U
UBERROGO
Guest
quick anwser :
sola sets scripture ahead of all other means of finding truth, where as solo uses only scripture and nothing else.
- Status
sola sets scripture ahead of all other means of finding truth, where as solo uses only scripture and nothing else.
J
jsussvsus
Guest
Something you obviously dont undestand is that Protestants feel ourselves to be the true catholics, similarly we feel the the RCC is something less/other than pure Christianity.
Also to believe that Protstants dont believe in Traditions is absurd because we have communion and Baptism etc. It does not in anyway violate Sola Sriptura to have traditions. Think Lutherans Angelicans Episcopailians.
If you think that Protestants never read the Church Fathers then you are misinformed.
Hi All
This is a very good point, we so called Bible thumpers believe that the eary church was nothing like todays catholic church. You say Prot churches didn’t start until some 1500+ years later, we say that after 1500+ years of the catholic church changing church teachings (the selling of indulgences, buying loved one’s that passed on out of purgatory, statues, praying to others and worshipping idols, Marion devotion, etc) we needed to get back to truth. With all of the abuses the church need to be reformed.
Thanks.
Also to believe that Protstants dont believe in Traditions is absurd because we have communion and Baptism etc. It does not in anyway violate Sola Sriptura to have traditions. Think Lutherans Angelicans Episcopailians.
If you think that Protestants never read the Church Fathers then you are misinformed.
Hi All
This is a very good point, we so called Bible thumpers believe that the eary church was nothing like todays catholic church. You say Prot churches didn’t start until some 1500+ years later, we say that after 1500+ years of the catholic church changing church teachings (the selling of indulgences, buying loved one’s that passed on out of purgatory, statues, praying to others and worshipping idols, Marion devotion, etc) we needed to get back to truth. With all of the abuses the church need to be reformed.
Thanks.
A
Atreyu
Guest
jsus…
That’s a pretty bold statement but one that doesn’t seem to be backed up by history. If you were to say that Protestantism was more similar to the early church than Catholicism then I would say this is an out and out lie! Do you have any evidence of this? Anyway, this is stuff I’ve heard before and isn’t really on-topic (not that I can see anyway… maybe we could make a new thread to discuss the historical evidence for Protestantism?). Can people stay on-topic please (that goes for everyone)?
That’s a pretty bold statement but one that doesn’t seem to be backed up by history. If you were to say that Protestantism was more similar to the early church than Catholicism then I would say this is an out and out lie! Do you have any evidence of this? Anyway, this is stuff I’ve heard before and isn’t really on-topic (not that I can see anyway… maybe we could make a new thread to discuss the historical evidence for Protestantism?). Can people stay on-topic please (that goes for everyone)?
F
Fidelis
Guest
Wow… there is so much misinformation and lack of understanding of Church history and Catholic teaching packed into this paragraph, one hardly knows where to start
. I suggest you start here:catholic.com/default.asp
As to the topic at hand, the original question was:
The answer is: they want it both ways. Just like Catholic dissenters who don’t leave the Church because no will take them seriously if they do, these Protestants don’t want to identify with the Church they claim to be members of from the beginning. :whacky:
Either it is the same Church, or it is not.
Here is an amusing but informative article from *Envoy * magazine about “Ancient Baptists and Other Myths.”:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html
J
jsussvsus
Guest
Hi
I’m sorry Atreyu, I should have explained myself better. I know that Protsestents are all thrown into one pot, there are different denoms that I dont agree with. The church where I go looks to the Holy Sirit and the scriptures for guidence. I know alot of churches have gone astray, that is why we stay with what the scriptures teach.
Thanks.
R
Roree
Guest
The early church fathers were Catholic. Anyone who reads their writings can attest to the numerous Catholic beliefs found in them. We can make them whatever we want them to be if we cut-and-paste their writings and take what they say out of context. For example, many seem to think St. Augustine was a Protestant, but he was very much Catholic. If St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, etc… were to mysteriously come to live in our time, they would recognize the Mass as the form of Christian worship. Alot on the exterior has changed (big cathedrals, congregations…) but the form of worship and fundamental doctrines have not. It amazes me when I read St. Justin Martyr explain the liturgy over 1500 years ago. What we need is an honest look at the early church.
**
UBERROGO ** you quoted a few church fathers to support sola scriptura. One I thought was interesting was St. Cyril of Jerusalem. If he was a proponent of sola scriptura, how do you explain his *Catechetical Letters * which support numerous Catholic beliefs? This is just one example of how cutting-and-pasting their writings and reading them out of context, you misinterpret what was meant to be said. The church fathers upheld Sacred Scripture, BUT not at the expense of Sacred Tradition.
