Tertullian on Apostolic Tradition and Succession

[Augustine3]

Supposed there were 1 in 20 invalid bishops in 325 AD. What happens to those who were baptized by priests ordained by the invalid bishops? Are they not in Heaven?

I honestly don’t know. I’m happy for a more learned Catholic to answer that question. One thing I do know in this sort of situation, the invalidly baptized can rest assure they are in God’s mercy before anything else.

 

[HojaVerde]

I honestly don’t know. I’m happy for a more learned Catholic to answer that question. One thing I do know in this sort of situation, the invalidly baptized can rest assure they are in God’s mercy before anything else.

Hi Augustine3,
As far as I know, in extraordinary cases, baptism can be (validly) administered by anyone, even if they are not ordained ministers or even by non-baptized people. On those cases, it is only necesary to use water, the Trinitarian Formula and the will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. So in the example provided by gazelam, baptisms would be valid.

Maybe my explanation is poor, so you can read the accurate one in the Catechism, number 1256:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.58

More on this could be added, because even if those baptisms were invalidly performed, baptism by desire would apply here.

And, regarding validity of Holy Orders. No matter if not all the registers are available now. Although we do have all the successors to relevant Church sees, such as the see of Rome (I think these are the lists and registers Tertullian refers to). Besides no Pope would have been accepted to papacy if he wouldn’t have been (validly) ordained as bishop before. Same thing for other bishops in their respective sees and dioceses.

But we have something much better than registers, which is the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ. As you can read in Matthew 28,18 and following:

18 * g Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 9 h Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 i teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.* And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

If Jesus IS with his disciples (i.e. his Church) from his resurrection up to the end of the world, every single day; then the Church always has the Gospel, a valid baptism and, of course, valid Holy Orders.

The LDS Great Apostasy-Restoration theory goes against this holy promise, because, they assume there was a period of time in which there was no Church for Christ to be with, no Holy Orders and no valid baptism to administer. The promise says otherwise, every single day there is a Church (accompained by Christ), which administers baptism (logically valid) and teaches the Gospel (without errors) for making disciples.

So, of course, we believe that the Holy Orders have been preserved and always will be.

 

[susanlo]

The apostolic content of teaching, is key to which a person in a Christian teaching capacity had to prove, their teaching was handed down to them by Sacred Tradition and Apostolic succession. The heretics of Tertullian’s day were silenced.
The point I made about apostolic succession deals directly with the Bishop of Rome, who has unbroken apostolic succession to St. Peter.
To which all other local bishops in communion with Peter’s Chair (a presiding Pope) are to follow. It is to these local bishops (churches) who can prove their sacred Tradition and apostolic succession to an apostle, when the heretics could not.
As far as naming , tracing back a local bishop to an apostle, in different ages, since the resurrection, one would have to take on a case by case to prove their apostolic succession. Hence, when a particular local bishop is found to be in full communion with the apostolic chair of St. Peter or the presiding Pope of his day, although records may be lost, due to fires or war. The ordination is not questioned due to other bishops who witnessed a particular bishop.
Tertullian wrote many writings, his writings and teachings while in full communion with the Church, are proven to be apostolic and not in contradiction to the apostolic teachings today. Remember during Tertullian’s time, the Nicene Creed was not formulated yet to defeat Eastern heretics. Yet some of Tertullian’s writing’s were instrumental in the development doctrine of the Trinity and the natures of Christ which is unchanged to today. The apostolic faith has not changed in the Trinity or the natures of Christ. What has developed since Tertullian’s time is the naming of the Trinity, whereby the apostolic faith in the Trinity has never Changed.

I have read in a few places that Tertullian is credited with being the first to use the term Trinity to describe the one God in 3 persons that is evident throughout the Bible. The concept was present from the start of Christianity even if the term was not used in the Scriptures. Tertullian defended the Trinity with the Scriptures in his writing Against Praxeas.
newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

Here is where most non-Catholic Christians miss the true history of the Church.
Let us be clear here; Tertullian entered into heresy by his Christians disciplines that went against the apostolic teachings, Although later Tertullian reconciled with the Church, but is never raised to the level of a canonized Saint.

