John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

John Cassian was a zealous monk whose theology (unfortunately, one might say) has been massively influential on the church’s understanding of the whole of the gospel since the fifth century. His particular theology (commonly known as semi-Pelagianism), which was developed largely in response to Augustine’s doctrines of predestination, grace, and free will, has been adopted by many Christians—academics, clergy and lay people alike—throughout the centuries.Two major influences were at work in Cassian’s life and teachings. First, Greek neo-platonic philosophical theology shaped his understanding of anthropology in a way that prevented him from being able to engage Augustine on the level that he should have. And second, his intense devotion to the ascetic chastity of the monastery created a platform upon which his theology could develop, yet in a way that was almost entirely sub-biblical. The result of Cassian’s theological contributions to the church has been the obscuring of the God of the Bible in the vision of His people.

Cassianus was born (probably in Provence) around 360 A.D., and most likely assumed the name “Iohannes” (John) at his baptism or admittance to the monastic life. [1] He died in Massilia of Gaul (present-day Marseilles, France), where he had spent his most productive years as a monk, in 435. [2] His birthplace is uncertain, and little is known about his parents, education, or childhood, primarily because of his own silence regarding these in his writings.

It is known, however, that he had a rigorous education, as evidenced by his fluent bilingualism and familiarity with church fathers. Western-born, Latin was probably his native tongue; yet much of his thought is influenced by Greek writers, and much of his life was spent in the East, where he derived his perspective on monasticism. “[H]is entire achievement was built on” his bilingualism, [3] as it offered him access to all major writers, and undoubtedly enabled him to address any major audience. Much exposure to Greek philosophical theology, together with his zeal for ascetic chastity, would figure prominently in Cassian’s response to Augustine, as shall be discussed later.

Cassian spent many years as a monk with his companion, Germanus, in Bethlehem of Palestine and various places in Egypt with the desert fathers before they went to Constantinople. There Cassian studied under Bishop Chrysostom, until the teacher was banished from Constantinople. Cassian and Germanus then carried a petition on his behalf from the clergy of Constantinople to Pope Innocent in Rome, where Cassian made the acquaintance of one Archdeacon Leo, later to become Pope Leo the Great. [4] Eventually Cassian removed to Massilia, where monastic life had become increasingly popular during more recent years, in order to develop monasticism—he established two new monasteries—and to write. [5]

In Massilia Cassian, now an abbot, wrote his three major works: 1) his Institutes (De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis Libri XII), which detail rules for the monastic life; 2) his Conferences (Collationes XXIV), which record conversations with abbots during his time in Egypt; [6] and 3) On the Incarnation against Nestorius (De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium), a work of seven books written at the request of Pope Leo. [7] In this last writing Cassian is the first to point out similarities between Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Of certain Nestorians he writes, “in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.” [8] The high estimation of man’s sufficiency and strength of will that is pervasive in Pelagian writings is applied to the Jesus of Nestorianism, who was supposed to have overcome sin by the sheer power of His merely human will, becoming Christ only at His baptism. [9] This section of De Incarnatione clearly indicates Cassian’s desire to distance himself from “the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius.” [10]

Augustine’s influence and authority had been growing since the official defeat of Pelagianism, which was condemned in 418 at the 16th Council of Carthage. [11] The ‘initial spark’ was provided for the Cassian controversy when one of Augustine’s letters, concerning predestination and prevenient (and therefore irresistible) grace, came into the possession of monks at Adrumetum. Dispute arose among them over these doctrines, and they eventually sent a dispatch to Hippo to ask Augustine about the fuller meaning of his writings. [12] So Augustine wrote De Gratia et Libero Arbitrii (On Grace and Free Will) and De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) in 426, with the hope of clarifying the matter. [13]

Of course, though this may have settled the matter for the monks at Adrumetum, the doctrines were not so easily incorporated into the life of thought at Massilia. The monks there, of whom Cassian can be considered chief, agreed with Augustine on many issues—even against Pelagianism. But they distrusted his teachings on predestination, grace and free will as a result of his letters to the monks at Adrumetum. [14] “They said that what Augustine taught as to the calling of God’s elect according to His own purpose was tantamount to fatalism, was contrary to the teaching of the fathers and the true Church doctrine, and, even if true, should not be preached, because of its tendency to drive men into indifference or despair.” [15]

