The Early Church Fathers

[RollTide1987]

I think it’s important, out of a sense of accuracy and fairness to Cyprian, to point out that he did not teach that the unity of Peter subsisted in the pope. Cyprian taught that all bishops were successors of Peter and sit on the chair of Peter.

No he did not. St. Cyprian describes a singular chair in which Peter’s immediate successor sits.

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

This is made all the more clear in a letter he wrote to Cornelius a year later.

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

St. Cyprian of Carthage clearly believed that the chair of St. Peter was located at the “principal Church” which was located in Rome.

This echoes what St. Irenaeus of Lyon said almost 100 years earlier.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL 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.” [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is the bit that confuses me! While I understand that individual church fathers are not infallible, the church does claim that those closest to Jesus would understand more about what is and isn’t doctrine. If they were almost unanimous on a decision, surely the church going against them means they don’t actually think the ECF do understand best the doctrines, which on its own is fine but when they use them to argue other points, it becomes more difficult.

You can’t in one instance say they were closest to Jesus therefore they endorse what the church teaches on infant baptism, Mary, scripture & tradition etc but then in the other instance reject what they unanimously believed.

If that makes sense?

You are correct on your understanding but mistaken in your apologetic principal if that makes sense.

We can argue that the consensus of early church fathers say “xyz” that is a powerful witness to common belief.

Much more powerful than picking out a singular different opinion.

Remember the early church, was in a much larger world. A bishop somewhere might spend years without contact from another. They weren’t emailing each other!

But what these bishops have in common is their obedience to the consensus of bishops and their willingness to gather as a church and settle doctrinal questions in church councils.

Remember too, that the argument that some are right purely by history really ends with the apostles or one generation after them. I give Polycarp, the didache, Ignatius of Antioch, 1 and 2 Clement, Justin Martyr and perhaps a couple others this added weight.

But most of the men considered church fathers lived hundreds of years after Christ.

So to say that St Augustine is authoritative based on his proximity in time to Christ is like saying I am authoritative on the American Revolutuon because of my proximity to it.
A couple hundred years is a long time!

But as I mentioned there are fathers that wrote and lived at the time of the apostles, knew the apostles or at least knew people who knew the apostles. Such proximity does gain weight in my estimation.

So when Ignatius of Antioch who knew the Apostle John, was a good friend of Polycarp, tells is that the Eucharist is the true fresh and blood of Christ, I believe him. When he tells us to obey the bishop as we obeyed Christ, I believe him. And I believe it is a true teaching of the apostles.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[steve_b]

Sure there is; see Orthodoxy.

Yet those two branches of Catholicism (Roman and Orthodox)

Orthodoxy is NOT the Catholic Church nor are they Catholicism. And there are NO “branches” of Catholicism. .
d:

can’t unite and one reason is due to this belief on Peter that Augustine did leave up for interpretation.

He says to let the reader decide; he does not take an official stance, “This is what you must believe!” Although he also takes the position that Peter was not the rock.

So why is this a point of contention between Catholicism and Orthodoxy considering Augustine would’ve been confused at your arguing over Peter.

Anyways, the thread isn’t about this but I believe Paul would have been even more lost over genealogies, “I follow Cephas” etc. But I digress.

Augustine identifies Peter as the Rock, and actually gives the succession of bishops in Rome from Peter (as in successors to Peter) down to Augustine’s day. Letter 53

Obviously that is an important point to Augustine for authority. As is the following where Augustine says Jesus put the Church in Peter’s hands down to the present episcopate, which he lists by name in order from Peter, in the above letter 53

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?” Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental Ch 4 verse 5&6 (A.D. 397).

 

[Seraphim73]

No he did not. St. Cyprian describes a singular chair in which Peter’s immediate successor sits.

This is made all the more clear in a letter he wrote to Cornelius a year later.

St. Cyprian of Carthage clearly believed that the chair of St. Peter was located at the “principal Church” which was located in Rome.

This echoes what St. Irenaeus of Lyon said almost 100 years earlier.

I will just say that this precisely what I refer to when I say Catholics also are guilty of selective and out of context quoting. The first quote you cite is the longer recension of that passage. There is a shorter version that leaves out a large part of the quote. I would bet an entire paycheck that you were not aware of that fact.

It is believed that either Cyprian himself shortened the passage because of the confusion it caused or that the longer version was a post-Cyprian interpolation. Either way I would just recommend expand your horizons and read some things from places other than Catholic websites. In the case of St Cyprian you will learn some stuff.