I don’t think that Tertullian was ever accused of heresy in his lifetime. It was a few generations after his death that the Montanists became a bit too extreme and they (and those associated with them - including Tertullian) were considered heretics.

Sacred Apostolic Tradition has never changed in the Catholic Church since the resurrection. She remains Rock. Disciplines can change. Holy Orders cannot change. The Only Holy Orders God ordained is the Bishop, Priest and Deacon. Other ecclesial offices can come and go. Sacraments cannot change, for who can change or remove what God has joined together?

Except for the fact that there are no Christian priests (hiereus) for the first 2-3 centuries of Christianity. The book of Hebrews calls Jesus the High Priest and 1 Peter refers to a priesthood of all believers, but I am unaware of any other use of the term priest in Christianity for the first few centuries. The Greek words for church leaders in the Bible and early centuries are translated to English as Bishop(overseer), Elder and Deacon. Also, for the first few centuries they only had 2 sacraments. So having 7 sacraments is part of the development of doctrine.

The Trinity is a prime example of development of doctrine. Tertullian emphasized on the Trinity but did not name the Trinity for the whole Church. What has developed is the naming of the Trinity, which points to Tertullian’s Holy Apostolic faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This development of the Trinity is never a change from the original Apostles teaching and baptism in the name of the Trinity which falls under Sacred Tradition that can never change.
The biblical (written Tradition) teachings and practices such as Sacraments and Oral Sacred Tradition such as our Liturgy which the Original Apostles handed down to us, including Holy Orders can never change and has never changed in the Catholic Church.
Disciplines, theological expressions and exegesis can change so long as they do not contradict the Sacred Tradition which Jesus revealed and the apostles handed down.
What you assert to be change in the Church deals with development of doctrine to defeat heretics who opposed Sacred Tradition. The doctrine confirms the Apostolic unchangeable faith from Apostolic Sacred Tradition and separates the sheep of Jesus Christ from false shepherds in every age since the resurrection.
Church doctrine does not change the Apostolic Sacred Tradition and revelations of Jesus Christ. Church doctrine is when the Church exercises here divine Keys handed down to her by Jesus himself to bind and loose upon the whole earth.
We do not look to development of doctrine as a change in the Church, but the apostolic successors exercising their divine Keys which comes from the unchangeable Apostolic Sacred Tradition.

There was much disagreement about the “keys” in the early centuries. Like in the earlier quote by Tertullian I posted.

In summary, yes, Tertullian fell into heresy due to his disciplines, as did many other Church fathers. Tertullian reconciled with the Church. The Only Apostolic see that has never fallen into heresy is the Bishop of Rome. Let us not forget the Catholic Martyrs and Saints who never fell into heresy, since the resurrection to today
Peace be with you.

Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic by The Council of Constantinople. This, like Tertullian, was after his death.

 

[Stephen168]

While a certain anti-Mormon Catholic poster on this board is a fan of claiming that LDS rely on their spiritual witness to the exclusion of all facts and evidence, I (as best as I can assess the inner workings of my mind) do not.
I think there is great “evidence” present in the idea of continuing revelation, but anyone can claim “continuing revelation.”
I also agree with Gazelem that spiritual witness is critical. But …

But, when I attempt to assess the relative strength of the LDS position vs. other (and most frequently the Catholic) position(s), and I attempt to EXCLUDE spiritual witness; I find the Book of Mormon to be a pillar of such strength it withstands all assaults handily. I simply cannot explain the existence of the BOM without appealing to the supernatural. While I have read about numerous historical problems, I see the positive evidences for the BOM to be virtually impossible to explain via any naturalistic means. I do not think any explanation for the coming forth of the BOM offered by critics explains what is there well at all.

So, I find it perfectly acceptable for LDS to be LDS because God witnessed the truth of the BOM and/or the CoJCoLDS to them directly. But, if the Catholic method of knowing truth frequently advocated by Catholic apologists (some kind of appeal to the “facts” of history) is God’s method, the existence of the BOM is unexplainable for me via some Catholic theory (and the existence of the Pope and the Bishops is quite explainable via some LDS theory).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

susanlo;14130294] The concept was present from the start of Christianity even if the term was not used in the Scriptures.