Augustine taught that original sin had left humanity in a state of death (not just weakness), which necessitated the symmetrical actual giving of life in salvation by God. The will is alive and free, but its only function is to manifest the desire of a corrupt heart in a choice. So, in a sense, the will is utterly bound to sin, since men always and without exception love the darkness rather than the light, and this is death for them. The life came as God—of His own good pleasure, not motivated by anything He saw in sinners—regenerated the hearts of sinners, causing them to love God more than sin, by His Spirit (c.f. Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:22-28; Jer. 31:33-34; 32:38-41; 1 John 4:19). “This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.” [16] Augustine explained that God did this for some and not for others by referring to Romans 9, where God says that He is willing to exert His wrath, yet has patience in order to display the glory of His grace toward His elect. [17] These are the doctrines of predestination, grace and free will that Cassian felt jeopardized important truth about God and humanity. And though Augustine wrote convincing treatises on these doctrines in response to the complaint of the Massilians (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae; On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance [18] ), they would not be persuaded, and continued in their efforts to correct the doctrines they perceived as a threat to the life of the church.

Most of Cassian’s relevant arguments are laid out in the 13th book of his Conferences, which is a record of a conversation with Abbot Chaeremon entitled “On the Protection of God,” though he does touch upon the same doctrines, to lesser extents, in several other places. Methodologically, it must be said—to his commendation—that he uses Scripture with great frequency. For Cassian, and others in opposition to strong Augustinianism, it seems there were two factors of primary concern in the debate. First, being a monk whose daily life consisted of disciplined asceticism for the sake of chastity (moral purity), Cassian feared that Augustine’s doctrines would give an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and despondence in such pursuits. This, in turn, might lead to ethical irresponsibility (the lack of the feeling of accountability). [19]

It is of utmost importance to note that Cassian “positions his analyses of grace and free will within his discussions of chastity.” [20] The crucial issue for him was the empowerment for the pursuit of holiness. So great was his concern for chastity, in fact, that earlier in his life Cassian gave up the solitary life of an Anchorite monk in Egypt for that of a Coenobite in community with other monks, “in order that he might have the opportunity of practicing the virtues of obedience and subjection, which seemed out of the reach of the solitary.” [21] Quite unlike Pelagius, however, Cassian insisted that divine grace was absolutely necessary for spiritual progress. “How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation.” [22] Instead, he sought some middle ground of cooperation between man’s willful initiative and God’s enabling grace (libero arbitrio semper co-operatur).

In order to maintain his position that man must be capable of some motion toward God, he proposed that the will was not dead in sin. Instead, the free will was only severely weakened (infirmitas liberi arbitrii) as a result of the fall. Man was indeed capable of generating a small spark of initiative toward the good by the power of his own will, which must be then strengthened and aided by God to produce any actual good. Having a decidedly Eastern anthropology, it is understandable that Cassian would be more open to “natural possibility” than the Western Augustine. [23] Strangely enough, Cassian saw examples in Scripture of both monergistic (i.e. Matthew and Paul) and synergistic (i.e. Zacchaeus) beginnings of faith without any apparent difficulty. This is interesting, since, as R. C. Sproul observes, “The difference between Augustine and Cassian is the difference between monergism and synergism at the beginning of salvation.” [24] Nevertheless, Cassian was able to write, “when He sees in us some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which He Himself implanted or which He sees to have arisen from our own efforts.” [25] This kind of assertion is common in his Conferences, and betrays his lack of understanding, at some level, of the issues at hand.

Second, and to a lesser degree, Cassian was concerned that the Augustinian view of particular (electing) grace stood in blatant opposition to the “clear” biblical truth of the universal availability of salvation. [26] He saw God’s love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that God’s love would be so arbitrarily selective. “For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?” [27]

As a result, Cassian’s theology of God’s love required something of a fair chance for all people. If God really loved people (in the way Cassian thought), He would not permit the unfairness of a completely disabled will while demanding moral perfection. So original sin could not really have had the effect that Augustine claimed. Concordantly, prevenient grace would really be quite unnecessary, if people had the ability to initiate their own faith. And if prevenient grace were not a reality, then neither would be an Augustinian understanding of predestination. If people could really turn themselves toward God by their own will (as they must be able to do, if God is really fair and wants all to be saved), then God would only have to see (or foresee) who would create in themselves the spark of faith, and predestine them to eternal life on that basis.

