No early records?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
myfavoritmartin said:
1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.
Click to expand...
Again, the chapter is not about the office of Peter, it is about the priestly office and apostolic succession (office of "bishop’). Catholics still accept this teaching – that all our bishops are successors of the 12 apostles, the first bishops.
Here also, it is more clear if the whole chapter is cited.
**Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.**Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
Click to expand...
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Did the early Christian church think that Peter had a successor who was in charge of the whole church? Did they think the Bishop of Rome specifically was that person?

No early writings show the Bishops of Rome referred to, or thought of, as head of the “Church”.
Click to expand...
This is a writing of Irenaeus (He was born somewhere between 115-140 AD. He knew and heard Polycarp (died 155 AD) - St. John’s disciple.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm (Link to the full document)
I’ve underlined what I felt were the most pertinent sentences.

**A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up. **
  1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
  2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
  3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, …
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Any mention that Peter is the head of Rome and that Rome is the head of the whole church there in scriptures?
NO!
Click to expand...
I take issue with you using the scripturs as authoritative until you explain how you know they are inspired by God–what is your proof? By what authority do you know them to be the inspired Word of God?

I think the scriptures clearly indicate Peter is head of the early Church. Are you arguing he does not have successors?

Peace,
Mark
 
BernadetteM said:
I have two of his books, however I would like to purchase others with all the great writings of the ECF. They would help me to explain to even my own family some of the questions they ask, that I can’t answer.

Thanks for the response.

God Bless

Bernadette
Click to expand...
Hi Bernadette,

The ECF writings are available in a 38 volume set. I purchased mine from Christian Book Distributors some years ago. It is a Protestant edition, and their intro’s and footnotes reflect it. I do not know if there is a set in print by a Catholic publisher, with Catholic footnotes and intro’s.
Here is a link to Christian Book Distributors.
christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find/1165913378?Ntt=early+church+fathers&N=1014644&Ntk=keywords&action=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1&search=

To get the whole set, you have to purchase “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” (10 volumes) $99.99
and
“Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers” (14 volumes in each for a total of 28 volumes) $199.99

The same set is also available on Amazon. As you can see, it costs more than twice as much to purchase the same set there.
amazon.com/Early-Church-Fathers-38-Vols/dp/1565630815

But, if you don’t mind reading off of a computer screen, the whole thing is available on-line for free. Just go to www.newadvent.org/fathers
There are no footnotes and introductions to the on-line version.
 
Notice that MfM tries to bounce back and forth from the ECF evidence (that he doesn’t actually have.) to suddenly using his Sola Scriptura argument. He probably has to do this, since his ECF argument is so weak to begin with.

It doesn’t work of course since there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that says that all that we believe and practice has to have its basis in the Bible. (It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? & It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II))

MfM seeks (as do many a-Cs) to take the ECFs out of context to try to impugn the faith of Catholics, in spite of the glaring fact that anyone (Take Scott Hahn just for instance) who reads the ECFs with an open mind and honest heart is quickly confronted by the very Catholic nature of what they speak.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Church_Militant said:
Notice that MfM tries to bounce back and forth from the ECF evidence (that he doesn’t actually have.) to suddenly using his Sola Scriptura argument. He probably has to do this, since his ECF argument is so weak to begin with.

It doesn’t work of course since there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that says that all that we believe and practice has to have its basis in the Bible. (It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? & It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II))

MfM seeks (as do many a-Cs) to take the ECFs out of context to try to impugn the faith of Catholics, in spite of the glaring fact that anyone (Take Scott Hahn just for instance) who reads the ECFs with an open mind and honest heart is quickly confronted by the very Catholic nature of what they speak.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Click to expand...
As Catholics, we are defending and explaining what we believe and why. I think myfavoritmartin is doing the same thing. I wouldn’t want it any other way. He truly does not believe in the papacy, so naturally he will defend that belief. As long as we remain respectful towards each other, I think the discussion can be very fruitful for both sides.
 