Susanlo, the faith in the Trinity since apostolic times was never ever a concept. The Church has been baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit ever since Jesus commissioned the Apostles to do so. Trinity is a matter of the Apostolic faith, to which Tertullian emphatically defended. I don’t think Tertullian would of went out of his way to defend a concept?

I don’t think that Tertullian was ever accused of heresy in his lifetime. It was a few generations after his death that the Montanists became a bit too extreme and they (and those associated with them - including Tertullian) were considered heretics.

For the record; Tertullian was never officially condemned a heretic in his lifetime nor after his death. The Montanists however are officially condemned heretics. Tertullian lived as a schismatic while practicing the Montanists disciplines, yet, He reconciled with the Church before his death.

Except for the fact that there are no Christian priests (hiereus) for the first 2-3 centuries of Christianity.

Presbyters (Priest) and or Elders, Deacons and Episcopates were offices in the biblical age of the Church. The apostolic practices found within the first century Church, continues today in the Catholic Church as Episcopates (Bishops or Overseers), Priest and Deacons are Holy Orders ordained by God which is a Sacrament.

for the first few centuries they only had 2 sacraments. So having 7 sacraments is part of the development of doctrine.

1. Jesus raised Holy Matrimony to the level of a Sacrament ,that’s 1
2. Jesus commanded His Church to eat and drink His body and blood (Holy Communion), that’s 2.
3. Jesus commissioned His apostles to baptize in the Trinity, baptism is 3.
4. Jesus commissioned His apostles to teach and preach His Gospel and to do this in remembrance of me, in Holy Orders, that’s 4.
5. Jesus gave power and authority to His Church, when Jesus breathed upon His apostles to forgive sin which is a sacrament of Confession or the ministry of reconciliation as Paul names it from scripture, that’s 5.
6. Jesus promised an advocate, when this sacrament is revealed in Confirmation recorded in the book of Acts that’s 6.
7. The sacrament of anointing of the sick is already well into practice, when James records from his Epistle ,to call a Presbyter for the Sick and his/her sins will be forgiven. That’s 7.

All seven Sacraments are revealed both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic Tradition unchanged in the Catholic Church.

There was much disagreement about the “keys” in the early centuries. Like in the earlier quote by Tertullian I posted.

Tertullian is a special case. Never the less, the Key’s to the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter to bind and loose upon the whole world, then Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to rest of His apostles to bind and loose at the local level. No early Church father ever disputes Jesus giving of His (authority on earth) Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, to His Church.

Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic by The Council of Constantinople. This, like Tertullian, was after his death

.

I repeat, the only apostolic see that has never entered heresy is the see of Peter alone when all others are proven by history to have been overcome by the gates of hell at one time or another.

Pope Honorius I is never declared a heretic when he lived, nor did Honorius ever publicly teach heresy or declare a heresy.

What declared the Greek Speaking Pope Honorius I a heretic, 40 years after he is buried. Were personal letters, he wrote to his Greek speaking heretics in the East, while trying to bring them back into the Church. These same heretics used his personal letters to defend their heretical views by Honorius sentimental personal letters to them. That Catholic Saints and councils declared the 40 year old dead pope a heretic and so removed the heretics from their position of being supported by a pope.

Technically it was his personal letters and the heretics who possessed them that were found to be heretical and therefore, were bound and loosed as heretical.

On a side note; Tertullian did not defeat the Arian heresy with his writings. It was the Church who counseled and defeated heresy’s such as the Arian heresy, which denied Jesus divine nature and heretics who denied the Trinity, such as Mormons and JW’s do today.

The Catholic Church has not and will not change the Rock Jesus built upon her.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Supposed there were 1 in 20 invalid bishops in 325 AD. What happens to those who were baptized by priests ordained by the invalid bishops? Are they not in Heaven?