Having ascertained Cassian’s main reasons for disagreeing with Augustine in these matters, a few presuppositions or foundations of his perspective become evident which warrant critique. First, it is most apparent from his great concern for the advance of disciplined chastity that Cassian’s view of salvation is more sanctification-oriented than justification- or reconciliation-oriented. Whereas Augustine is generally arguing for a specific soteriological position (i.e., who makes the first move to restore relationship between God and men?), Cassian seems not to be able to think in the same category. Columba Stewart attributes this to the fact that Western skills were honed by the Pelagian controversy, while Cassian—being an Eastern thinker—has simply not been so influenced. [28] Thinking so much as he does about chastity, he almost seems to treat God as a means to the end of the perfection of holiness. This is a major fault, as it fosters a fundamentally more anthropocentric view of salvation than theocentric.

Second, and closely related to the first, is the weak view of sin and grace in Cassian. Sin for him seems to be only a violation of command and conscience. For Augustine, and in Scripture, the essence of sin is more than this—it is a rejection of the supremacy of the glory of God for delight in things of infinitely less worth… and therefore much more dishonoring to God. Accordingly, Cassian’s view of grace is more Pelagian than Augustinian. For him grace is merely an agent of enabling unto holiness (seeing Christ more as an instructor than a savior). He would likely have a low view of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

Third, there seems to be in Cassian the attempt to maintain some level of autonomy from God in the process of salvation. This is perhaps the point where Augustine sees Cassianism “as necessarily implying the basal idea of Pelagianism,” [29] thereby referring to it as “semi-Pelagianism.” Indeed, prior to regeneration we are all born Pelagians, [30] at our religious “best” hoping to commend ourselves to God by some means other than Christ and the total reliance upon the sovereign grace of God.

Fourth, and more commonly ignored among historical and systematic theologians than the other points, is the pernicious error of an unexamined, confused, unbiblical anthropology. It is obvious from Cassian’s Conferences that he sees the will as self-moved, self-initiated, and able to incline itself (albeit only slightly and weakly) toward the good. Also, he muddles the functions of the faculties of the soul in various places, not demonstrating any clear understanding of the will as a function of the heart, or of the desires as determining the direction of the will. For him, a man’s being and doing are reversed from the biblical perspective: “for each man must incline to one side or the other in accordance with the character of his actions.”

Prosper of Aquitaine, lay friend of Augustine, took up the defense of monergism against Cassian’s synergism from the beginning. He had alerted Augustine to the trouble in Massilia, motivating the bishop to write the two last works of his life against semi-Pelagianism (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae). And shortly after Augustine’s death he, with his (otherwise unknown) companion, Hilary, petitioned Pope Celestine to condemn Cassian’s teachings. However, they encountered difficulty in

Semi-Pelagianism experienced some small official successes in Gaul at the Synods of Arles and Lyons in 472, but in 496 “Pope Gelasius I sanctioned the writings of Augustine and Prosper and condemned those of Cassian….” [33] Eventually, at the Council of Arausiacum (Orange: 529) semi-Pelagianism was officially condemned, and the church adopted a mostly-Augustinian stance. [34]

Tragically for the church, Augustinianism was being softened by the bishop’s successors before semi-Pelagianism was even officially condemned. [35] It was not held to strongly enough for the fundamental tenets of Augustine’s theology to take deeper root in the church. The resulting influence of Cassian has been widespread and long lasting. For, while it is true that the Council of Orange was a triumph over the “semi-Pelagian denial of the necessity of prevenient grace for salvation,” Robert L. Reymond observes,

And so the more complete majesty of God’s work in saving a people for Himself out of sin has gone through the centuries half-veiled, until the Day when the last vestiges of our self-reliance are stripped away, and all the earth trembles at the total sovereignty of the God whose pleasure it was to save some, sola gratia.

