Virgin and Child from the catacombs
Rome, 4th century
Rome, 4th century
Posted on 02/09/2014 2:09:50 PM PST by NYer
|
|
Virgin and Child from the catacombs
Rome, 4th century |
My interlocutor has usually been reading a book by Garry Wills or Elaine Pagels, who view the events of sacred history as power plays by vested interests. If my weekend controversialist hasn't been reading a heterodox best-seller, he or she has been taking one of those smartly put-together adult Bible classes in Manhattan, which let it be known that the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, the papacy, and the episcopate are late Roman inventions.
How, over a glass of chardonnay, does one respond? How does one lightly utter the names of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and the Didache? Or mention Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other early witnesses to the fact that the Church in the first centuries was Roman Catholic?
Before there ever was a canon of the New Testament, there was a Church. And its paper trail is Catholic. In his two anti-papal books, Garry Wills is dismissive of these early non-biblical documents, but they are well worth knowing about.
In 95 A.D., a three-man embassy with a letter from the fourth bishop of Rome arrived at Corinth, where there were dissensions in the local church. In that letter, Pope St. Clement speaks with authority, giving instructions with a tone of voice that expects to be obeyed. The interesting point is that the apostle John was still living in Ephesus, which is closer than Rome to Corinth. But it was the bishop of Rome (at the time, a smaller diocese) who dealt with the problem.
Then there are the seven letters of St. Ignatius, who was martyred in Rome in 106. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch (Peter had been the first) and a disciple of the apostle John. Because these letters, written en route to Rome, are so Catholic, their authenticity was long contested by Protestant scholars, but now they are almost universally accepted as genuine.
Ignatius was the first to call the Church "Catholic." He writes to the Ephesians that "the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world are the will of Jesus Christ…. Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop." And his letter to the church at Smyrna attacks those who deny the Real Presence: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins…."
 What these documents reveal is a primitive church that is recognizably hierarchical and centered on the Eucharist. |
It is noteworthy that in addressing the Church at Rome — a less ancient see than Antioch — Ignatius's tone changes entirely. He is deferential, praiseful: "You have envied no one; but others you have taught."
There is also the Didache, which was a kind of catechism and liturgical manual written some time between 70 and 150. It is a short document that could be used in RCIA today without changing a syllable.
The Didache (which means "teaching") begins with a number of prohibitions (including abortion). Then, after what is probably the text of an early eucharistic prayer, comes the money quote: "Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized…. On the Lord's day gather together, break bread and give thanks after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure…. For this is what was proclaimed by the Lord: 'In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice….'"
The last line is from Malachi, the last of the Old Testament prophets, who talks about how God, displeased with the sacrifices of the people of Judah, will accept the "sacrifice… the clean oblation" offered everywhere among the Gentiles. Early Christians considered this passage an anticipation of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
What these documents reveal is a primitive church that is recognizably hierarchical and centered on the Eucharist. Catholics, of course, do not base their faith on these early literary scraps but on the living authority of the Church. Still, it can be fun to broach these ancient names while nibbling an hors d'oeuvre.
It gets worse than that. Far worse.
Pope Alexander VI (Borgias) for anyone with the stomach to research that kind of debauchery that occurred.
I found it by accident and some things are better to have not been read.
“I will go to Catholicism for Dummies and show you the early Christians were CATHOLIC”
I’ve asked you for a single shred of factual evidence on many topics over months and you’ve yet to post your first fact.
I personally am looking forward to The Big Reveal!!
[... but I’m not ordering popcorn yet}
My interlocutor has usually been reading a book by Garry Wills or Elaine Pagels, who view the events of sacred history as power plays by vested interests. If my weekend controversialist hasn’t been reading a heterodox best-seller, he or she has been taking one of those smartly put-together adult Bible classes in Manhattan, which let it be known that the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, the papacy, and the episcopate are late Roman inventions.
How, over a glass of chardonnay, does one respond?
If your friends are the Bible-class types, gently but firmly correct them.
If your friends are the type who read Garry Wills and Elaine Pagels, spit-take and then laugh.
God’s Pilgrim Church on Earth is the only evidence you or anyone needs. The Catholic Church is the One, True, Apostolic Church, started by Jesus Christ. End of story. That’s my last word on the subject. Deal with it.
“God’s Pilgrim Church on Earth is the only evidence you or anyone needs. The Catholic Church is the One, True, Apostolic Church, started by Jesus Christ. End of story. That’s my last word on the subject. Deal with it.”
Wow! You ran out of words before you posted your first fact! That says a lot. I understand.
“God’s Pilgrim Church on Earth is the only evidence you or anyone needs. The Catholic Church is the One, True, Apostolic Church, started by Jesus Christ. End of story.”
Wow! The story ended before your first fact was posted. Sudden.
“God’s Pilgrim Church on Earth is the only evidence you or anyone needs. The Catholic Church is the One, True, Apostolic Church, started by Jesus Christ. End of story.”
