Protestants, Look at Polycarp

  • Thread starter Thread starter shoewindow3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Riight! Someone discipled by the Apostle John (and ordained a Bishop of a city other than Rome) is more authoritative than the Bishop of Rome (was he even called “Pope” at that time?). How could I have missed that? Who discipled Anicetus (Bishop of Rome when these things occurred)? Why was Polycarp able to succeed in converting heretics in Rome, when Anicetus couldn’t (apparently, the heretics did very well in Rome until Polycarp showed up)?
The same reason why Protestants don’t listen to the Pope today…they don’t accept his authority. From the heretics’ point of view, Polycarp would have more authority on the issue.
Think about this:
If Matthew suddenly came back from the dead and said that the Catholic Church was the True Church, would you listen to him? I assume so. It would be because of his testimony that you would accept the authority of the Pope.

Polycarp could do something that the Pope could not-Polycarp could convey a sense of authority that the heretics needed to hear, because he ** personally knew** the Apostles (unlike the Pope). that was the only thing that would convince them.
Nothing that the Pope said to the heretics would have convinced them, because they didn’t accept him to begin with.​

Here is something new to consider:
Protestants think that the Catholic Church’s teachings contradict the Bible. Well, if that is the case, then why did the Catholic Church decide to canonize a New Testament that would contradict what they teach? Does that make very much sense?
That would be sort of like an Evangelical minister recommending his followers to read the Catholic Catechism!
 
Riight! Someone discipled by the Apostle John (and ordained a Bishop of a city other than Rome) is more authoritative than the Bishop of Rome (was he even called “Pope” at that time?). How could I have missed that? Who discipled Anicetus (Bishop of Rome when these things occurred)? Why was Polycarp able to succeed in converting heretics in Rome, when Anicetus couldn’t (apparently, the heretics did very well in Rome until Polycarp showed up)?
It would be helpful to keep in mind “pope” means father, and is not some almighty designation. Yes he is infalible in the teachings of Christ but in no other way. He can not change those teachings or elimenate any of those teachings. Father was first introduced by Paul by the way. Father was used as a reference of respect throught the scriptures to several of the Holy. An example;

1 Thessalonians CH2; 11 “As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children…”
1 Corinthians CH4; 14 I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 5 15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
 
It’s amazing that despite the testimony of men like Ignatius, Iraneas and Polycarp that can be added to what we know from Scripture that people still deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and it’s importance to the early Church. Some will even deny that the early Church is the same Catholic Church that exists today.

I don’t know if that’s a problem with reading comprehension or an inability to internalize evidence that goes against their misconceptions or if they simply ignore anything they can’t find in the 27 books of the NT, but it certainly shows a closemindedness that’s a bit hard to understand.

I guess as Catholics, raised in the Faith with Sacred Tradition, Church history and the God given authority to interpret Scripture to make these things so clear, it’s easier for us. We are truly blessed that Truth comes to us through Christ and His Church.

Credo Deo omnipotenti
 
If anyone plans on remaining Protestant, reading the Early Church Fathers is generally a bad idea. If nothing else, it will show that the doctrines of the Reformers are traditions of men.
 
40.png
shoewindow3000:
The same reason why Protestants don’t listen to the Pope today…they don’t accept his authority. From the heretics’ point of view, Polycarp would have more authority on the issue.
Think about this:
If Matthew suddenly came back from the dead and said that the Catholic Church was the True Church, would you listen to him? I assume so. It would be because of his testimony that you would accept the authority of the Pope.
I would have serious doubts about anyone claiming to be Matthew returned to life (the same goes for visions or apparitions of him, or anyone else who has already passed from this life). You still haven’t shown where Polycarp taught the “tradition” of Mary’s immaculate conception or bodily assumption. Can you show me any Apostolic traditions Polycarp taught that are not found recorded in Scripture?

You have failed to prove your claim about Polycarp and attempted to bring in Ignatius and the Eucharist (I notice St Aloysius is going down this rabbit trail), and now you’re trying to bring up the canon (BTW - God is the author of the canon, not man, not the Church). You wanted to look at Polycarp, and I will not be dragged off topic. I think the bottom line is that your claim that Polycarp disproves Protestantism has failed.
40.png
twb1621:
It would be helpful to keep in mind “pope” means father, and is not some almighty designation. Yes he is infalible in the teachings of Christ but in no other way. He can not change those teachings or elimenate any of those teachings. Father was first introduced by Paul by the way. Father was used as a reference of respect throught the scriptures to several of the Holy.
Notice Paul says things like, “as a father”, and “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”. Paul is addressing people that he had invested time and effort in to bring them to Christ. Nowhere does Paul (or anyone else) ask to be addressed by that title (even Peter calls Paul “brother” in his letter). Also, the “official” title for the pope is Pontificus Maximus. Look here and see where this title came from.
40.png
CWBetts:
If anyone plans on remaining Protestant, reading the Early Church Fathers is generally a bad idea. If nothing else, it will show that the doctrines of the Reformers are traditions of men.
Perhaps if I restrict myself to quote books, but when reading the actual works and seeing the context in which comments are made, I have yet to find anything to convince me of the modern Catholic position. BTW - the topic is on Polycarp and traditions.
 
