B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I would say that your statement is completely false because you are implying Roman Catholic authority when you say “Catholic Church.” Catholics are always misusing the word “catholic.”
Which book "Upon This Rock", "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" or something else?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Conversely, I would say that you are denying Roman Catholic authority when you attempt to strip us of the name by which we have been known since the end of the first century.
The word “catholic” (small “c”) means universal, of course. The word “Catholic” (capital “c”) refers to the Catholic Church.
Now, a few words on the history of the name…
Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”
The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).
As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])
Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.
The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day.
As a side note, it is interesting that the believers in Antioch coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.
“Catholic Church” in the Bible
Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.
Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:
Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν **εκκλησια καθ****᾽ **ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.
Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)
Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.
**εκκλησια καθ****᾽ **ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Early Church Fathers on the “Catholic” Church
Ignatius of Antioch
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).
“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.”(The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).
Clement of Alexandria
“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).
“… There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church …”
Cyril of Jerusalem
[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness” (Catechetical Lectures18:23, [A.D. 350]).
“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is - for the others, sects of impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’ - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathechetical Lectures 18:26, [350 A.D.])
Augustine
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which the whole world employs in her regard.”(The True Religion 7:12, [A.D. 390]).
“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).
“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.”(The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).
Clement of Alexandria
“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).
“… There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church …”
Cyril of Jerusalem
[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness” (Catechetical Lectures18:23, [A.D. 350]).
“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is - for the others, sects of impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’ - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathechetical Lectures 18:26, [350 A.D.])
Augustine
“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which the whole world employs in her regard.”(The True Religion 7:12, [A.D. 390]).
“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I’ll give you those last two but not the rest.
Take a look at this example from your post:
Take a look at this example from your post:
There is no way that the words “catholic church” in this phrase is a proper noun. Catholic is descriptive of the unity of the church.
C
CWBetts
Guest
And it grew into a proper noun to differentiate itself from the heretics. Your point is largely irrelevant because if you look at the theology and form of worship of the early church, it coincides with Catholicism much more closely than Protestantism
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Frankly I’m not that interested in discussing the work “catholic.” What I am interested in is why you think Catholic theology coincides more closely with the early church? How so?
C
CWBetts
Guest
For starters, the transformation of the sacramental bread and wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ was accepted, although the term “Transubstantiation” would not be used for quite some time.
Descriptions of the worship are liturgical in nature, and not those chaotic services typical of fundamentalists.
They accepted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter
They maintained seven sacraments, which were seen as real, and not mere symbols.
As one of my professors (and convert from protestantism) has said: "If you want to remain Protestant, do not read the Early Church Fathers)
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
The term transubstantiation was not used because they didn’t believe it took place. I call the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ, does that mean I believe the elements of bread and wine change into the literal body and blood of Christ? No, it doesn’t; and it doesn’t mean the early church thought it did either.
If you believe that to be true then explain how Rome’s authority was used in replacing bishops in Antioch after Ignatius’ martyrdom and Paul of Samosata’s excommunication? As I pointed out in post #9, if Rome had universal authority they would have been responsible for replacing the bishop of a patriarchal church.
That is a ridiculous thing to say especially coming from a professor.
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
I believe I addressed this before.
The Early Christians did believe in transubstantiation, there are many sources that verify this. The Pope did not directly have a part in the the replacement of bishops in foreign sees in part because they were FAR away it would have been time consuming for that to happen regularly in those days, in modern times communication is a lot faster and so is travel. The pope approves the recommendation for an person to fill a bishops office
With the little information on the Paul of Samosata event the matter was settled by appealing to whoever the “bishops of Italy and the bishop of ROME” recognized. As mentioned before Philip Schaff recognized a sort of exercise of papal primacy when Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians, and Schaff was Protestant.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Do you mean to tell me that the first Christians didn’t have rock bands playing at every church service?!