Yes, they have the promise from God and hope of heaven, so long as they were baptized with the faith and apostolic understanding of the Trinity, Jesus revealed for baptism.

Hence. Constantine during this time (fourth century) was never a Christian until he was baptized at his death bed. A well known heretic by the name of Arias, who’s priestly ordination was questioned at the time, baptized the Emperor Constantine at his death bed.

The Catholic Church in the East at the time or Orthodox Church today recognize Constantine as a Saint.

The Catholic Church in the West (Latin Rite) recognize him as good and virtuous man who freed the Catholic Church from Roman persecution laws.

 

[gazelam]

---

Susanlo, the faith in the Trinity since apostolic times was never ever a concept. The Church has been baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit ever since Jesus commissioned the Apostles to do so. Trinity is a matter of the Apostolic faith, to which Tertullian emphatically defended. I don’t think Tertullian would of went out of his way to defend a concept?

It’s important here to distinguish here between the Trinity, (as in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), and the doctrine/nature of the Trinity (i.e. three consubstantial separate persons). To say baptism has always been in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a matter of Apostolic faith is correct. But to say that the nature as defined in the Nicene Creed of the Trinity is a matter of Apostolic Faith is incorrect. Here are three quotes that show that the current doctrine of the nature of the Trinity is a (man-made IMHO) development:

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.)

Origen said that the nature of God was unknown in his day. “For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood, – whether as corporeal and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies, – a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching, and the same inquiries have been made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit”. (The Anti-Nicene Fathers 4:241)

So Origen’s statement shows that the nature of the Trinity wasn’t something just happily passed down from Apostle to Bishop and accepted carte blanche by everyone. It seems a stretch to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity was a matter of Apostolic faith since it was not taught by either the Apostles, nor the Apostolic fathers.

 

[Stephen168]

So Origen’s statement shows that the nature of the Trinity wasn’t something just happily passed down from Apostle to Bishop and accepted carte blanche by everyone.

Yet, Tertullian’s statement does, and neither would say that God was once a human being.

 

[alwayswill]

I would love too read some feedback from my Protestant brethern regarding their thoughts about Tertullian’s assertion.

Acts 11

19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus

21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.​

These un-named Christians were scattered:
the hand of the Lord was with them
** a great number who believed turned to the Lord**.

Is that acceptable to Catholics: or is it required that we know the names of these early Church planters?

 

[LivingWaters7]

I no longer have any confidence in the out-of-context quotes gazelam brings out every so often. As well, I think it is very clear that Catholics do not believe that the Bible is a catechism, and that it does not spell out doctrines like a systematic theology book. Indeed, Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible, compiling the scriptures using her inspired and apostolic discernment. Also related to this is the Catholic belief in the development of doctrine, which we believe is a Holy Spirit inspired process. The Church teaches that the Spirit guides the Church in an unfolding of the Deposit of Faith given anciently. It is very telling that gazelam’s arguments against the Trinity doctrine (ignoring the out of context quotes) seems to be from the idea that Catholics believe that the Trinity doctrine was fully defined and formed at the establishment of the Church by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. It also ignores the fact that Catholics believe that the sacred Councils of the Church, through apostolic authority given by Jesus Christ, can formally define and expound on the Truth, protected by the Spirit from defining error.

It is also amusing coming from a Mormon, who presumably believes in the idea of ongoing continuing revelation (not positing an equivalence between Catholic and Mormon views), which can change things, reverse ideas, form new doctrines nowhere found earlier, etc. It therefore seems that the Mormon must posture their position, depending on what is being discussed.

I and others have addressed gazelam’s out-of-context quotes previously:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14015934#post14015934
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14015953#post14015953
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14015968#post14015968
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14020361#post14020361
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14020394#post14020394

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

gazelam;14135460]

It’s important here to distinguish here between the Trinity, (as in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), and the doctrine/nature of the Trinity (i.e. three consubstantial separate persons).

Greetings gazelam I agree it is important to distinguish the faith in the Trinity, and when the Trinity is defended against heretics at a later time. The Trinity became a doctrine binding upon all believers in order to protect the flock of Jesus Christ from false shepherds and heresy.

