W
wisdomseeker
Guest
If you know the early Church pretty well then tell me where is the early Church in which Jesus built and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against her? did Jesus kept His promise or not?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Really? but you believe Jesus? based in what you said, you shouldnt believe in Jesus because many did not believe what He tought. many left Him including judas who betrayed Him. do you still want to belive in a man who so many reject His teachings?What some Protestant churches believe is apparently the same as what some Catholics believe. How many Catholics see nothing wrong with abortion or gay rights or stem cell research? How many Catholic politicians separate their faith from their politics in order to justify supporting such things? I think you are being very hypocritical here. I have no more to do with what some churches believe than you do with what liberal Catholics believe.
Catholic teaching is not always in line with Scripture. How can one justify from Scripture the assertion of Pope Pius XII that Mary was assumed into heaven? This is something I was told I must believe as a Catholic, why? I can find no justification for it in Scripture or church history. And that is just one of many examples.
do you expect that all Catholics will be faifhfull to the Church that Jesus built just because it is His Church? if they couldnt believe in the Son of God, how do you expect that every Catholic is going to live according to the Church’s teachings?
if the Church is wrong who has the promise of God to always speak the Truth according to the promises of Christ, how much more wrong are you who do not have this promise? the promise is only to His Church to always teach the Truth and not to some individual who was borne not to long ago.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I already answered your question. Maybe my article on this will help ypu to understand.Precisely Brian. I am using your own argument against you about doctrine of the canon of scripture and you dodge it. Validate the canon of scripture from HISTORY and tell me what it says Brian. You yourself stated the Apostles or Jesus never bothered to say a word about it,so why do you accept it Brian? Once again, this what you said:
If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific.
If you do not believe everything must be in the Bible,then I’ll ask again Brian:
Then why do you accept the canons for the Bible,if not ONE Apostle or Post-Apostolic Fathers even mention it? Where is the doctrine of the canon of scripture mentioned in the Bible?
The Developement of the Canon of Scripture
P
pablope
Guest
Question for you, if you do not mind.Out of curiosity, are your studies a full time pursuit scholarly, meant to inform and educate? Or it it to advocate one position over the other? Or after presenting your piece, you are leaving it up to the reader to draw their conclusions?I already answered your question. Maybe my article on this will help ypu to understand.
The Developement of the Canon of Scripture
N
Nicea325
Guest
Sorry,but I am not going to read your source,since I have plenty of sources telling me the same,if not more. And actually you have not answered my question. Once again your own words:I already answered your question. Maybe my article on this will help ypu to understand.
The Developement of the Canon of Scripture
If you are going to assert **apostolic origin for doctrines **that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific.
So Brian,where is the doctrine for the canon of scripture found in the Bible? You have yet to prove it by getting specific. Why do you ACCEPT the doctrine for the canon of scripture?
S
steve_b
Guest
You mean nothing hit you in your reading of the ECF’s, regarding this question of yours?Of course the apostle’s traditions existed before their writings, what you need to show is how your [T]raditions (the ones you hold equal to Scripture) that are absent from those writings were believed and practiced by the ancient church. And by ancient I mean Ante-Nicene.
B:
Please don’t waist our time by pointing to general statements that contain the word “tradition” or “catholic.”
- Before there was lower case, all letters of the alphabet were UPPER CASE. Lower case in the alphabet was introduced in the middle ages.
- Catholic Church, is the official name of the Church. Therefore, it is a proper name not an adjective. It’s first used in writing by Ignatius of Antioch, a first century bishop. It is the Church of the Nicean creed. Therefore the Catholic Church is an article of faith. It’s the same Church in the 1st century as it is today.
You don’t find terms like Trinity, Catholic, Pope, Apostolic Succession, etc etc in the bible. But their teaching originated from the Apostles.If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of Mary’s assumption and so far nothing.
For example- apostolic succession
- presidency of the Church of Rome (because of superior origin all must agree with this Church)
(Irenaeus Against Heresies Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-4)
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 everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic 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
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 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
S
steve_b
Guest
Hardly a credible source.I already answered your question. Maybe my article on this will help ypu to understand.
The Developement of the Canon of Scripture
N
Nicea325
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Culliton
I already answered your question. Maybe my article on this will help ypu to understand.
The Developement of the Canon of Scripture
Originally Posted by Brian Culliton
I already answered your question. Maybe my article on this will help ypu to understand.
The Developement of the Canon of Scripture
And as of today,Brian still cannot tell me why he accepts the canon,when scripture makes no mention of a formulated canon. All he could do is provide a source with minimal information,which is nothing new.Hardly a credible source.