**
UBERROGO ** you quoted a few church fathers to support sola scriptura. One I thought was interesting was St. Cyril of Jerusalem. If he was a proponent of sola scriptura, how do you explain his *Catechetical Letters * which support numerous Catholic beliefs? This is just one example of how cutting-and-pasting their writings and reading them out of context, you misinterpret what was meant to be said. The church fathers upheld Sacred Scripture, BUT not at the expense of Sacred Tradition.
A
adventistnomore
Guest
Because they read the BibleThats a lot of questions!
1: I dont know
And this is the critical flaw because that belief int eh authority of Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic succession contextualizes every quote you gave supporting Scripture as the normative authority. Here are the same fathers:
-Irenaeus (ca. 180***)
“"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about…by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”
- Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds.”
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able”
-Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force.”
-St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings"
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church”
… These were found on catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp I don’t have time to type tons ofother statements in all the Church fathers (especially Irenaeus), and I deal mainly with the Ante-Nicene fathers, so Ambrose and Gregory of nyssa are out of the picture for the momentbut we can dialoge about them too if one must further confirm the point. I think the above statements are suficient. The fathers were NOT sola scripturists, at least int he Protestant sense. They believed in the authority of the Scritures, AND the athority of the tadition handed down through the apostolic succesion.
A
adventistnomore
Guest
Nor to Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Canticles). Interestingly enough… the first two were disputed by first century Judaism until the school of Jamnia was established (70 CE -after te Church was founded). Perhaps they should not be part of the Christian canon!? I don’t think so. And then again, Jude quotes 1 Enoch and the Assuption of Moses authoratively. So is quotation sufficien cause?
True. The palestinian rabbis also did not accept books written outside Palestine, and any book not written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Guess the (Greek) New Testament (largely written outside of Palestine) isn’t inspired either.
Also, “the prophets” may not refer to all people who write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but to a specific class of individuals. (such as Jeremiah) The Palestinian rabbincal conclusion that all Scripture must have been written through the gift of prophecy is harder to demonstrate. At the same time, Wisdom 2:12-20 not a prophecy?
Have you ever studied the formation of the new Testament canon? It’s limits were not finally agreed upon until the fourth century, although a greater consensus had emerged since the late second century. By the fourth cenury, very few books were still disputed (Revelation was rejected by Syrian churches, Jude was suspect, Hebrews, Jams etc.) Nonetheless, read some of these canonical lists: ntcanon.org/lists.shtml.
U
UBERROGO
Guest
of course you would say its a lie because your RC where as all the Prot would say its not. what a great evidence you present
A
Atreyu
Guest
Well whenever a RC is challenged on this, they refer to the early church fathers (as others have done in this post). Now I am no scholar, and I have not read the early church fathers much at all, but the burden of proof is on the Protestants to prove that the RCC is actually wrong. Do you agree with this? As Protestants broke away from the RCC which claims to be the church founded by Christ, don’t they need to justify why they broke away? And in making this justification, surely it would have to coincide with history. While the writings of the early fathers are certainly not infallible, they are still useful and anything that differs widely from their practices would have to be explained. John Henry Newman said something along the lines of “to be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant”. Now while that is hardly proof of the Catholic Church’s authenticity, I trust what he says is correct. This is because he did more research in his life than I could ever hope to achieve. And he started out as a Protestant (an Anglican?) and converted to Catholicism after his research taught him that the RCC is authentic. Do you know of any seriously educated Catholic who converted to Protestantism for the same reasons?
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Please keep the charity level up in this discussion.
If your remarks or tone do not reflect Christ… Nuff said?
Your servant in Him,
Michael Francis
If your remarks or tone do not reflect Christ… Nuff said?
Your servant in Him,
Michael Francis
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
- most people have more pressing things to do than read frowsty old men from fourth-century Egypt or Cappadocia - or Dalmatia, or Rome 
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It depends what exactly “RP” is supposed to mean - if you mean transubstantiation, there are several reasons.
Because for one thing, the RCC follows tradition inconsistently. It is quite insistent on the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” as a criterion of whether a doctrine is recognisable as a dogma - except when insisting on unanimity would exclude the Immaculate Conception (say) from being made a dogma. IOW, RC positions can be undermined by applying RC methods to them.
Where does Rome get the Assumption from ? It’s possible to read Father after Father from before 300, and not find one single reference to it. If it was so important, why are there no homilies on it from the the major preachers among the Fathers, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine ? Baptism is often preached on - so is the Liturgy: the Assumption is prominent for the lack of attention it receives.
There are difficulties on both sides.Jesus was “Protestant” in being highly critical of religious authorities, and of their traditions - and in saying so; He was “Catholic” in that Judaism, like Catholicism, is a religion of many structures.