[1] Edgar C. S. Gibson, preface to The Works of John Cassian, by John Cassian, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 375. [2] The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954), s.v. “Cassianus Johannus,” http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc02&page=435&view= [3] Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5. [4] Gibson, 383. [5] Stewart, 5. [6] The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 ed., s.v. “John Cassian,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm [7] Gibson, 383. [8] John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 1:3. [9] Gibson., 387. [10] Cassian., Against Nestorius, 1:4. [11] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. rev. & updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 468-9. [12] B. B. Warfield, introduction to Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 89-90. [13] Gibson, 388. [14] Ibid., 389. [15] Warfield, 97-8. [16] St. Augustine, The Predestination of the Saints, in Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. with intro. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), ch. 13, emphasis mine. [17] Ibid., ch. 14. See Rom. 9:22-23. For an excellent treatment of the righteousness of God in His sovereign election based on this passage, see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), especially pp. 183-216. [18] Gibson, 389 [19] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 3rd ed. rev. & expanded (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 132. [20] Stewart, 76. [21] Gibson, 378. [22] Cassian, The Conferences of John Cassian, in The Works of John Cassian, 3:16. [23] Stewart, 19. [24] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 73. [25] Cassian, Conferences, 13:8. [26] Sproul, 70. [27] Cassian, Conferences, 13:7. [28] Stewart, 78. [29] Warfield, 93. [30] Reymond, 469. [31] Stewart, 20-21. [32] Gibson, 390-391. [33] Sproul, 75. [34] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 371-2. [35] Sproul, 75. [36] Reymond, 469

One of the "official" reasons I have seen as originally given for priestly celibacy is that hands that caress a wife should not be holding that bread at the altar.

Can I ask where or how you learned this?

I see this sacrament as central to the Catholic church and what holds many that have repented and believed to salvation as demanded by scripture. They fear never being able to have Christ truly present to them, so in-spite of a denial of many Catholic doctrines that bread holds them in that church.

You're right in that it's central to the Catholic church, but I don't believe that a Catholic, who accepts that the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, approaches the Sacrament while disavowing commanded tenets of their Faith. Catholics are taught that to approach the Sacrament when not in Communion will redound to one's condemnation, not the opposite.

It is more likely than not, that those who approach the Eucharist while in dis-communion think of the Catholic church as a nice, upscale country club, and that's why they'll stay put.

Why ? Scripture is clear that the manna is a typology of Christ and thus remains a type in the Passover meal. So if Protestants are correct and transubstantiation is a false teaching we abhor men and women kneeling down and worshiping a false God, and mostly being in violation of the 1st commandment.

Even if the Eucharist is a mistaken take on the Last Supper, does receiving the Eucharist really and truly amount to the worship of a false god? Wouldn't it be more a case of worshipping the real God, in an erroneous manner?

Nobody really knows how the first Christians looked upon this, at least as far as I know. However, Scripture also points to the Eucharist being something more than a memorial service:

"And everyday, steadfastly continuing with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."

Is the word meat used also to describe the breaking of bread, or is the reference really to meat?

Think of how it is really viewed. A Child going to Communion for the first time is treated like a lottery winner. They are dressed up in princess like clothing ( the girls) and then a big party is held, not to celebrate Christ with men, but that the Child went to communion and is now WORTHY to be rewarded . It is a celebration and reward of acting correctly, not the cross of Christ.

I can't speak to how one's First Holy Communion is treated today, but what you have written bears no resemblence whatsoever to my First Communion. There was no party afterwards, I was filled with a sense of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, though I don't think I fully understood what I was expriencing. I was only 8.

And Christ was in no way, shape or form ancillary to it, and His Death on the Cross was actually what it was all about. That's a fact, in terms of the preparation I underwent, when I received the Blessed Sacrament for the first time. So, your description seems a caricature to me.

***If you wouldn't mind rephrasing it, I would appreciate it. Obviously, there's no necessity to do so. X.**

Maybe me proof reading it would have helped :)

Regarding the reformed strong stance on Transubstantiation :

We are studying The Westminister Catechism on Wednesday prayer meeting Interesting that you used the term mysticism in relation to the Eucharist . One of the commentaries on it spoke to mysticism and some of the men started to say "think of the increase of mysticism since this was written".
I told them the largest mysticism was present to those writers and I believed it was the Catholic belief in the Eucharist.

Eyes lit up and they all agreed.

It is mysticism, a man with special powers, whispers secret words over bread and calls down God and makes God become bread.
One of the "official" reasons I have seen as originally given for priestly celibacy is that hands that caress a wife should not be holding that bread at the altar.

