Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josephdaniel29;7516105]I am no scholar and have no desire to argue this again.
You brought the topic up, to another, on this thread, not me. I digress…

The Orthodox Church in America is the church of Matthew 16 and the CC in communion with Rome is a man-made 4th century church. I will respect your beliefs. 🙂

Thanks for the feedback brother. 👍
 
You brought the topic up, to another, on this thread, not me. I digress…

The Orthodox Church in America is the church of Matthew 16 and the CC in communion with Rome is a man-made 4th century church. I will respect your beliefs. 🙂

Thanks for the feedback brother. 👍
So now only people who live in the Mediterranean and Middle east can be part of the Apostolic Church? :confused:

That is indeed a strange opinion. 🤷
 
So now only people who live in the Mediterranean and Middle east can be part of the Apostolic Church? :confused:

That is indeed a strange opinion. 🤷
You lost me dude.:confused: I said I respect your beliefs. 👍 If only people who live in the Mediterranean and Middle east can be part of the Apostolic Church, then I am in trouble, for I live in Michigan.
 
I believe that the EOC and the CC, even though they are not in communion, (other than 23 EOC’s) - comprise the one apostolic church, since they can both trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age (for many other reasons as well) - and pray for their unification. I agree with Pope John that the the Catholic Church needs to breathe with both lungs - East and West alike, rather than with only one Western lung. 👍
 
The true Catholic Church was found by some dude long before Christ. I believe the earliest mention of a catholic is in the book of Genesis and his name was malchizedec or something like that. This through time oddly evolved into what was known as mythraism.

Jesus sanctified the Catholic church and gave us the real presence.

Today; any and all that truly believe that proper communion is the literal body and blood of Christ and accept nothing less are the remnant church that alone is in Gods grace. And alone is salvation possible but never gauranteed.
 
agent_grey;7516899]The true Catholic Church was found by some dude long before Christ. I believe the earliest mention of a catholic is in the book of Genesis and his name was malchizedec or something like that. This through time oddly evolved into what was known as mythraism.

Wow…the earliest mention of a catholic is in the book of Genesis and his name was malchizedec and the true Catholic Church was founded by some dude and through time oddly evolved into what was known as mythraism.

No comment…
 
As someone else pointed out, it’s not insignificant that Peter was the one who made the decision about the Gentiles in Acts 15.
Peter was speaking to the Judaizers in front of whole Jerusalem congregation in defense of what the apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, believed and taught. Peter received the vision, witnessed the conversion, and passed the knowledge to the other apostles. But all that happened before Paul and Barnabas’ confrontation with the Judaizers in chapter 15. There is nothing in Acts 15 that helps your case.
In Matt 16, Jesus is referring to the rite of succession described in Isaiah 22: 20-22. In Isaiah, Eliakim is succeeding Shebna in the office of prime ministry and he is given the keys of the House of David which “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”. Since Jesus is the king of the House of David, he gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom appointing him as his first prime minister with the authority to bind and loose.
True, but didn’t all the apostles receive those keys?
Since you mentioned Irenaeus, allow me to quote him here,

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, 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 that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Please see post #39 for my response to this.
According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul founded and organized the church at Rome. According to Irenaeus, the Roman church is the greatest and most ancient church of all. The church of Rome has a superior origin and all other churches must agree with her and she maintains the apostolic tradition.
You are not looking at this objectively or contextually. Show me anywhere in Irenaeus’ works where your understanding of this is corroborated. I will be happy to show you multiple references from his works that reveal an entirely different understanding.
Given that according to Irenaeus Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome and handed the office of episcopate to Linus, I see no contradiction in holding that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. There are many other writings from Early church fathers that elaborate on this topic before the bible was canonized in the 4th century.
Let’s discuss them.
Pope Clement used his authority to quell the dispute in Corinth. What evidence is inconsistent with the claim that he had universal authority?
Much of it is in my post to joe370.
When you mentioned Ignatius’s letter to the Romans if you would have provided the entire quote, then your claim that his authority was limited to the region of the Romans wouldn’t be as persuasive. Here’s the whole quote,
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
What is different about that greeting from the greetings in his other letters?
Later in the epistle he says, “You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1)
He did not say “the see of Rome” as though he was writing to the bishop, he was writing to the Christians in Rome. Here is a portion from chapter seven that shows that.