Wow! On the veracity of your opinion alone rests the Church of Jesus Christ. Who knew?
“Deal with it.”
Oh, I’ve come to expect the your posts to be a Fact Free Zone around here. I’ll deal with the vacuum like I always have to... bot being able to take your posts seriously. Just think how a fact or two - even over the course of a year - would liven up your posts!
If you want to know anything about the Church and the Bible I refer you to the blueprint, it’s call the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
“If you want to know anything about the Church and the Bible I refer you to the blueprint, it’s call the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
So is this your final, final word?
Are you now trying to say you want to outsource supporting your claims?
“It is interesting at Chalcedon in 451 that the Bishop of Constantinopile inserted his Church to the 2nd rank in what is Canon 28. Again, Pope Leo never ratified it”
Let’s read it, capitalization mine:
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ROYAL CITY. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the SOVEREIGNTY and the SENATE, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.” (28th canon of Chalcedon)
What’s fascinating is that they build not Rome on Peter or Paul, but on its location only as a royal city.
“No, Marcion was from the East and the Son of an Eastern Bishop.”
I did not say Marcion was born in Rome. I said he founded and taught his heresy in Rome, where all manner of fornication tends to originate.
“You still can’t refute the fact that Pius of Rome excommunicated the son of an Eastern Bishop with no appeal to a council an there was no protests. And No, I am not claiming Rome did as it pleased, it did what was necessary to strengthen the brethren and other Churches.”
I refuted your leap which is: “[H]is father, a Bishop in the East did not welcome him in communion” BECAUSE he was told to do it by Rome, rather than, say, by the universal condemnation of all the church fathers who discussed the man.
This you concede to, when you say “I am not claiming Rome did as it pleases,” by which I meant, originally, that it had authority to do this on its own, without consent of the whole church. Your argument can only work if Rome does not require the consent of the whole church, but can excommunicate a person, like Cyprian, and cannot be gainsaid, which all other Bishops are obligated to obey.
Obviously, Rome is gainsaid, historically, quite often. And so your assertions are nothing. For example, yet another one, the Third Ecumenical Council condemning the heretic Nestorious, which the Bishop of Rome Celestine I had already condemned:
“The Pope had pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute.” (Bishop Maret Du Concile General, vol.i p.183)
The next Ecumenical Councils even get WORSE for the Pope!
“Fifth Ecumenical Council
A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote
“These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decress of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.”[104]
German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called “ …without the assent of the Pope”[105]
You also write: “it did what was necessary to strengthen the brethren and other Churches”. But this is only a justification for Rome “doing as it pleases,” and is not actually a denial of Rome doing as it pleases, which is essential to your claim. I think perhaps you string together sentences and hope they’ll work. But, this does not work.
Augustine’s rule still stands, which sees not just one “Apostolic seat,” but many, giving such a name as to those that “received Apostles” or epistles from them, and gives the rule to the majority for major issues, even making the weight of lesser-known churches, in the majority, equal to the majority of Apostolic Sees:
“But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.” (Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8. See also John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Book II, Chapter 8 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 134.)
Christ is the source of all truth, not a book. The Bible, as much as it might chagrin many Protestants to understand, is a historical record of the life and times of Christ as well as a summary of important geopolitical events that led up to His coming. It is not the penultimate handbook for Christianity and never has been; one searches the Bible in vain for a single verse that claims otherwise.
As you know, Christ did not instruct His disciples to go out and distribute Bibles to people. He told them to make converts, which was only done by word of mouth preaching. Bibles did not exist yet; the components of the Scriptures existed, but they were not gathered together until the Council of Rome in 38 - quite a bit of time after Christ, wouldn’t you say? Therefore, how can anyone believe the Bible is divinely inspired without the Catholic Church to say so? Even the most diehard Protestant who accepts a truncated Bible still assents to the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching on the matter when he or she believes the Bible is of God, because the Church was the first authority to proclaim that to people.
All our information about Christianity we have thanks to the Church, the Church Christ Himself gave us.
Greetings_Puny_Humans:
Again, the usurping of Alexandria and Antioch by Constantinople was done in Canon 3 of Constantinople, which was not recognized as a Council till Chalcedon in 451AD. If you read what happened, the Easterners put Canon 28 in the Canons. It was not accepted by Rome and it was not in line with Canon 6 of Nicea as it granted a primacy to only Antioch and Alexandria. In addition, Canon 2 of Constantinople, even though there were no Western Bishops there, did not put limits on the jurisdiction and authority of Rome, only Alexandria and Antioch.
And if Rome, and Alexandria and Antioch were equal, per your reading of Canon 6 at Nicea [not a priority of rank], then if Constantinople felt it could usurp Alexandria and Antioch, why wasn’t Rome usurped given the Political and Civil power were now East.