 

[Seraphim73]

Orthodoxy is NOT the Catholic Church nor are they Catholicism. And there are NO “branches” of Catholicism.

Certainly there are no branches of Catholicism but we do claim we are the Catholic Church.

 

[RollTide1987]

I will just say that this precisely what I refer to when I say Catholics also are guilty of selective and out of context quoting. The first quote you cite is the longer recension of that passage. There is a shorter version that leaves out a large part of the quote. I would bet an entire paycheck that you were not aware of that fact.

It is believed that either Cyprian himself shortened the passage because of the confusion it caused or that the longer version was a post-Cyprian interpolation. Either way I would just recommend expand your horizons and read some things from places other than Catholic websites. In the case of St Cyprian you will learn some stuff.

Or, as most secular scholars have agreed, it is the result of Cyprian adding to the passage because of the confusion it caused. Church Fathers were using the “alternative” passage as early as the 4th century.

The whole point of him writing “Unity of the Church” was a direct result of a papal election in Rome. Word had come to him, at different times, that two different men had been elected Bishop of Rome - Cornelius and Novatian. It turned out that the news about Novatian was false when two representatives sent by Cyprian returned to Carthage to attest to Cornelius’s legitimate election. Novatian had been elected by people not in union with the Church as an antipope. Cyprian used the occasion to write a treatise on the importance of unity within the Church. Once you put the work in its proper context, your interpretation of Cyprian’s views do not make any sense.

My second quote that I provided is a letter from Cyprian to Pope Cornelius complaining about Novatian.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Just wanted to pop by and say thank you for the replies. Some have helped, some have confused me a little so I am just rereading them and trying to make sense and then maybe ask some follow on questions.

To answer the question about the source of the quotes, no it wasn’t Webster, it was Matt Slicks site!

Matt Slick…:nope:

I get that he has a very large website…but what makes him an authority on anything? I highly recommend more scholarly searches.

 

[steve_b]

Certainly there are no branches of Catholicism but we do claim we are the Catholic Church.

Even the Orthodox make the distinction between Catholic and Orthodox. We’ve been over that before #880 .

As far as an Orthodox Church becomming Catholic, I’d just point to Bp John’s answer https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…ited-with-rome

 

[DavidFilmer]

While I understand that individual church fathers are not infallible, the church does claim that those closest to Jesus would understand more about what is and isn’t doctrine.

I’m not familiar with this claim. Individuals don’t define doctrine (besides the Pope). Being close to Jesus does not enable us to perceive doctrine any better than the next guy (there is no special Grace for this ability given to individuals). Being close to Jesus helps us know what is good, but not what is truth. The Church alone has that ability.

You can’t in one instance say they were closest to Jesus therefore they endorse what the church teaches on infant baptism, Mary, scripture & tradition etc…

We don’t believe these things because the Early Fathers taught them. We believe these because the Church taught them. The difference is that the Fathers were more in agreement with those particular doctrines, but it would not have mattered had they disagreed with them all.

Nothing the Church teaches is a consensus of the Early Fathers. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit who protects Her from teaching error. Early Fathers do not enjoy this protection.

It’s great when the Fathers agree with doctrine, but it’s not necessary.

 

[Seraphim73]

Or, as most secular scholars have agreed, it is the result of Cyprian adding to the passage because of the confusion it caused. Church Fathers were using the “alternative” passage as early as the 4th century.

The whole point of him writing “Unity of the Church” was a direct result of a papal election in Rome. Word had come to him, at different times, that two different men had been elected Bishop of Rome - Cornelius and Novatian. It turned out that the news about Novatian was false when two representatives sent by Cyprian returned to Carthage to attest to Cornelius’s legitimate election. Novatian had been elected by people not in union with the Church as an antipope. Cyprian used the occasion to write a treatise on the importance of unity within the Church. Once you put the work in its proper context, your interpretation of Cyprian’s views do not make any sense.

My second quote that I provided is a letter from Cyprian to Pope Cornelius complaining about Novatian.

That being a later addition doesn’t make sense in light of a lot of other things Cyprian said. You can’t read one quote in isolation. Not if you’re really trying to be accurate.

In order to understand what a person believes you should try and understand things in light of all of the other things that person said and did.

 

[RollTide1987]

That being a later addition doesn’t make sense in light of a lot of other things Cyprian said. You can’t read one quote in isolation. Not if you’re really trying to be accurate.