P
PJM
Guest
=Nicea325;7208106]Please! And nothing you say is a revelation either. Oh none of them,so why are you following a Bible compiled and canonized over 300 years later? Well I have been studying the early church for over 20 years…and your point?
Here let me apply your own words against your argument:
If you are going to assert apostolic origin for doctrines that are not found in the Bible, then you are going to have to prove it by getting specific. You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of Mary’s assumption and so far nothing
My dear friends in Christ;So Brian,if you are a believer of everything must be in the Bible,show me ONE VERSE where the Bible mentions the canon-Brian? Why are you accepting the Bible canons Brian? You have had plenty of opportunity to do this for the doctrine of the CANON of SCRIPTURE and so far NOTHING!
Frankly I do not undertand the bsis fo this discussion.
Clearly, indispuitably, and biblically [Matt. 16:15-19; Matt. 18:18 and Eph. 2:19-20] Jesus Christ founded ONLY One New Church.
This means that He also Founded ONLY One new Faith [set of doctrines, dogma’s, and beliefs an practices].
The Mandate by Christ Himself in Matt. 28:19-20; could not be accomplised within the life times of the Original Apostles; yet Christ expects it to be fulfilled. That requires succession of authority.
In an absolute sense thre is no need that the Apostles THEMSELVES personally or as a group to have instituted any particular dogma or docrine; beyond those which are expressely [or impliciltly] articulated in the Catholic Bible.
***Jesus is God
God is a Trinity of Persons but One God
Mary; Mother of God
The Sacraments; notably the Eucharist and Confession of sins for frogiveness of same
Faith AND WORKS are BOTH requiremens unto ones salvation; are a few examples of which I speak. ***
It would seem that the task [role] of the Apostles in the NEW FAITH, NEW CHURCH was to FOREMOST TEACH what Christ Himself taught, lived and preached. Planting seeds to be water by others later on.
P
PJM
Guest
One can find this unerring promise by Jesus in Matt. 16:18-19 …[18] And I[JESUS] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."=wisdomseeker;7208977]If you know the early Church pretty well then tell me where is the early Church in which Jesus built and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against her? did Jesus kept His promise or not?
This was true when spoke and remains true today. WHY and How?
WHY: Because God is a Perfect God, and cannot make a promise that He does not keep.
John 14: 16-17 “And I [JESUS] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.”
John.17 Verses 14 to 19
I [JESUS] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. ***Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. *** As thou didst send me into the world, so I [JESUS] have sent them into the world. [19] ***And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. ***
One MUST be prudent and truthfull when suggesting that this unerring TRUTH, Singular, does not continue to he present times and until the VERY END OF TIME.
I suspect friend that you have in mind PEOPLE WITHIN the CC, NOT THEE Church itself in mind when posing your question??? It is thee Church on MATTERS of Faith and Morals alone that has Christ as sureity for it’s truth.
S
simspt
Guest
Interesting question, ecclesiology of the first century probably went through some kind of development between 30 and 90. Interesting parallels between the Quamran community structure and NT churches such as 12-15 leaders (3 priests) and the 12 Apostles, the gathering of the many and multitude etc. IMO this points against those who claim the CC hierachy structure is anachronistic to the 30 or 40s. The first Jewish Christians could have easily utilized this type of structure that originated in Palestine vs. later Hellenistic influence.Let me ask a question based upon the question about which church is the pillar.
Lets go to what the Bible teaches about various churches.
We agree that the last book of the Bible has John writing to seven churches in Asia Rev 1:4
John writes this to the church at Ephesus
What about Thyataria
So were these churches the pillar and ground of truth as well? How did people in these particular congregations determine if they were in a church teaching error?
P
PJM
Guest
te:
Originally Posted by Rightlydivide
Let me ask a question based upon the question about which church is the pillar.
Lets go to what the Bible teaches about various churches.
Your thought process is highly influenced by Protestant doctrine that permits every single Protestant to hold to there own views, there own beliefs and inderstanding.
***Such is not the case [at least it ought NOT be the case] in the realm of THEE [SINGULAR] Catholic Church. Without exception; each and every “church” identified or mentioned in the Bible HELD to a SINGLE FAITH. That is all held to commonly held doctrines and dogma’s. Such remains TRUE even through the present times on critical to salvation issues.
This is a concept not accepted or known in the Protestant communities of churches. ***
Originally Posted by Rightlydivide
Let me ask a question based upon the question about which church is the pillar.
Lets go to what the Bible teaches about various churches.
