles to their “flavor” of EOC for Divine Liturgy, even when other EO Churches are present in the city.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Some comments on Matthew 16, 17-19 and Mt 18, 18

Mt 16, 17-19
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Mt 18, 18
18
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

Someone on these forums pointed out previously: what happens if the apostles disagree? What if half of them wants to bind, while the other half wants to loose the same thing? That’s an impasse, and they will go nowhere, even though they as a collective have the power to bind and loose. Don’t forget however that Peter alone, as an individual, apart from the rest of the apostles, was given the authority to bind and loose. Jesus didn’t say to him, “you can bind and loose if the others agree with you”. Sounds despotic? Non-democratic? Yet, this is the authority that Jesus gave to Peter. And Mathew’s Gospel mentions Peter receiving this authority first, in the 16th chapter. Only later, in chapter 18 does he mention the apostles as a community receiving the same authority.

To me, this shows an interesting parallel with Vatican I and II. First, Vatican I defined the authority of the Pope, that he can teach even alone, apart from the rest of the Bishops. Later, Vatican II added that the Bishops have the same infallible teaching authority when teaching in agreement with the Pope.

And the keys to the kingdom of heaven were only given to Peter, not to the rest of the apostles (Mt 16, 19).

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Hi JesusforMadrid,

Hi Ignatius33. Thanks for your response. It is a tribute to your thoroughness that I have not been able to respond quickly, as you have provided me with much to consider.

Regarding purgatory and prayers for the dead, I still feel that you are reading the modern idea of purgatory–i.e. punishment for believers to somehow purify them–into the simple Early Church concept of prayers for the dead, something the Jews before them also practiced, at least at times. We see in the Old Testament that people pray all the time that God will fulfil his promises. Sometimes we even see God “changing his mind” in the Old Testament. Why doesn’t it follow that we can simply pray to God for the saints that have passed away, that God will rise them up on that “great gettin´up day”, as he has promised? Does it follow logically that those who have “fallen asleep” are subjected to the anguish and torment of a fire of purgatory? I think not.

Indeed, reviewing your exhaustive list of sources does not show that the ECFs in general embraced the modern RC idea of purgatory. Those who seem to do so–St. Clement of Alexandria, the Martyrdom of Perpetua, Origen, both St. Gregories, St. Augustine, Caesar of Arles–represent only a minority of those whom you cite and a very small share of all the ECFs. The remainder are either supporting prayers for the dead, as in the case of St. John Chrysostom and Tertulian, or are in fact arguing that there is a fire of judgment for unbelievers, as in the case of St. Cyprian of Carthage. So, even your 19 supposed sources of support are reduced to something like seven. This is not “unanimous support of the fathers”, which is both my and Trent’s standard for epistemology.

Individual fathers made mistakes and were condemned by others for them. Hippolytus argues against purgatory in Against Plato, He says that departed believers are in Abraham’s bosom, which is “a locality full of light … enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view… There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location.”

To take a step back, I think our civilised discussion shows really two very different views of church history. You argue forcefully that the modern RC church has recognised in its modern papal declarations of dogma and doctrine a deeper understanding of doctrines that were always there. You give the example of the Trinity. The church always recognised the infallibility of Rome. When Rome added the filioque, it was because of the deeper understanding of the Creed that it had acquired. The reaction of the Eastern Churches to this addition was schismatic. When Rome clarified the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences, it was simply a recognition of a doctrine that was always embraced anyway, although it took years to gain a deeper understanding.

My reading of Church history leads me to a different conclusion and that is that the Early Church was rather different than the modern RC church. The Early Church did embrace–basically everyone and everywhere–certain doctrines such as the Trinity, so these can be considered infallible doctrine. In governance, the Early Church was conciliar, not dictatorial and authoritarian. Orthodox doctrine was found first in Scripture and this was discerned by the Holy Spirit acting through the believers–laity and priest alike–who participate in the life of the Church.

When a controversy occurred, such as with Arianism, the truth was (and is) discerned by the community of believers, the wider and deeper the better. There was also a diversity of opinion of the fathers on many issues and some of the most orthodox such as St. Basil also made mistakes. However, the more that agreed on an issue, the more we can readily embrace those doctrines as being orthodox.

Later additions to doctrine, such as the filioque, indulgences, purgatory and the immaculate conception, did not enjoy universal support from the ECFs, in my opinion. So when Rome reaches back and justifies an innovation by citing a few Early Church fathers, without the support of a wide and historically deep community of believers, it reaches a result that is not orthodox. This is an ex post justification, like looking back to the “penumbra” of the Early Church.

And this worries me.

Rome has shown its ability to change radically on some positions–take its view of salvation for non Catholics and non-Christians pre and post Vatican II. Where will it go with the Co-Redemtrix and Co-Mediatrix titles?

This leads me to conclude that the RC Church has lost its moorings, just as many Evangelical churches have. They do so for different reasons, but the result is the same: a version of Christianity that is not consonant with the authentic New Testament Church.

 

[AKG]

Roman Catholics have developed certain innovations such as the immaculate conception, indulgences, purgatory and papal infallibility that go beyond that which can be clearly interpreted from Scripture or from the way the Early Church Fathers interpreted Scripture. Or, alternatively, they cite aberrant Early Church Fathers who may support their innovative ideas and thereby contravene the maxim of Vincent of Lérins that orthodox faith is found in “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus” (“What (was believed) everywhere, always and by everyone”). The “progressive revelation” of the RC Church is remarkably similar to judicial activism.

Evangelicals are just as guilty of ignoring the original intent of the Church. In an effort to rectify Roman Catholic innovations, they turn to Sola Scritura, thereby cutting off Scripture from the historical context of the Church and how it interpreted those Scriptures. If we do not understand St. Paul, why not first look to St. Clement, his disciple? If we do not understand St. John, what about St. Ignatius? Evangelicals turn to private interpretation of Scripture, leading to innumerable different ways of viewing Scripture, ignoring again Vincent of Lérins maxim for epistemology.

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

Roman Catholics are not biblical literalists, nor do they, or should they, adhere to the teachings of the Church fathers as Dei Verbum. Catholic faith is rooted in traditional experience, but it is also dynamic lived experience, hence purgatory, devotion to Mary and the saints, papal infallibility, seven sacraments, etc. It does not begin and end with the first age of the Church.

Evangelicals are not set in juxtoposition with Rome as some would believe. They too adhere to tradition, but a tradition that developed parallel to Rome after the 15th and 16th centuries. And the evangelical interpretation of scripture is not as private as some may believe it to be.

As for the Eastern Orthodox, they, too, have a parallel tradition to Rome. In some aspects, the Orthodox tradition incorporates more of the specific teachings of certain influential early church fathers, but they do not draw exclusively upon these teachings. They also have a dynamic, lived experience of faith.

I suppose the real problem that exists for us today as Christians is communicating the gospel of Christ to those caught up in the relativistic culture that surrounds us. To do so effectively, we should strive for greater unity of purpose with one another, and do so with a spirit of mutual respect.