James of Jerusalem, St Augustine and Money

[Guyparker]

Forum Friends,

I have engaged some of my Protestant friends in a friendly argument about the Carholic faith by email. The following is from one of them. I am searching for the Truth, but I need some help with these. He asked me to read Eusebius’, “Church History”. I did so, then afterword I wrote him an email about some of the highlights. I pointed out two places in the text where Eusebius and Paul (not the apostle) named Peter as the first bishop of Rome.
*
My friend’s email follows:
Remember, the first head of the church was James of Jerusalem. Also, during the time of the Apostles a chasm had already begun amongst their ranks. The first organized polity church didn’t happen until the 300 hundreds. Saint Augustine when he first approach the clerical body for membership as a Bishop was denied as he was cited has a heretic. Years later, he had enough money to pay for his Bishopric. His beliefs had not changed. Money talks. Saint Augustine, was a disciple of Mani, the founder of the religion of Manicheism in the 3rd century. Terrible teaching enter the church from this brilliant man of Mani. His biggest error was teaching that sin was transfer in the sperm. He had a problem of illicit Concupiscence.*

Please send me a reference with your rebuttals. Thank you so much!!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Forum Friends,

I have engaged some of my Protestant friends in a friendly argument about the Carholic faith by email. The following is from one of them. I am searching for the Truth, but I need some help with these. He asked me to read Eusebius’, “Church History”. I did so, then afterword I wrote him an email about some of the highlights. I pointed out two places in the text where Eusebius and Paul (not the apostle) named Peter as the first bishop of Rome.
*
My friend’s email follows:
Remember, the first head of the church was James of Jerusalem. Also, during the time of the Apostles a chasm had already begun amongst their ranks. The first organized polity church didn’t happen until the 300 hundreds. Saint Augustine when he first approach the clerical body for membership as a Bishop was denied as he was cited has a heretic. Years later, he had enough money to pay for his Bishopric. His beliefs had not changed. Money talks. Saint Augustine, was a disciple of Mani, the founder of the religion of Manicheism in the 3rd century. Terrible teaching enter the church from this brilliant man of Mani. His biggest error was teaching that sin was transfer in the sperm. He had a problem of illicit Concupiscence.*

Please send me a reference with your rebuttals. Thank you so much!!

I think I would like to see his sources. Most of what he says sounds pretty made up, so I’ll generally just reference wikipedia (I know, I know, but it does have other sources at the bottom).

In particular, what he says about St. Augustine just makes no sense at all. The whole bought his bishopric reeks of conspiracy theory. St. Augustine sold all of his stuff and gave the money away (except his house, which he turned into monastery-like thing), and then was a priest for four years, and then was a Coadjutor bishop (that is, assistant bishop), and wasn’t a “full” bishop until slightly after that.

So this whole “saved up and bought himself a bishop title” is just silly. Your friend would need to provide evidence.

The even more serious charge that St. Augustine remained true to Manichaeism and did not actually convert is even more ludicrous, given that after he converted most of his efforts were to try to convert people away from Manichaeism. In addition to common knowledge and wikipedia, I would suggest the books that St. Augustine himself wrote: Confessions, and City of God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

As for the “first leader was James” thing - I’m not sure why he’d think that either. “You are Rock and upon this Rock I build my Church” (source=God) seems pretty clear,and while it is also clear that the other apostles certainly exercised a lot of leadership, any claim that one of them was in charge over Peter would have to be backed up. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

 

[ahs]

I think I would like to see his sources. Most of what he says sounds pretty made up, so I’ll generally just reference wikipedia (I know, I know, but it does have other sources at the bottom).

In particular, what he says about St. Augustine just makes no sense at all. The whole bought his bishopric reeks of conspiracy theory. St. Augustine sold all of his stuff and gave the money away (except his house, which he turned into monastery-like thing), and then was a priest for four years, and then was a Coadjutor bishop (that is, assistant bishop), and wasn’t a “full” bishop until slightly after that.

So this whole “saved up and bought himself a bishop title” is just silly. Your friend would need to provide evidence.