We agree that the last book of the Bible has John writing to seven churches in Asia Rev 1:4
John writes this to the church at Ephesus
What about Thyataria
My dear friend in Christ;So were these churches the pillar and ground of truth as well? How did people in these particular congregations determine if they were in a church teaching error?
Your thought process is highly influenced by Protestant doctrine that permits every single Protestant to hold to there own views, there own beliefs and inderstanding.
***Such is not the case [at least it ought NOT be the case] in the realm of THEE [SINGULAR] Catholic Church. Without exception; each and every “church” identified or mentioned in the Bible HELD to a SINGLE FAITH. That is all held to commonly held doctrines and dogma’s. Such remains TRUE even through the present times on critical to salvation issues.
This is a concept not accepted or known in the Protestant communities of churches. ***
N
Nicea325
Guest
Originally Posted by Rightlydivide
Let me ask a question based upon the question about which church is the pillar.
Lets go to what the Bible teaches about various churches.
We agree that the last book of the Bible has John writing to seven churches in Asia Rev 1:4
John writes this to the church at Ephesus
What about Thyataria
Then the promise and guidance of the Holy Spirit would have been a big flat lie by the Son of God and we both know that is not true.So were these churches the pillar and ground of truth as well? How did people in these particular congregations determine if they were in a church teaching error?
In other words,every church throughout the Roman Empire was out doing and teaching their own set of beliefs? Some taught the Eucharist was truly Jesus Body and Blood and others taught it as a mere symbol? However, all still belonged to the ONE Church Christ founded? A far cry from the Truth.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I am interested in where you got your quote. It is a Philip Schaff translation, but someone has tampered with it and completely changed the intent of what Irenaeus was saying. What you see in blue below is what your source took out.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 everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
The words that were removed from your source’s rendering give the false impression that Irenaeus claims Rome to possess universal preeminence. The preeminent authority of the church in Rome was a reference to its apostolic origins, not that it was preeminent over all the other churches. Irenaeus said that it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, so he chose to use the church in Rome as his example. There are two likely reasons for this: 1) he was a bishop in the jurisdiction of the Roman church. 2) Rome is where the heresies he was refuting were flourishing. Irenaeus could have used Antioch or Alexandria and made the same claim regarding their preeminent authority.
Irenaeus’ point is that the doctrine preached by the apostles and received by the church is the same throughout the world. All the faithful must agree with the church in Rome because it was founded by apostles and the doctrines they preached were preserved and passed down. Likewise, All the faithful must agree with the church in Antioch because it was founded by apostles and the doctrines they preached were preserved and passed down. And so on. Irenaeus’ argument makes no sense unless the preeminence is also applied to other churches besides Rome. If all churches were bound to confer to Rome, it would be absurd for Irenaeus to say, it would be very tedious… to reckon up the successions of all the Churches.
What you will also notice about this quote from Irenaeus is that he gives the succession of bishops in the Roman church and doesn’t list Peter among them. He clearly stated that Peter and Paul founded the church and, as the apostles always did, placed it in the hands of one of their choosing, in this case, Linus, the first bishop of the church in Rome. If Peter was the fist bishop of Rome, as you guys claim he was, Irenaeus certainly wasn’t aware of it.
There are at least three major events that discredit the claim that Rome held universal preeminence. The first is in the way Ignatius handled the transition of his office in Antioch. While on his way to martyrdom, Ignatius placed Polycarp in charge of filling the vacancy of the bishopric in the church in Antioch, the preeminent patriarchal church in the region of Syria. Certainly if Rome held universal jurisdiction, Ignatius would not have bypassed that authority.
Another factor is when Polycarp journeyed to Rome and tried to convince Anicetus to calibrate the Passover according to the apostle’s doctrine, which he knew fist hand. Anicetus, however, chose to keep the custom of his predecessors, and clearly demonstrated that he had no authority over Polycarp or the churches of Asia Minor. And out of respect for Polycarp’s preeminence, Irenaeus said, “Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.” (Eusebius, E.H. 5:24)
Again we find the church in Rome sitting on the sidelines during the biggest scandal to hit the church prior to Arius. When Paul of Samosata was deposed of his office as bishop of Antioch, Rome was only informed of the action taken by the council after the fact.
And even as late as the early fourth century when Constantine called all the bishops to come together and meet in Nicea, Rome was said to have jurisdiction in its own region as it always had. Not jurisdiction over the whole church.