“The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you.”
Ignatius says the See of Rome teaches others. Ignatius desires the see of Rome’s instructions to remain in force. Ignatius says the Church of Rome is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God and is worthy of honor, God, highest happiness, praise, credit, etc.
If you understand the context, Ignatius is telling the Christians in Rome, not the see of Rome, that they have taught others how to conduct themselves as Christians and that he desires them to confirm that teaching in their own conduct toward his desire to be martyred. In other words, he is asking them to show their love for him and God by not interfering in his martyrdom. Read chapter two.
 
Neither was there a patriarchate of Constantinople until 451. Now, do you if the patriarchate of Jerusalem has ever fallen to heresy?
Arianism from 330-359 AD, while it was still part of the patriarchate of Antioch. Alexandria had monophysitism in 444 and Constantinople had Arianism at the same time as Antioch (the see of Constantinople dates back to the time of the Apostle Andrew and it has had patriarchal status since the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381, not 451). There were no other sees until 451. So that’s the whole church in heresy except for Rome.
 
Arianism from 330-359 AD, while it was still part of the patriarchate of Antioch. Alexandria had monophysitism in 444 and Constantinople had Arianism at the same time as Antioch (the see of Constantinople dates back to the time of the Apostle Andrew and it has had patriarchal status since the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381, not 451). There were no other sees until 451. So that’s the whole church in heresy except for Rome.
The ancient Church didn’t function the way the modern Catholic Church does. Simply because three bishops fell into heresy doesn’t mean the “whole Church” fell to heresy. Is that really what they teach people in Catholic school these days? 😃

And BTW, you still haven’t shown where the bishop of Jerusalem ever taught heresy. 😉
 
Peter was speaking to the Judaizers in front of whole Jerusalem congregation in defense of what the apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, believed and taught. Peter received the vision, witnessed the conversion, and passed the knowledge to the other apostles. But all that happened before Paul and Barnabas’ confrontation with the Judaizers in chapter 15. There is nothing in Acts 15 that helps your case.

** Paul and Barnabas tried to convince them but there was dissension and debate so they council with the apostles and presbyters. Why is it that when Peter tells them, they all fall silent and there is no longer any debate? What is the difference between Paul/ Barnabas, and Peter?**

True, but didn’t all the apostles receive those keys?

** Matt 16: 18-19- And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
**
Please see post #39 for my response to this.

You’re saying that you think Irenaeus was merely using Rome as an example??? As you pointed out, Rome wasn’t the only church founded by the apostles. The fact that Irenaeus calls the Church at Rome “the greatest and most ancient church known to all” shows that he specifically pointed out this church for a reason and it wasn’t just randomly picking it from a group of apostolic churches. He is distinguishing the Church of Rome from others when he says, “And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

I’m reading his words, I don’t see how else to possibly understand it.

Let’s discuss them.

I’ll post another thread of quotes

What is different about that greeting from the greetings in his other letters?

**Because he says, “the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour…worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy,”- doesn’t sound like the Roman authority is as limited as you suggested by only quoting him as having said “presides over the region of the Romans”.
**

He did not say “the see of Rome” as though he was writing to the bishop, he was writing to the Christians in Rome. Here is a portion from chapter seven that shows that.

“The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you.”
**
When he says, “You have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" it wouldn’t make much sense if he was merely addressing the Christians in Rome right here. The Christians or Rome have envied no one, but others they have taught? He desires only that which the Christians of Rome have enjoined in their instructions to remain in force? He is clearly addressing the See of Rome, that teaches and gives instructions to remain in force.
**
 
Here are some writings from the church fathers on Peter, the papacy, etc.

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us.” [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” Clement of Alexandria [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis" Cyril of Jerusalem [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221])

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“Peter alone do I find— through (the mention of) his mother-in-law —to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists.” Tertullian, On Monogamy ch. 8

“If you can travel into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What a happy church that is! On which the apostles poured out all their doctrine along with their blood: Where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul has for his crown the same death as John.” Tertullain, The Prescription of Heretics, Ch. 36

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” -Tertullian (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
 
The ancient Church didn’t function the way the modern Catholic Church does.
You’re going to have a hard time reconciling that statement with the quotes from the Church Fathers which Curious Hobbit pointed out.
Simply because three bishops fell into heresy doesn’t mean the “whole Church” fell to heresy. Is that really what they teach people in Catholic school these days? 😃
So on the one hand you are pointing to the patriarchate of Jerusalem supposedly being heresy-free as proof of pentarchal church government, and on the other hand you are saying that the pentarchs have no teaching authority beyond that of a diocesan/eparchan bishop. Nice.
 