In order to understand what a person believes you should try and understand things in light of all of the other things that person said and did.

How about citing your sources because I can’t find anything you are talking about. I am getting the strange feeling that you are either:

A) Misinformed

or

B) Trying to misinform

What are all these things that St. Cyprian said that doesn’t jive with the Church’s teaching on the papacy and the primacy of Peter? What was the context in which they were said?

And please do not respond with another pithy comment. I get very annoyed by them.

 

[Mintaka]

As I recall, there are some letters where St. Cyprian argues with, and complains to, the Pope.

Just like every Catholic ever who agreed with the supremacy of the Pope.

It always cracks me up when I see this sort of thing as “proof” that a Catholic didn’t acknowledge the Pope’s authority. Heck, if the Pope was just some bishop, only St. Jerome would feel the need to argue very hard. Catholics love to argue with the Pope because he’s got authority.

 

[RollTide1987]

As I recall, there are some letters where St. Cyprian argues with, and complains to, the Pope.

Just like every Catholic ever who agreed with the supremacy of the Pope.

It always cracks me up when I see this sort of thing as “proof” that a Catholic didn’t acknowledge the Pope’s authority. Heck, if the Pope was just some bishop, only St. Jerome would feel the need to argue very hard. Catholics love to argue with the Pope because he’s got authority.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons disagreed with Pope Eleuterus on many things but the man even wrote that all Christian churches should listen to him due to his preeminent authority (chair of St. Peter). And this was before St. Cyprian was even born.

 

[Seraphim73]

How about citing your sources because I can’t find anything you are talking about. I am getting the strange feeling that you are either:

A) Misinformed

or

B) Trying to misinform

What are all these things that St. Cyprian said that doesn’t jive with the Church’s teaching on the papacy and the primacy of Peter? What was the context in which they were said?

And please do not respond with another pithy comment. I get very annoyed by them.

I really don’t appreciate you accusing me of trying to misinform. And I couldn’t care less what annoys you.

 

[Seraphim73]

As I recall, there are some letters where St. Cyprian argues with, and complains to, the Pope.

Just like every Catholic ever who agreed with the supremacy of the Pope.

It always cracks me up when I see this sort of thing as “proof” that a Catholic didn’t acknowledge the Pope’s authority. Heck, if the Pope was just some bishop, only St. Jerome would feel the need to argue very hard. Catholics love to argue with the Pope because he’s got authority.

Of all the major fathers St Cyprian more than pretty much anyone against the idea of the supremacy of any one bishop. I do get quite a chuckle when he is quoted as supporting it.

 

[RollTide1987]

I really don’t appreciate you accusing me of trying to misinform. And I couldn’t care less what annoys you.

And, like your reply to the person above, you continue to bring pithy comments rather than actually argue your points with evidence. If you get quite a chuckle from people “misquoting” St. Cyprian, then why not show us the data you are referring to rather than offhandedly mentioning it? Are you referring to Cyprian’s letter to Pompey in which he is angry with Pope Stephen I about something that Stephen I was proven correct on in the Council of Constantinople in 381? Or how about Cyprian’s letter to Pope Stephen I himself where he asks Stephen I to admonish Marcian, the Bishop of Arles, and to replace him with someone who agreed to give communion to those who lapsed during the Novatian heresy under the reign of Pope Cornelius several years before?

 

[RollTide1987]

And, like your reply to the person above, you continue to bring pithy comments rather than actually argue your points with evidence. If you get quite a chuckle from people “misquoting” St. Cyprian, then why not show us the data you are referring to rather than offhandedly mentioning it? Are you referring to St. Cyprian’s synods that he called in Carthage? If Cyprian did not believe in papal primacy, why then did he submit the results of these synods to Pope Stephen I, asking for his approval?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Matt Slick…:nope:

I get that he has a very large website…but what makes him an authority on anything? I highly recommend more scholarly searches.

I know he’s about as anti catholic as they come! I think its the scientist in me, I like to look at all angles when looking at a topic.

Thanks for your other reply too! It helped a lot

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I know he’s about as anti catholic as they come! I think its the scientist in me, I like to look at all angles when looking at a topic.

Thanks for your other reply too! It helped a lot

It may help to read this Instruction on the Study of the Fathers by the Congregation on Catholic Education.

Section II “Why Study the Fathers” offers some valuable insights.