Of course doctrine has developed over 2000 years. The Church alone was given that authority. And If you were honest, you would see that Protestantism has nothing in common with the early Church. Their watered-down doctrines are inventions. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
40.png
CWBetts:
Of course doctrine has developed over 2000 years. The Church alone was given that authority. And If you were honest, you would see that Protestantism has nothing in common with the early Church. Their watered-down doctrines are inventions. Nothing more, nothing less.
I would suggest that traditions of men develop over time, but sacred traditions, like sacred scripture, is unchangeable! I noticed in his letter to Florinus (see post #2), Irenaeus said, " Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures." (emphasis added). While the canon was not “official” at this time (and I am not going to get into any canon discussions here), I would believe that Polycarp had the 4 gospels, the Acts, the epistles, and even the Apocalypse available to him, so I am still wondering where he taught the “tradition” of Mary’s immaculate conception or bodily assumption. If these “traditions” had to develop over time, then I would say they are nothing more than traditions of men.
 
I am still wondering where he taught the “tradition” of Mary’s immaculate conception or bodily assumption. If these “traditions” had to develop over time, then I would say they are nothing more than traditions of men.
Mathew 7:18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.

Explain how a rotten tree can bear good fruit ~ Jesus ???

Psalm 132:8
"Arise, LORD, come to your resting place, you **and your majestic ark. **

Where is the Lords resting place now? And did he take his Ark with him??

In Christ!!!
 
I would suggest that traditions of men develop over time, but sacred traditions, like sacred scripture, is unchangeable! I noticed in his letter to Florinus (see post #2), Irenaeus said, " Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures." (emphasis added). While the canon was not “official” at this time (and I am not going to get into any canon discussions here), I would believe that Polycarp had the 4 gospels, the Acts, the epistles, and even the Apocalypse available to him, so I am still wondering where he taught the “tradition” of Mary’s immaculate conception or bodily assumption. If these “traditions” had to develop over time, then I would say they are nothing more than traditions of men.
St. Polycarp is not the only Church Father we have to rely on.
 
Mathew 7:18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.

Explain how a rotten tree can bear good fruit ~ Jesus ???

In Christ!!!
Lets take this futher, can you see Jesus rebuking his mother for lieing, cheating and stealing…what a good example for the mother of our Lord she would be then??? God the father would have given Jesus a mother to fully honor, to uphold the commandment, she would need to have no blemish, otherwise he would turn comandment 2 upside down everytime Jesus rebuked her… I cant see Jesus saying “Mom you lied”…Mom, you are jealous???..he would dishoner her…

If the parents of John the baptist were righteous before God, How much more righteous would be the mother of Jesus be ???,
 
40.png
YourAverageJoe:
Mathew 7:18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.

Explain how a rotten tree can bear good fruit ~ Jesus ???
How does this answer the question about Polycarp passing on these (alleged) traditions about Mary? Do you have some documentation to prove Polycarp refered to these Scriptures in reference to Mary? Did Polycarp EVER refer to Mary as the “Ark of the Covenant”? If so, please provide your evidence!
40.png
CWBetts:
St. Polycarp is not the only Church Father we have to rely on.
But he IS the topic of this thread!
40.png
YourAverageJoe:
Lets take this futher, can you see Jesus rebuking his mother for lieing, cheating and stealing…what a good example for the mother of our Lord she would be then??? God the father would have given Jesus a mother to fully honor, to uphold the commandment, she would need to have no blemish, otherwise he would turn comandment 2 upside down everytime Jesus rebuked her… I cant see Jesus saying “Mom you lied”…Mom, you are jealous???..he would dishoner her…

If the parents of John the baptist were righteous before God, How much more righteous would be the mother of Jesus be ???,
Your (human) logic and reasoning is incredible (see 1 Cor 3:19)! However, this is not a discussion on Mary, but Polycarp and how he disproves Protestantism by way of his use of traditions. I have asked the question (which has yet to be answered by anyone), of when did Polycarp pass on the tradition of Mary’s immaculate conception or bodily assumption.
 