Paul and Barnabas tried to convince them but there was dissension and debate so they council with the apostles and presbyters. Why is it that when Peter tells them, they all fall silent and there is no longer any debate? What is the difference between Paul/ Barnabas, and Peter?
Paul and Barnabas did not “council” with the apostles and elders, the apostles and elders came together – in the church – to consider the matter. Essentially they brought the matter to the people responsible for sending those men out who were preaching the Law to the Gentiles. The debating that was going on was between the apostles and the Pharisees in the church. Peter stood up to speak and the congregation stopped to listen. When Peter was finished, they listened to Paul and Barnabas. It sounds like you believe that the apostles debated each other. If that is what you believe, it is an impossible conclusion.
Matt 16: 18-19- And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This does not apply to Peter alone, but to all the apostles. Did Christ breath the Holy Ghost upon Peter only or upon them all? And when Paul laid the foundation of the church in various places did he say we are built upon Peter or all the apostles? We are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:20)
You’re saying that you think Irenaeus was merely using Rome as an example??? As you pointed out, Rome wasn’t the only church founded by the apostles. The fact that Irenaeus calls the Church at Rome “the greatest and most ancient church known to all” shows that he specifically pointed out this church for a reason and it wasn’t just randomly picking it from a group of apostolic churches. He is distinguishing the Church of Rome from others when he says, “And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”
I’m reading his words, I don’t see how else to possibly understand it.
Irenaeus said he was using Rome as an example. Here is his preface:

“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.”

Irenaeus is directing his comments towards heretics. One of the common themes in his works is defending orthodoxy by showing unity among the churches. If all the churches were forced to follow Rome, his arguments would have no merit. That is why he said if a question arises it can be taken to the churches since they all teach the same doctrine that was delivered by the apostles.

I don’t know what translation you have, but mine puts it this way: “…[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.” (Phillip Schaff)

Please tell me if your version is a direct translation or an edited version of Phillip Schaff. Frankly, the quote you provided seems contrary to the theme to the work from which it is taken.
Because he says, “the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour…worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy,”- doesn’t sound like the Roman authority is as limited as you suggested by only quoting him as having said “presides over the region of the Romans”.
It is no different that any of the others. He said similar things in all his greetings. Well, there is one exception, to Polycarp he said this:

“…to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ…”

Do you find this interesting? Polycarp has no bishop over him according to Ignatius. What do you think of that?
When he says, “You have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" it wouldn’t make much sense if he was merely addressing the Christians in Rome right here. The Christians or Rome have envied no one, but others they have taught? He desires only that which the Christians of Rome have enjoined in their instructions to remain in force? He is clearly addressing the See of Rome, that teaches and gives instructions to remain in force.
You are ignoring the context; pure and simple. You are suggesting that one minute he is addressing all the Christians in Rome, then the next minute he is addressing the leadership? If you read the letter in context, I do not understand how you can be confused by this.
 
Brian Culliton…

Your claim is that Leo founded the CC in communion with Rome in the 4th century, even though Leo was merely a successor of a succession of bishops in Rome, already belonging to, and leading the CC in communion with Rome, well before Leo came on to the scene.

How can Leo be the founder of the CC, in communion with Rome (in the 4th century) - considering the fact that Leo was merely a successor of a succession of Bishops belonging to leading the CC in communion with Rome?
 
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 pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical 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 despatched 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, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

(cont.)
 
4 But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried (on earth) a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,(1) departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,–a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,–that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.(2) There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”(3) There is also a very powerful(4) Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. (Irenaeus, against Heresies Liv.3 ch.3)

I thought it might be easier for everyone if the text in question had been presented to show the context in which it had been written.
 
Brian Culliton…

Your claim is that Leo founded the CC in communion with Rome in the 4th century, even though Leo was merely a successor of a succession of bishops in Rome, already belonging to, and leading the CC in communion with Rome, well before Leo came on to the scene.

How can Leo be the founder of the CC, in communion with Rome (in the 4th century) - considering the fact that Leo was merely a successor of a succession of Bishops belonging to leading the CC in communion with Rome?
You are going to have to define what you mean by “in communion with Rome.” Otherwise we are just talking two different languages.

And don’t you mean 5th century?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top