I see this sacrament as central to the Catholic church as it is what holds many that have repented and believed to salvation as demanded by scripture in that church.
They fear never being able to have Christ truly present to them, so in-spite of a denial of many Catholics it is the doctrine that the bread is Christ holds them in that church.

The belief in that "magic power "residing in one church and only one. And then only with "special "men, that are closer to God than the layman and so they have had that magical power passed on to them, is pure mysticism .

Do we as Reformed believers have a strong negative reaction to a doctrine that brings men to their knees in from of a piece of bread, or that makes them believe that, the bread makes Christ MORE present to them in the bread than He is in those He indwells, answer is of course yes.

Why ? Scripture is clear that the manna is a typology of Christ and thus remains a type in the Passover meal. So if Protestants are correct and transubstantiation is a false teaching we abhor men and women kneeling down and worshiping a false God ( the host), as it is a violation of the 1st commandment.

If the teaching that Christ is present in that bread until it meets your stomach (and then it is converted back to bread) denies that fact that Christ dwells in his fulness inside a saved man at all times.
It makes Christ's presence in men subject to the whims and practices and actions of other men,temporary and only possible through a third party and by the magic of whispered words.
Think of how it is really viewed within the church itself . A Child going to Communion for the first time is treated like a lottery winner. They are dressed up in princess like clothing ( the girls) and then a big party is held, not to celebrate Christ with men, but that "rewards the Child that went to communion as now WORTHY to be rewarded . It is a celebration and reward of acting correctly, not the cross of Christ

Think of the fact that the "grace" is in the object, not falling from the hand of God as undeserved merit . No matter who consumes that bread Christ is in it, so it must be locked in a box to protect it (man protecting God ?). The sin of the one saying the magic words have no impact, it is the ritual, the kind of bread the exact reading of the words in a specific order that has the power.

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

One of the "official" reasons I have seen as originally given for priestly celibacy is that hands that caress a wife should not be holding that bread at the altar.
Can I ask where or how you learned this?

David Rice presents a comprehensive historical look at celibacy in his book about resigned priests entitled, Shattered Vows. Rice credits Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx in The Church with a Human Face with asserting that clerical celibacy originated in "a partly pagan notion of ritual purity," as Sipe indicates with the aforementioned examples. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, a proposal to require celibacy for all priests was defeated and at the Council of Trullo in 692, marriage rights for priests were reasserted. (Rice page 161.)
Schillebeeckx says that, first in the fourth century came a law that forbade a married priest from having sexual intercourse the night before celebrating the Eucharist. However, when the Western Church began celebrating a daily mass, abstinence became a permanent factor for married priests.
"At the origin of the law of abstinence, and later the law of celibacy," said Schillebeeckx, "we find an antiquated anthropology and ancient view of sexuality." (ibid) Rice follows with a quotation from St. Jerome which expressed the views of both pagans and Christians at the time that, "All sexual intercourse is impure." (ibid)
Because the resulting implication of a priest living with his wife like a brother led many priests into "deplorable situations," in 1139, the Second Lateran Council forbade the marriage of priests altogether and declared all existing marriages involving priests null and void. (ibid)

The actual reason had more to do with inheritance, but the fact that this is even discussed makes it worthy of consideration

Like those that practice birth-control? Do not attend Mass every Sunday? Do not go to confession yearly?

It is more likely than not, that those who approach the Eucharist while in dis-communion think of the Catholic church as a nice, upscale country club, and that's why they'll stay put.

I have known too many Catholics that stayed because of Communion to agree with that

The Jews believed they were dancing around an image of god when Moses came down from the mountain. By definition people believe a false god is the true god or they would not bow down before it.

Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

If the doctrine is in error, then bowing before the bread is worshipping another god, what you may believe about the bread is unimportant. If it was then the Muslim's god could save them, the men that deny the trinity would be saved by believing in a false non trinitarian god. There is only One God, to kneel before another, no matter if you really believe it is god, is a violation of the 1st commandment.

"And everyday, steadfastly continuing with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."

Just as the Jews did in celebrating the passover. There is no valid reference to say THEY believed it was the actual body of Christ, but as the Jews celebrated their salvation from the angel of death in Egypt , the new church celebrated their salvation by Christ

You did not get one card for your first communion? Not one gift? I made mine 50+ years ago and I have the pictures taken at that party in my little brides dress. Last year a similar "celebration "was held for sisters I know.