So there is nothing to tie Rome to universal jurisdiction in the early church except fare-reaching conjectures and dishonest manipulation of primary sources. You should also keep in mind that these words of Irenaeus are from a Latin translation of the original Greek, which is not extant.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Brian you need to get over the term: fare-reaching conjectures and dishonest manipulation of primary sources. Prove it? Prove they have been manipulated? Show us the extant documents Brian. I earned my B.A. and Masters in History,so enlighten me with your scores of proof they have been manipulated.I am interested in where you got your quote. It is a Philip Schaff translation, but someone has tampered with it and completely changed the intent of what Irenaeus was saying. What you see in blue below is what your source took out.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
The words that were removed from your source’s rendering give the false impression that Irenaeus claims Rome to possess universal preeminence. The preeminent authority of the church in Rome was a reference to its apostolic origins, not that it was preeminent over all the other churches. Irenaeus said that it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, so he chose to use the church in Rome as his example. There are two likely reasons for this: 1) he was a bishop in the jurisdiction of the Roman church. 2) Rome is where the heresies he was refuting were flourishing. Irenaeus could have used Antioch or Alexandria and made the same claim regarding their preeminent authority.
Irenaeus’ point is that the doctrine preached by the apostles and received by the church is the same throughout the world. All the faithful must agree with the church in Rome because it was founded by apostles and the doctrines they preached were preserved and passed down. Likewise, All the faithful must agree with the church in Antioch because it was founded by apostles and the doctrines they preached were preserved and passed down. And so on. Irenaeus’ argument makes no sense unless the preeminence is also applied to other churches besides Rome. If all churches were bound to confer to Rome, it would be absurd for Irenaeus to say, it would be very tedious… to reckon up the successions of all the Churches.
What you will also notice about this quote from Irenaeus is that he gives the succession of bishops in the Roman church and doesn’t list Peter among them. He clearly stated that Peter and Paul founded the church and, as the apostles always did, placed it in the hands of one of their choosing, in this case, Linus, the first bishop of the church in Rome. If Peter was the fist bishop of Rome, as you guys claim he was, Irenaeus certainly wasn’t aware of it.
There are at least three major events that discredit the claim that Rome held universal preeminence. The first is in the way Ignatius handled the transition of his office in Antioch. While on his way to martyrdom, Ignatius placed Polycarp in charge of filling the vacancy of the bishopric in the church in Antioch, the preeminent patriarchal church in the region of Syria. Certainly if Rome held universal jurisdiction, Ignatius would not have bypassed that authority.
Another factor is when Polycarp journeyed to Rome and tried to convince Anicetus to calibrate the Passover according to the apostle’s doctrine, which he knew fist hand. Anicetus, however, chose to keep the custom of his predecessors, and clearly demonstrated that he had no authority over Polycarp or the churches of Asia Minor. And out of respect for Polycarp’s preeminence, Irenaeus said, “Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.” (Eusebius, E.H. 5:24)
Again we find the church in Rome sitting on the sidelines during the biggest scandal to hit the church prior to Arius. When Paul of Samosata was deposed of his office as bishop of Antioch, Rome was only informed of the action taken by the council after the fact.
And even as late as the early fourth century when Constantine called all the bishops to come together and meet in Nicea, Rome was said to have jurisdiction in its own region as it always had. Not jurisdiction over the whole church.
So there is nothing to tie Rome to universal jurisdiction in the early church except fare-reaching conjectures and dishonest manipulation of primary sources. You should also keep in mind that these words of Irenaeus are from a Latin translation of the original Greek, which is not extant.
Is that why you still cannot PROVE to me why the Bible does not mention a word about the doctrine for the canon of scripture and yet you follow it? What was your rebuttal? A weak source not proving an iota of what I have been asking you on the doctrine for the canon.
Your above statements are not entirely true nor accurate. I have plenty of primary sources to slam your above statements.
S
steve_b
Guest
My source didn’t leave out faithful. Go back and look at it.I am interested in where you got your quote. It is a Philip Schaff translation, but someone has tampered with it and completely changed the intent of what Irenaeus was saying. What you see in blue below is what your source took out.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
B:
When Irenaeus saysThe words that were removed from your source’s rendering give the false impression that Irenaeus claims Rome to possess universal preeminence. The preeminent authority of the church in Rome was a reference to its apostolic origins, not that it was preeminent over all the other churches.
“every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere”
who is this Church specifically, and why does it have pre-eminent authority everywhere?
Irenaeus takes away all doubt who he is talking about with his next paragraph.
- 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
B:
But who is it Irenaeus says every Church must agree with because of its pre-eminent authority? It’s the one he names and gives the succession of bishops from Peter and Paul, The Church of Rome.Irenaeus said that be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, so he chose to use the church in Rome as his example.