How does this answer the question about Polycarp passing on these (alleged) traditions about Mary? Do you have some documentation to prove Polycarp refered to these Scriptures in reference to Mary? Did Polycarp EVER refer to Mary as the “Ark of the Covenant”? If so, please provide your evidence!.
Nope, no documentation. But I trust the same Tradition that says the book of Matthew should be inclusive in my bible. Do we need documentation on matters of faith? You asked about Mary so I answered…
Your (human) logic and reasoning is incredible (see 1 Cor 3:19)! However, this is not a discussion on Mary, but Polycarp and how he disproves Protestantism by way of his use of traditions. I have asked the question (which has yet to be answered by anyone), of when did Polycarp pass on the tradition of Mary’s immaculate conception or bodily assumption.
1 Cor 3:19 does not pertain here. Nope Sorry! Tell me, do you know about God because you read it first (Sola Scritura) or because somebody told you (oral Tradition)??

What did Polycarp recieve from John??

In Christ!
 
40.png
YourAverageJoe:
Nope, no documentation. But I trust the same Tradition that says the book of Matthew should be inclusive in my bible. Do we need documentation on matters of faith? You asked about Mary so I answered…
So basically, what you’re saying is, “I believe it because the Church says so.” The question about Mary was in relation to Polycarp and the Apostolic traditions he taught. If you can’t prove what he taught, how can you KNOW he actually taught it?
40.png
YourAverageJoe:
What did Polycarp recieve from John??
Exactly the topic of this thread! Welcome to the discussion! Now, can you show me where Polycarp taught the tradition of Mary’s immaculate conception or bodily assumption?
 
Why does it matter if Polycarp specifically taught it. Other fathers did, and when looking at the Fathers we look at consensus, not unanimity.
 
40.png
CWBetts:
Why does it matter if Polycarp specifically taught it. Other fathers did, and when looking at the Fathers we look at consensus, not unanimity.
Because shoewindow3000 claims that Polycarp’s use of tradition proves Protestantism is wrong. Seems reasonable to ask for some proof of what traditions he taught (I just selected the immaculate conception and bodily assumption to get things started). If nobody can show me where Polycarp taught these traditions, I can pick others.
 
Because shoewindow3000 claims that Polycarp’s use of tradition proves Protestantism is wrong. Seems reasonable to ask for some proof of what traditions he taught (I just selected the immaculate conception and bodily assumption to get things started). If nobody can show me where Polycarp taught these traditions, I can pick others.
Shoewindow3000 was probably not using the wisest tactic. However, if you look at the Fathers as a whole, Reformation Theology generally starts to unravel.
 
40.png
CWBetts:
Shoewindow3000 was probably not using the wisest tactic. However, if you look at the Fathers as a whole, Reformation Theology generally starts to unravel.
I agree that Shoewindow3000 did not pick a good arguement. I disagree with your comment about the Fathers as a whole, but that is for another thread.
 
The Immaculate Conception:

Justin Martyr:
[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100)

Irenaeus:
Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24).

Origen:
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1).​

*Perpetual Virginity:
**
Origen:
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17).
*
Hilary of Poitiers:

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4).

Athanasius:
Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70).
 
Notice Paul says things like, “as a father”, and “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”. Paul is addressing people that he had invested time and effort in to bring them to Christ. Nowhere does Paul (or anyone else) ask to be addressed by that title (even Peter calls Paul “brother” in his letter). Also, the “official” title for the pope is Pontificus Maximus. Look here and see where this title came from.
In the definition you referenced in Wiki, the usage as “Greatest Bridge-maker” is not an implication of a disrespectful term and has been used in more than a few circumstances. This is not objectionable at all as there are many terms used for many references even today. In these cases we must refer to the usage as it applies to the subject at hand. Refer to the circumstances and usage of the term below;

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

“Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:
Thou art Peter Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock Cepha] I will build my Church.
The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term “rock” as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God’s Church (see THE CHURCH, I).

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.
The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God’s house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.
He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase.

Continued next post…
 
Continued from previous post;

…He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.
"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One:
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor.
The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 28:16) and Christ’s own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.
"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:
And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.
In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ’s words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.
"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to “bind” and to “loose” — words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.”
Continued at source; newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

In regard to the use of “father” in general, in addition to what I offered in the previous post, the title as referred to both in the Catholic Church today as well as throughout scripture including the Old Testament as an acknowledgement of respect and some form of authority to those who have been recognized as of the Holy and “is applied to the early spokesmen and defenders of Christianity, bishops who attend regional and especially ecumenical councils, and priests in general or specific priests in their role as confessors or spiritual counselors of the faithful.” This definition in quotes is the reference Paul speaks of as a chosen apostle of God. These were not terms people were demanded to use, but rather terms people chose to use which became titles. Some Protestant faiths today act as though it is something that was demanded of people but the underlying reason for the resentment is their rejection of his authority in justification of their particular beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top