The problem to those of us that are Reformed is with the fact the preparation centers on a 10 second encounter with what the church says is the body of Christ, and not the spiritual encounter of those that have the risen Christ indwelling them all the time.

leap in exegesis

Luke 22:32 and 2 Peter 1, in addition, of course, to the oft-quoted promise of the Keys and the authority to bind and loose given exclusively to Peter, and the charge to guide and feed the sheep, as well exclusive to Peter, show that the Church, while a collegial institution of the apostles, is to be lead by Peter alone; that Christ wil protect Peter from error and empower his mission; that Peter his himself as responsible to the Lord's tablernacle in a unique way; and that Peter intends (and therefore, given the support of Christ, succeeds) to personally perpetuate this institution.

It of course does not mention Rome or papacy literally. The scripture is generally silent on events following St. Paul's arrival in Rome; for the early history of the papacy we have to rely on patristic and historical sources, which I referred to in abundance in my post 175.

never anywhere a suggestion in Scripture or the early church that Rome or any other church should have only one bishop

Maybe not in the scripture, -- again, the practical arrangements of the early Church are largely outside of the scope of the canonical scripture, but surely the notion of a bishop being a bishop of a specific locale is there as soon as the office of bishop is spoken about. Ever read about a bishop at large or a "bishop of Topeka #2"? If the area becomes too large, naturaly the bishopric is split, but at all times for every point in geographical space there is only one bishop responsible for ordinations and other pastoral duties. If a Christian studying for consecrated life had a choice of several bishops to get ordained by, that would be an organizational schism contrary to the mentality of the early church, and of course, to the scripture that preached singleness of the church.

enraged Pius IX who shouted at Cardinal Guidi

No kidding. Italians shout? Tsk tsk.

Rice follows with a quotation from St. Jerome which expressed the views of both pagans and Christians at the time that, "All sexual intercourse is impure." (ibid)

I'm not really all that surprised at this quote. I made my First Holy Communion in '64, and just about that time the Nuns started railing against 'impure thoughts.'

When I was in 4th grade, 10 years old, me and three other boys were upstairs in the attic of the school house looking through trunks of old costumes that were used for plays and the like. We wandered up there during our play period following lunch. The Nun 'discovered' us, and accused us of being immoral. Her comments on my report card that quarter were, 'Your daughter is immoral.'

My parents couldn't speak or read English that well at the time, but my Father understood right away what was going on and was quite upset by it.

That same Nun forced me to sit on the lap of a boy because I asked to borrow a pencil from him. She was looking to sexualize the situation, in my older and wiser opinion. And all of this probably relates directly back to that 'all sex is impure' nonsense, and the contorted psyches it produces.

Like those that practice birth-control? Do not attend Mass every Sunday? Do not go to confession yearly?

Just because someone attends Mass every Sunday does not mean they accept that the Eucharist is what the Church teaches it is. What I'm trying to say is that they may have an attachment to the Eucharist as part of the overall Ritualistic experience, but they really don't take the Eucharist seriously. And, I still maintain that the Church is more important culturally to a lot of Catholics than it is as a liviing, breathing, lit-from-within Faith. It's going through the motions for many people, IMO. Not all, to be sure.

I'm sure I received Cards and money, but that was so much the least important part of the whole thing, that I still have to disagree with your assessment of it.

Just because someone attends Mass every Sunday does not mean they accept that the Eucharist is what the Church teaches it is.

When I was first saved I stayed for quite a time, little by little , as I studied the word of God and prayed I saw the connection between the passover remembrance and the Last supper, I saw that Christ had typologies in the OT and that he taught using metaphors and parables and that "proof texts " like John 6 had been cherry picked , out of that context.

What I'm trying to say is that they may have an attachment to the Eucharist as part of the overall Ritualistic experience, but they really don't take the Eucharist seriously

As a Calvinist I take it seriously, we are commanded to remember the crucifixion and death of our substitute, Christ, and to do that as God ordained in the OT with the passover. it is a solum remembrance where God is present to the elect.

. And, I still maintain that the Church is more important culturally to a lot of Catholics than it is as a liviing, breathing, lit-from-within Faith. It's going through the motions for many people, IMO. Not all, to be sure.