Wow, just because they didn’t give it the technical name, “Transubstantiation,” does not mean they did not believe in it. The word Trinity wasn’t used in Christian Theology until the mid-second century, that doesn’t mean prior Christians didn’t believe it, they just didn’t need to define God because there was no one questioning the doctrine. The Church only formally defines things when they are being questioned. As for saying that the early Church didn’t believe in Transubstantiation, you are mistaken:
Ignatius of Antioch
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
Irenaeus
“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
Tertullian
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
These are only a few of MANY quotes from the early Church attesting to the fact that Transubstantiation was believed from the first.
The quotes were taken from Scripture Catholic.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Excuse me friend, you misread me. I was refuting someone who denied the Early Church bears a stronger resemblance to Catholicism than Protestantism. We are on the same side.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
But Eusebius said that the bishops assembled “at different times and frequently.” They entreated Dionysius of Alexandria to join the synod but he was too old and weak, so he gave his opinion by letter. Eusebius also said, “But all the other pastors of the churches from all directions, made haste to assemble at Antioch.” Therefore, there is no basis for saying the Roman bishop didn’t have time. In fact, based on Eusebius’ statement, the bishop of Rome might have actually been there – at least early on. But I suspect that if he had been there he might have been listed among the others in attendance.
But don’t you find it interesting that the bishop of Alexandria, who could not be there, was mentioned while the bishop of Rome, whether he was there or not, was not mentioned? And based on the letter drafted by the bishops in attendance during the final synod where Paul was excommunicated and replaced, the bishop of Rome was merely informed and never summoned for approval.
Excuse me? Settled by appealing to the bishops of Italy? Who told you that? The account of Paul of Samosata is quite detailed and explicit in proving that Rome did not hold primacy. I think you just showed why we should not get our information from apologists. When the bishops excommunicated Paul he refused to leave so they petitioned the anti-Christian emperor, Aurelian, to decide the matter. Aurelian ordered that the building be given to whomever the bishops of Italy and the “city of Rome,” not the “Roman bishop” decided. The only authoritative involvement for Rome regarding Paul of Samosata was purely secular.
Zach Dunn,
None of the quotes you provided suggest that they believed in transubstantiation. In fact your Tertullian quote refutes your argument. Marcion denied the “veritable” body of Christ so Tertullian said that the bread was a figure of Christ’s body, which could not have been save there was a veritable body.
I will also tell you that Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Irenaeus all were explicit in denying what you believe about real presence.
CWBetts,
What exactly did you refute?
C
CWBetts
Guest
I was explaining to you that the first century Church was Catholic, and not some watered-down perversion of the Gospel, as what surfaced at the hands of the likes of Luther, Zwlingi, and Calvin
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Actually, friend, I think you misread me.
If you look at my post, the first quote I replied to was from you, I was trying to be sarcastic (that’s really hard to do over the internet! 
) and make it obvious that the early Church worshiped like Catholics do today. Now, the second quote from my post says at the top, “Originally Posted by Brian Culliton.” He said that the early Church did not believe in Transubstantiation, so I was providing quotes for him, not you. Sorry about the mix up though! 
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
As a student of theology and a convert of Catholicism I expected more from you than simple bald assertions.
C
CWBetts
Guest
What else would you have me say. The Protestant Reformation truncated the Scriptures, ignored the nature of Christ’s kingship, misrepresented the nature of the universal priesthood in an attempt to negate the necessity of the ordained priesthood, and turned Christ into a liar concerning His promises to the Church. I could write a book on the heresies of the reformation
C
CWBetts
Guest
I caught that after the fact.Actually, friend, I think you misread me.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Are you serious?! Let’s go through these again:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
As is plainly evident, “they” abstained from the Eucharist because the didn’t believe it was our Savior’s actual flesh! In essence, Ignatius affirms that the Eucharist does, indeed, become the very flesh that suffered for our sins and was raised up again; Ignatius believed that the Eucharist truly was Jesus Christ’s actual flesh.
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
How can you assert what you assert with this quote? Justin clearly says that the Eucharist is not common bread or common drink, it is, “the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” It’s actually rather simple.