B:
There are two likely reasons for this: 1) he was a bishop in the jurisdiction of the Roman church.
*]Irenaeus was from the city of Smyrna in the East (present day Turkey). Same city as Polycarp.(both bishops were disciples of St John) Irenaeus knew Polycarp.
*]Ignatius of Antioch ~107 a.d. wrote 6 letters to 6 Churches before he died. Only to the Church of Rome did he say held the presidency.
*]Irenaeus of Smyrna, was made bishop of Lyons, (present day France) .
B:
· Gnosticism, schism, the Quartodeciman controversy, etc, etc, were heresies of the day. For your information, they were started in the East.- Rome is where the heresies he was refuting were flourishing. Irenaeus could have used Antioch or Alexandria and made the same claim regarding their preeminent authority.
· Antioch & Alexandria weren’t mentioned by Irenaeus. But if they were mentioned, they would have to be in agreement with Rome also. That’s the point.
B:
the quotes and points Irenaeus is making are clear. Obviously if one is NOT agreeing with Rome they are NOT preserving apostolic teaching. And they are the ones Irenaeus is writing AGAINSTIrenaeus’ point is that the doctrine preached by the apostles and received by the church is the same throughout the world. All the faithful must agree with the church in Rome because it was founded by apostles and the doctrines they preached were preserved and passed down.
B:
Antioch and Alexandria, etc etc, if they are faithful to the apostolic tradition, must agree with Rome because of Rome’s pre—eminent authority. THAT’S what Irenaeus is saying.Likewise, All the faithful must agree with the church in Antioch because it was founded by apostles and the doctrines they preached were preserved and passed down
B:
No matter how hard you try to spin this your way, the text opposes you.Irenaeus’ argument makes no sense unless the preeminence is also applied to other churches besides Rome.
If all churches were bound to confer to Rome, it would be absurd for Irenaeus to say, it would be very tedious… to reckon up the successions of all the Churches.
N
Nicea325
Guest
My source didn’t leave out faithful. Go back and look at it.
When Irenaeus says
“every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere”
who is this Church specifically, and why does it have pre-eminent authority everywhere?
Irenaeus takes away all doubt who he is talking about with his next paragraph.
These men mentioned are popes of Rome successors to St Peter. THIS Church is the one Irenaeus says all Churches everywhere must agree with. It couldn’t be any clearer.
- 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
But who is it Irenaeus says every Church must agree with because of its pre-eminent authority? It’s the one he names and gives the succession of bishops from Peter and Paul, The Church of Rome.
*]Irenaeus was from the city of Smyrna in the East (present day Turkey). Same city as Polycarp.(both bishops were disciples of St John) Irenaeus knew Polycarp.
*]Ignatius of Antioch ~107 a.d. wrote 6 letters to 6 Churches before he died. Only to the Church of Rome did he say held the presidency.
*]Irenaeus of Smyrna, was made bishop of Lyons, (present day France) .
· Gnosticism, schism, the Quartodeciman controversy, etc, etc, were heresies of the day. For your information, they were started in the East.
· Antioch & Alexandria weren’t mentioned by Irenaeus. But if they were mentioned, they would have to be in agreement with Rome also. That’s the point.
the quotes and points Irenaeus is making are clear. Obviously if one is NOT agreeing with Rome they are NOT preserving apostolic teaching. And they are the ones Irenaeus is writing AGAINST
Antioch and Alexandria, etc etc, if they are faithful to the apostolic tradition, must agree with Rome because of Rome’s pre—eminent authority. THAT’S what Irenaeus is saying.
No matter how hard you try to spin this your way, the text opposes you.
What shocks me more is the fact Brian claims to have studied the early church for 10 years? I do not know what he is reading or he simply has a profound misunderstanding of the ancient sources?.
P
pablope
Guest
Nicea…I asked him, in a previous post, as to what are his pursuits…he said he studied for 10 yrs…so was it a scholarly one, intended to educate and inform or to advocate a position. I have not seen a response yet. From his recent posts, I can already surmise he is subjective. I will leave it at that…What shocks me more is the fact Brian claims to have studied the early church for 10 years? I do not know what he is reading or he simply has a profound misunderstanding of the ancient sources?.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
they are reading protestants texts about the history of the Church.What shocks me more is the fact Brian claims to have studied the early church for 10 years? I do not know what he is reading or he simply has a profound misunderstanding of the ancient sources?.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Indeed. Revisionists try so hard to paint a different picture about the early church. Try so hard to make it appear Protestant in nature. How absurd!they are reading protestants texts about the history of the Church.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.