Let us be clear here; The Catholic never goes out of her way to invent some new idea and to declare a new revelation with a doctrine. When the Catholic Church declares a doctrine. She exercises her divine Keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth, in order to protect and defend the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Apostolic faith handed down to us.

**I disagree with your new idea of the Trinity consisting of “three consubstantial separate persons”. **

The Catholic Church never teaches that the Trinity is “three consubstantial separate persons”.

The Trinity of persons are distinct in presence, never separated or divided or confused.

It would appear you are forcing a carnal understanding of persons and contradicting it with the presence of God. Your “separated persons” is a contradiction to God’s presence and God’s Essence. More on this later.

But to say that the nature as defined in the Nicene Creed of the Trinity is a matter of Apostolic Faith is incorrect

I believe you misunderstand and take my position out of context here. Faith in the “NAME” **singular **Father, Son, Holy Spirit, is an apostolic faith and divine revelation from Jesus Christ. The Church in her infant stage, had no reason to defend the Trinity, because for the first three hundred centuries it was always a matter of divine revelation and faith.

The Trinity as I stated above, becomes binding upon all believers, when this apostolic faith in the Trinity came under attack by heretics. The apostolic faith in the Trinity has never changed.

What has developed is a understanding and clarification of the Trinity that defeats heretics who opposed or try to change with carnal understanding of the Trinity. Let me be clear here, that clarification made by the Church councils never exhausted or definitively defined the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity only separates the flock of Jesus Christ from wolves or false shepherds.

Here are three quotes that show that the current doctrine of the nature of the Trinity is a (man-made IMHO) development:

The Trinity is a divine revelation of God which no man can never define in a single definition. Trinity is a matter of apostolic faith revealed by divine revelation. Trinity is never man made. The understanding and developed understanding of the Trinity enters history when the Church has to defend the already believed in Trinity against new man made winds of doctrine that have come and gone.

B]The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.

(William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

The New Testament never records any doctrine. The quotes you have introduced makes a false argument against the subject matter being discussed here.

Your quotes only support my view, that the apostolic faith in the Trinity never comes under attack during the recording of the New Testament, thus the Church never has cause to declare a doctrine by exercising her divine Keys of binding and loosing the Trinity against heretics or heresies, in the time frame, your quoted authors mention.

[Origen said that the nature of God was unknown in his day. "**For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood, – whether as corporeal and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies, – a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching, and the same inquiries have been made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit

". (The Anti-Nicene Fathers 4:241)

You misunderstand Origen here. What Origen teaches is in agreement with all other early Church Fathers, that “God’s Essence never comes down to us”, I believe, I am quoting St. Hillary here? Origen is teaching what the Catholic Church still teaches today unchanged. For any man to see God as God is, man would surely die.

So Origen’s statement shows that the nature of the Trinity wasn’t something just happily passed down from Apostle to Bishop and accepted carte blanche by everyone. It seems a stretch to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity was a matter of Apostolic faith since it was not taught by either the Apostles, nor the Apostolic fathers.

No, Origen discusses the distinction of God’s presence and God’s Essence “which does not come down to us”. Origen defends the already believed in NAME, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, which is practiced in every valid baptism.

Now what you are arguing, is that these early Church fathers do not declare the Title Trinity as doctrine. This comes later when Tertullian and Origen’s faith in the Trinity comes under attack. The Church defends their apostolic faith when she declares the Trinity as binding upon all believers. If one did not accept the apostolic faith in the now declared Trinity, “let them be anathema”. This is the exercising of the Church’s Keys, Jesus gives her to preach, teach and defend God’s revelation to our humanity.

Do you understand Origen, Tertullian’s teachings on the Nature, presence, Essence of God? Their teachings all fall in line perfectly with the declared doctrine of the Trinity.

Peace be with you

 

[mattp0625]

Irenaeus of Lyon, a second century bishop, is even clearer about apostolic succession.

He links Peter and Paul to the church in Rome and indicates the office of the bishops was handed to Linus.