Indeed being Catholic is a part of the family and cultural identity of many people. One is for example an "Irish Catholic" in WNY . When I left the church the first thing my father said to me was "Why aren't you Catholic anymore, we are a Catholic family ?" He could not understand the spiritual significance of my conversion because he had never experienced it.

Here is a link that explains a bit how as a Calvinist I see the connection of the Manna to the statement "I am the bread of Life" Here

I'm sure I received Cards and money, but that was so much the least important part of the whole thing, that I still have to disagree with your assessment of it.

And what did you or I do to "earn" those gifts and cards? How were WE worthy ? There is an expectation of money and gifts connected with it, people talk of "still having their first communion money" . The fact that is a Catholic cultural norm says much to me.

When I was first saved I stayed for quite a time, little by little , as I studied the word of God and prayed I saw the connection between the Passover remembrance and the Last supper, I saw that Christ had typologies in the O.T. and that he taught using metaphors and parables and that "proof texts " like John 6 had been cherry picked , out of that context.

I don't know if it is cherry picked or not. I find, in the passage you speak of, an insistence on the Part of Christ, that seems to lend itself to the literal aspects of it, which the Roman Catholics are attached to. The fact that many of His disciples left over this does not seem to imply a disagreement with the figurative aspects of Christ's command, but instead with the literal aspects. This subject has been discussed and discussed and discussed, and I'm sure I'm bringing nothing new to the table, but I think the idea of the Real Presence is not easily defended or refuted. The one part of that Scripture that made me think I might have misapprehended the whole thing is the following: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.*

As a Calvinist I take it seriously, we are commanded to remember the crucifixion and death of our substitute, Christ, and to do that as God ordained in the O.T. with the Passover. it is a solemn remembrance where God is present to the elect.

Can you explain how Calvinists do this?

Try being a Roman, and a Roman Catholic. Certainly can't speak for your Dad, but during the time of his initiation into the Faith, Catholics were to be seen and not heard. Questions, innocent or not, were treated with suspicions of treason. One was conscripted, in a manner of speaking. That does a lot for the Organization, very little for the individual, IMO.

My idea of God when I was a kid was of someone who took names, dates, and number of offences. That's how God was basically presented to me, and probably to your Dad too. That being said, God flourishes in the lives of many people who were introduced to God in the same way, The Holy Spirit knows no proscription.

My Mother is one of those people, and while I don't think she'd celebrate my uncrossing the Tiber, I don't believe she ever believed that Catholics have an iron-clad handle on the truth, and she would accept, and probably understand my decision. I tend to agree with C.S.Lewis too, when a Church claims to be the sole repository of truth and originality, examination of such claims is in order.

Thanks for the link.

My parents used my First Communion money (which I hadn't even recalled until you brought it up) to buy a much needed mattress. It was meaningless (other than it was a help) to them and me, relative to the event. But money does taint many things.

God bless, RNMom, and all those you love.

...for the early history of the papacy we have to rely on patristic and historical sources, which I referred to in abundance in my post 175.

of course, to the oft-quoted promise of the Keys and the authority to bind and loose given exclusively to Peter,

No they weren't. Chrysostom (and other fathers) disagree with you:

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1)

...and the charge to guide and feed the sheep, as well exclusive to Peter..., show that the Church, while a collegial institution of the apostles, is to be lead by Peter alone;

Not so:

And if any should say ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world...And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).

...This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last...There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).

It is a primacy of teaching, not that of jurisdiction, said by Chrysostom to be equally true of John (and elsewhere of Paul).

... that Christ will protect Peter from error and empower his mission; that Peter his himself as responsible to the Lord's tablernacle in a unique way...

Even if true, never patristically applied explosively to the bishop of Rome.

Augustine does not endorse the current Roman Catholic interpretation, as I showed earlier in the thread. "Christ did not build his Church upon a man." In fact, his interpretation and that of the other patristic sources such as Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Tertullian and John Chrysostom, as stated above, are completely antithetical to current Roman ecclesiology. In their view the the bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor and a number of firsts, but he did not have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church.

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence in any of their writings that they applied their statements about Peter to the bishop of Rome in terms of universal jurisdiction over the whole church. They never state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome, and there is zero evidence that those who did refer to Peter himself {and not Christ, or Peter's confession, like Augustine and Chrysostom, et al) as the foundation of the Church envisioned some sort of papal office by it. To the contrary, they explicitly interpreted the promise of the Keys and the authority to bind and loose as all the apostles receiving the same authority and leadership status as Peter.