Nita said:
Hi Bernadette,

The ECF writings are available in a 38 volume set. I purchased mine from Christian Book Distributors some years ago. It is a Protestant edition, and their intro’s and footnotes reflect it. I do not know if there is a set in print by a Catholic publisher, with Catholic footnotes and intro’s.
Here is a link to Christian Book Distributors.
christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find/1165913378?Ntt=early+church+fathers&N=1014644&Ntk=keywords&action=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1&search=

To get the whole set, you have to purchase “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” (10 volumes) $99.99
and
“Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers” (14 volumes in each for a total of 28 volumes) $199.99

The same set is also available on Amazon. As you can see, it costs more than twice as much to purchase the same set there.
amazon.com/Early-Church-Fathers-38-Vols/dp/1565630815

But, if you don’t mind reading off of a computer screen, the whole thing is available on-line for free. Just go to www.newadvent.org/fathers
There are no footnotes and introductions to the on-line version.
Click to expand...
HI Nita,

Thanks so much, I think I will go to the on-line version and save it in my favorites. Money is tight so access through the web is a great idea for me.

Bernadette
 
Nita said:
As Catholics, we are defending and explaining what we believe and why. I think myfavoritmartin is doing the same thing. I wouldn’t want it any other way. He truly does not believe in the papacy, so naturally he will defend that belief. As long as we remain respectful towards each other, I think the discussion can be very fruitful for both sides.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see anything in this thread that was less than respectful, though trying to proselytize us away from the Catholic Church is counter to CAF’s purpose and rules so that may have been the problem. 🤷

Regardless, it’s a moot point now.

I do think that the preponderance of evidence was presented by the Catholic posters here that refutes his position.
 
BernadetteM said:
I just don’t understand how anyone can belong to another Church, once they have read the ECF. The OP mentioned what about earlier written statements, I wonder how he then accepts the Bible, since it was even later that it was in the written form of a book.
Click to expand...
Ditto!
 
What is the online resource for the early Church fathers, again? I don’t want to make a mistake.

Also, does anyone have a good book on the Papacy for those of us who do not have the time to read 38 VOLUMES? :eek:
 
Windfish said:
What is the online resource for the early Church fathers, again? I don’t want to make a mistake.

Also, does anyone have a good book on the Papacy for those of us who do not have the time to read 38 VOLUMES? :eek:
Click to expand...
It was on Nita’s post #44, I believe at www.newadvent.com

Bernadette
 
Nita said:
??? What on earth does this have to do with papal supremacy. Clement is talking about martyrdom. Clement mentions Peter first, then Paul, and then "a vast multitude of the elect who underwent martyrdom. Perhaps you missed the chapter heading and initial sentences in that chapter. Here’s a more complete quote
Click to expand...
***1Clem 5:4 ****"There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one *not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory."

I believe the OP foolishly thought that Pope Clement was saying Peter was the one who had unrighteous jealousy, instead of the rightful interpretation which was because of other’s unrighteous jealously, Peter endured many labors. You see, the OP is looking so hard to find this ‘proof’ of his, that he would even force it to read something so ridiculous.
 
Des said:
***1Clem 5:4 ***"There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory."

I believe the OP foolishly thought that Pope Clement was saying Peter was the one who had unrighteous jealousy, instead of the rightful interpretation which was because of other’s unrighteous jealously, Peter endured many labors. You see, the OP is looking so hard to find this ‘proof’ of his, that he would even force it to read something so ridiculous.
Click to expand...
And I am thinking it’s possible the OP has a source of quotes which he is using – perhaps put together by someone else. We use similar aids; for example Jurgen’s “The Faith of the Early Fathers”. We are also likely to post quotes from there without going to the actual document and reading the whole section from which the quote is taken.
 
MarkInOregon said:
I take issue with you using the scripturs as authoritative until you explain how you know they are inspired by God–what is your proof? By what authority do you know them to be the inspired Word of God?
Click to expand...
That is excellent. May I use that in the future?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top