IOW, Protestantism may have preserved the “prophetic”/“charismatic” features of earliest Christianity better (in some respects) than Catholicism. ##
D
DeniseR
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
The same can be said today and throughtout the history of the Catholic Church. The very first Apostle who had authority but abused it was Judas. Peter was not perfect and sinned but repented. Abuses by those in authority didn’t negate the teachings of the Catholic Church in the 1500’s. They were eventually corrected. The priests who abused children and the bishops who covered it up were sinners and were surely not practicing what they preached. Nevertheless, they still had the authority because they were validly ordained but it still didn’t negate the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Then why did Jesus found his church on Peter? Why did he give Peter and the Apostles the authority to bind and loose? Jesus was highly critical of religious authorities who abused their authority. He didn’t criticize what they taught, but what they did. The actions of the Scribes and Pharasies didn’t negate the teachings of the Jewish law. But Jesus did point out that they weren’t following the law but expected everyone else to follow it.
The same can be said today and throughtout the history of the Catholic Church. The very first Apostle who had authority but abused it was Judas. Peter was not perfect and sinned but repented. Abuses by those in authority didn’t negate the teachings of the Catholic Church in the 1500’s. They were eventually corrected. The priests who abused children and the bishops who covered it up were sinners and were surely not practicing what they preached. Nevertheless, they still had the authority because they were validly ordained but it still didn’t negate the teachings of the Catholic Church.
C
Catholicious
Guest
Although these are not the earliest quotes the Church has in regards to our understanding of the Holy Eucharist passed down to us from Christ Himself, they are clear and powerful nonetheless.Thats a lot of questions!
1: I dont know
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
“Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?” (Catechetical Lectures 22:1 [A.D. 350]).
*“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). *
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (Catechetical Lectures 22:6, 9 [A.D. 350]).
Peace,
Catholicious
C
Catholicious
Guest
jsussvsus,
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject. I have a question: How do you know that you are staying with what scripture teaches?
Peace,
Catholicious
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
The doctrine of the Assumption was one that developed over time. It was not something new but rather the logical result of what was already known (Mary’s Immaculate Conception).
**Pseudo – Melito
**If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 A.D. 300]).
**Timothy of Jerusalem
**Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna A.D. 400]).
**John the Theologian
**The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary A.D. 400]).
**Gregory of Tours
**[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . . (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 A.D. 575]).
**Theoteknos of Livias
**It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God (*Homily on the Assumption *[ca. **A.D. 600]).
**Modestus of Jerusalem
**As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him (*Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae *[ante **A.D. 634]).
**Germanus of Constantinople
**You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life (Sermon I A.D. 683]).
**John Damascene
**It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God (Dormition of Mary A.D. 697])
**Gregorian Sacramentary
**Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself (Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante **A.D. 795]).
C
Catholicious
Guest
Roree,
St. Ignatius of Antioch would certainly agree with you. He offers a very powerful statement at a very early time in the Church.
*Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. ***
[The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.]
Peace,
Catholicious
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
But more importantly, the Early Church Fathers believed that the Catholic Church was the one true Church, that it taught infallibly and that the clergy was made up of three ranks; bishop, priest, and deacon.
**Ignatius of Antioch
**
**
**
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 A. D. 110]).
**The Martyrdom of Polycarp
**
**
**
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (*The Martyrdom of Polycarp *8 A.D. 110]).
**Irenaeus
**
**
**
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).
**Tertullian
**
**
**
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 A.D.200])
**Clement of Alexandria
**
**
**
A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere (*The Instructor of Children *3:12:97:2 [pre-**A.D. 202]).
Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel (*Stromateis *6:13:107:2 [post-**A.D. 202]).
**(cont’d)
**
**Ignatius of Antioch
**
**
**
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 A. D. 110]).
**The Martyrdom of Polycarp
**
**
**
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (*The Martyrdom of Polycarp *8 A.D. 110]).
**Irenaeus
**
**
**
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).
**Tertullian
**
**
**
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 A.D.200])
**Clement of Alexandria
**
**
**
A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere (*The Instructor of Children *3:12:97:2 [pre-**A.D. 202]).
Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel (*Stromateis *6:13:107:2 [post-**A.D. 202]).
**(cont’d)
**
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
(cont’d)
Hippolytus
**
**
When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . On a presbyter [priest], however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. (Apostolic Tradition 9 [ca. **A.D. 215]).
**Origen
**
**
**
Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married (Homilies on Luke, 17 [ca. **A.D. 235]).
**Cyprian
**
**
**
The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (*On the Unity of the Catholic Church *6 A.D. 251]).
Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (*Letters *66 A.D. 253]).
Hippolytus
**
**
When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: He is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . On a presbyter [priest], however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. (Apostolic Tradition 9 [ca. **A.D. 215]).
**Origen
**
**
**
Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married (Homilies on Luke, 17 [ca. **A.D. 235]).
**Cyprian
**
**
**
The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (*On the Unity of the Catholic Church *6 A.D. 251]).
Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (*Letters *66 A.D. 253]).
- Status