Cordially,

In Chrysostom on St. John all I see is a lot of superlative language heaped on John as the supreme theologian; nowhere does the homily suggests that St. John has a salvific power necessary to enter heaven, but rather than his teaching comes from heaven. The keys that Chrysostom is referring to are keys to understand heaven rather than keys to bind and loose.

In the same sentence John is also said to have drunk the cup of Christ. This is correct in the literal sense as John was present at the Last Supper, but it cannot be taken allegorically, as John was the only apostle spared martyrdom. We should be equally careful not to interpret the reference to "keys" beyond what Chrysostom clearly means, power of exegesis, and contrary to what Christ clearly meants in the gospel of Matthew, power to bind and loose.

Your second and third quotes from Chrysostom, homily 88 and 33, actually support what the Catholic understanding of the papacy is, as teacher of the world and primary bishop among others. No one denies that St. John, being an inspired evangelist, is a teacher of the world also, and indeed it was James who spoke last at the Jerusalem Council possibly indicating a presiding role at it, consistent with James, not Peter being bishop of Jerusalem. Overall, Homily 88 strongly affirms primacy of Peter, -- thank you for mentioning it to me:

And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep."
(Homily 88 on the Gospel of John)

"Universal jurisdiction over the whole Church" requires qualification before you deny it. Catholic is a subsidiary system. The bishop has local jurisdiction; the pope does not normally override it. It is bishops who ordain and defrock, consecrate churches, etc. The pope infallibly speaks for the entire church only when he has the consensus of the bishops. The First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians illustrates a rare exercise of papal authority; but its existence shows, nevertheless, that the pope could override the local bishops in exceptional circumstances. Also, as I mentioned before, the model of strong papacy has developed in the West for valid historical reasons and it does not extend to the East and therefore to the universal Church.

Here is a compendium of patristic references to the pope being a successor of Peter:

St. Cyprian. In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14).
Firmilian of Caesarea. Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor.
Tertullian. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.
Hippolytus. About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.
"Adversus Marcionem". We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077).
(The Pope)

I suggest reading the entire Catholic Encyclopedia article quoted above as it covers most stock protestations regarding the papacy I've ever have come across)

Here is, by the way, Chrysostom's treatment of the grant of the Keys.

Chrysostom correctly sees in the gift of the keys an exercise of divine power parallel only to the gift of the Incarnation of the Son:

For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in- capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give
[...]
... which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. "For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away."How then is He less, who hath given such gifts, hath effected such things?
(Homily 54 on the Gospel of Matthew)

Note also that it is Peter "fisher more solid than any rock" personally, not the apostolic college, who "extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven". St. Peter is named "chief of the apostles" later in the homily.

This is new to me....I thought you all were always proud of Cromwell. Good factoid for the day.

My feelings towards Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell are ambivalent.

On the one hand, Cromwell was instrumental in ending the Arminian Reign of Terror promulgated by the Jesuit-Arminian Archbishop Laud, a dark and vicious period of English history during which Royalist Arminians murdered and persecuted Calvinist Christians throughout the British Isles so ruthlessly that many British Calvinists fled the motherland for the American Colonies (which, providentially, ultimately resulted in "The Presbyterian Rebellion" in the Colonies -- i.e., the American Revolution and the founding of our United States of America).

all

necessary

historically

it is what the Arminians ACTUALLY DID, when they had the Political Power to do so

Ergo, I will never deny Lord Protector Cromwell his rightful place in the history of Christian Liberty, for helping to overthrow the British Arminian Reign of Terror.

On the other hand, Oliver Cromwell, "the Great Independent", rejected the Presbyterian-Conciliar (i.e., "republican") form of Church Governance recommended by John Calvin, in favor of the Independent-Congregational form of Governance (i.e., "democratic"). To Cromwell, the Presbyterians were simply Useful Allies against the tyrannical Jesuit-Arminian-Royalist Complex of King Charles and Archbishop Laud.

And in rejecting the Conciliar Authority of Presbyterianism, Cromwell became a Law unto himself.

As I said... my feelings regarding Cromwell are ambivalent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.