The even more serious charge that St. Augustine remained true to Manichaeism and did not actually convert is even more ludicrous, given that after he converted most of his efforts were to try to convert people away from Manichaeism. In addition to common knowledge and wikipedia, I would suggest the books that St. Augustine himself wrote: Confessions, and City of God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

As for the “first leader was James” thing - I’m not sure why he’d think that either. “You are Rock and upon this Rock I build my Church” (source=God) seems pretty clear,and while it is also clear that the other apostles certainly exercised a lot of leadership, any claim that one of them was in charge over Peter would have to be backed up. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

Yes, my thoughts as well. OP, your friend needs to provide the credible/legitimate sources for these claims…which are false. I have read no historian, regardless of religion, that has ever supported any such information as what your friend has just asserted. Who is his source?

 

[Guyparker]

Yes, my thoughts as well. OP, your friend needs to provide the credible/legitimate sources for these claims…which are false. I have read no historian, regardless of religion, that has ever supported any such information as what your friend has just asserted. Who is his source?

I will see if I can get him to provide his sources on it.

 

[steve_b]

Forum Friends,

I have engaged some of my Protestant friends in a friendly argument about the Carholic faith by email. The following is from one of them. I am searching for the Truth, but I need some help with these. He asked me to read Eusebius’, “Church History”. I did so, then afterword I wrote him an email about some of the highlights. I pointed out two places in the text where Eusebius and Paul (not the apostle) named Peter as the first bishop of Rome.

My friend’s email follows:
*Remember, the first head of the church was James of Jerusalem. *

James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem. Like Ignatius was the Bp of the Church in Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. When one says “head of the Church”, in the way your friend was using it, that title belongs to Peter.

For example

*From Chrysostom *

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the d8enial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In John. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
G:

*Also, during the time of the Apostles a chasm had already begun amongst their ranks. The first organized polity church didn’t happen until the 300 hundreds. *

For 300 years the Church was under attack. It wasn’t till Constantine made Christianity legal that it became unlawful to persecute Catholics anylonger.

The Church was Catholic from the beginning

St Luke, Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά*kata ὅλοςholos] *Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied. iow the Church is the Kataholos Church = Catholic Church http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means
St Ignatius Bp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., ordained by the apostles, disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church [letter to the Church of Smyrna Epistle to the Smyrnæans
St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
St Irenaeus Bp of Lyons disciple of Polycarp ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3] Chapter 3
St Cyprian Bp of Carthage ~240 a.d. Epistle 75 ,Epistle 63 , Epistle 54
Council Nicea Nicaea I (325)
etc etc etc
G:

*Saint Augustine, was a disciple of Mani, the founder of the religion of Manicheism in the 3rd century. *

instead read Augustine for yourself.on manichaeans

• On the Morals of the Manichaeans
• On Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans
• Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean
• Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental
• Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
• Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichaeans

 

[Goya]

St. Augustine did not buy his bishopric–he was ‘elected’ by the people of Hippo to serve as pastor, and obligated to honor their ‘election’, according to local custom. St. Augustine had no interest in staying in Hippo–it was an outpost of the Roman Empire–he had his heart set on greater things, and had already established a name for himself in Milan, and Rome, under the tutelage of St. Ambrose. This is further evident by the fact that the prior bishop of Hippo promoted him auxiliary bishop, so as not to lose him to another diocese. Many other bishops even challenged the propriety of this action, as it was unprecedented (e.g.–St. Paul went to Rome, but was never Bishop of Rome–that seat being occuppied by St. Peter). However, as aux. bishop, St. Augustine succeeded the prior bishop (whose name alludes me now).

As for the claim about St. James–he was the eldest of the Apostles, and was the head of the Church in Jerusalem, while St. Peter left for Rome in order to evangelize the seat of world power. History and Tradition inform us that the authority followed St. Peter to Rome, as there is no record of any appeal to St. James’ authority to resolve any disputes, while there is for St. Peter. Also, the primacy of St. Peter is evident in the Bible–his name appears first amongst the apostles in all but 2 occasions; he is named more than virtually all of the other apostles combined; Christ expressly entruted to him the Keys to the Kingdom; expressly instructed St. Peter to ‘feed his sheep’; etc., etc.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.