“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
This one is straight forward, Irenaeus does not reduce the Eucharist to a symbol like Calvin and Zwingli, he states that the “bread” is the Lord’s body and that the “cup” is the Lord’s blood.
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
Here Irenaeus is simply backing up what Scripture makes very clear in its accounts of the Last Supper. Christ said, “this is my body” and also, “this is my blood.” He did not say, “this* signifies* my body” and He didn’t say, “this means my blood.” He said is because He meant that the bread and wine really do become His body and blood.
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
This is simply wrong, did you even read the quote? The quote says the complete opposite of what you say it says! Yes, Marcion denied the “veritable” body of Christ, do you know what “veritable” means? Obviously not:
Veritable
- being in fact the thing named and not false, unreal, or imaginary
How convenient it must be not to have to provide evidence for your assertions.
C
ccolley2
Guest
In the Early Church the primacy of Peter and authority of Rome were never questioned. There was no doubt about it. So no need to write about it until that authority was questioned.
Letter of Cornelius of Rome to Cyprian of Carthage (AD 252)
“…we are not ignorant of the fact that there is one God, and one Christ, the Lord, whom we confess and and one Holy Spirit; and that there must be one bishop in the Catholic Church.”
[Your QUOTE]Another thing you probably won’t find in Ray’s book is how the church handled the excommunication and replacement of Paul of Samosata, another bishop of that same church in Antioch. Apparently Rome had nothing to do with that either.
First of all, at this time in history, the case against an individual bishop was typically decided by the other Bishops in his Province, not the Bishop of Rome. However, if the Bishop of Rome was not in agreement with the decision of the Bishops, or if the accused bishop appealed the decision, then the decision of the Bishop of Rome overrode the provincial bishops…
Writings of the Council of Sardica(AD342):
“…It is proper that if some bishop has been accused, and the bishops of his own region have gathered together and have removed him from his rank, and he then took refuge in an appeal to the most blessed bishop of the Church of the Romans; and if the latter wishes to hear him and if he thinks it just to reopen the examination of the case; then he should deem it proper to write to the bishops who are closest to that bishop in the province, that they are to examine the details carefully and meticulously, and render judgment in the matter according to what they believe to be true. But if anyone demands that his case be heard again, and by his own entreaty he wishes the bishop of the Romans to send priests as his personal legates to judge the case, it it in the power of the bishop of Rome to do whatever seems right to him; and if he decides that he ought to send them and that they are to have the authority of him that sent them when they render judgment along with the bishops, this too must be allowed. But if he considers that the judgment of the case and the decision rendered upon the bishop is already sufficient, he will do whatever seems best to him in his most prudent counsel.”
St. Julius I, Pope (AD 337) writes:
“…if it is entirely as you say , that some offense was committed by those persons, judgment ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all…and above all, why was nothing written to us about the church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you , bear with me willingly; what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter. these things I signify to you.”
So as supreme head of the Church, the final authority of any decision lies with the bishop of Rome.
CC
B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
How do you get away with this stuff? Alexandria was another close Patriarchy, and notice the letter by the Council was addressed first to the POPE of Rome, then the Pope of Alexandria, then everyone else.
Aurelian was NOT antiChristian at the time he helped return orthodoxy to the Church in Antioch, he only became so LATER.
Don’t you think its interesting that Eusebius, a Palestinian bishop is chiefly concerned with the Bishops of Rome of their successors. And if you read the same book you will see the Bishop of Alexandria writing to the bishop of Rome asking for his judgment:
The Pope does not have to attend any council, he simply has to confirm its decisions you will see fathers of the Church say this, the Pope did not attend many ecumenical councils even.
Tertullian and Irenaeus explicitly believed in the real presence, Protestant fail to understand their diction and assume they did not.
Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE… (Tertullian, Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Tertullian, Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
Tertullian says “figure of a body” Yes all Patriastic scholar say it does not MEAN SYMBOL
The language is answered here bringyou.to/apologetics/num29.htm and uses much sources like Schaff to refute you.
- Status