Here is the question, why didn’t Constantinople just go for the gusto and put itself ahead of Rome. And Patristic Scholars like Harnack and Lightfoot, with respect to Clement’s Letter pointed out that it showed the important of the Roman Church, even independent if we do not know for sure whether Clement was the “sole Bishop” of Rome [could have had co-Bishops, what are now auxiliary Bishops in current Catholic Church hierarchies, e.g., the Archdiocese of Chicago has one Cardinal Archbishop and I think 4 or 5 Auxiliary Bishops.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
[Harnack and Lightfoot’s comments are included in the last paragraph of the Newadvent article]
And what the Bishop of Constantinopile and its Eastern supporters put Canon 28, earlier testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch [Eastern Church Bishop, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John] certainly, in his Letter to Rome ties it to Peter and Paul. Irnenaeus certainly does it as well in 180AD, and there was no mention of Royal city as Christendom at that time was outlawed. This entire theme of using the Royal City image was purely an Eastern Theory, some Easterners, as Pelikan notes in Volume 2, Spirit of Eastern Christianity, argued that old Rome had the primacy as long as Rome was the Royal city and once it moved to Constantinople, the primacy moved [p.272]. THis is theological nonsense because it makes theology and Church authority a function of politics. Nonsense.
The excommunication of Nestorius by Pope Celestine being reviewed by the Council of Ephesus was because Nestorius and his ally, John of Antioch and numerous Eastern Bishops asked the Emperor to call the council. So the problem wasn’t Rome’s lack of primacy, it was the Easterners using the Emperor to call a council to review it. St. Cyril of Alexandria arrived, before Pope Celestine’s Personal Legates. and summoned Nestorius, who did not appear to meet with St. Cyril of Alexandria. When John of Antioch and the majority of the Easterners arrived, they refused to say Mass/Liturgy with Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius and John of Antioch and hords of their Eastern Supporters held a rival council. Once Pope Celestine’s personal legates arrived at Ephesus, they reaffirmed what Pope Celestine had done with respect to Nestorius, and then the 2 personal Bishop Legates of Celestine [Arcadias and Projectus] and a Roman Priest along with Cyril excommunicated John of Antioch and his Eastern Supporters.
Nothing at Ephesus refutes Papal authority, in fact, it supports it as 2 Western Bishops representing Pope Celestine, a Roman Priest, representing him along with Cyril of Alexandria and his supporters, excommunicated John of Antioch and his party.
Some 5 years later, John of Antioch recanted, made peace with Cyril of Alexandria and once that happened, Nestorius had no more Support from a major See [Antioch] and thus the Emperor, not having any Church allies dropped his support of Nestorius and banished him.
So the need for the Council of Ephesus was primarily the result of a rivalry between John of Antioch and that See and Cyril of Alexandria and that See and Eastern Politics. It had nothing to do with a challenge to Rome’s primacy and the role of the Pope.
In summary, it was a few years ago, most of the FR Protestant brigade here charged that Rome had no authority and that Catholicity did not appear to after Constantinople. Now, we are going back and saying the earliest we can verify definitively a sole Roman Bishop is St. Pius, 140 to 154AD.
Council of Constantinopile 2 [5th council] again, the Pope was going to call it with the emperor, but the Emperor wanted and equal number of Bishops from the 5 Patriarchs which would mean the Western Bishops would be outnumbered. The Pope wanted the Council in Italy but the Emperor would not support it unless in his City. The Pope [Vigilus] refused to participate on that account. You are correct that Vigilus did condemn Theodore and the other 2, he objected to some of their writings. These decisions were denounced in the West, particularly in North Africa so Vigilus withdrew from what he did regarding the 3 noted above, and of course after the Council was held, he affirmed the Council. But again, don’t underestimate the Political intrigues of the Council. Vigilus, as the Westerners told him, was making a dangerous precedent in condemning men who were dead and while they may have had incorrect theological writings, they accepted the Councils of Ephesus were reconciled and died in peace with the Church at the time of Chalcedon 451AD
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24660
“Christ’s church “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.” That phrase affirms that the “historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ” are only present in the Catholic Church, the congregation said. It noted that the Orthodox faith communities are called “churches,” though separate from the Catholic Church, as they have retained apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Because of those close bonds, the congregation said, they merit the title of churches and are seen as “sister churches” of specific Catholic churches. Yet, Christian communities “born out of the Reformation” do not share that union as they “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders,” the Vatican congregation said. “These ecclesial communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called churches in the proper sense,”
Wow! You continue to Post-Lite. What can I say to respond?
Just the same thing: you posted opinion. Great! You have an opinion! Actually, quite a few. All unfounded.
Of course, my knowing actual facts and you providing NO new facts to consider, I must of necessity reject your opinion as unfounded bluster.
I still wish you the best, just can’t believe what you say.
Apparently you don’t know how to read. Don’t waste my time responding to this. I’m tired of communicating with a kid.
“Yet, Christian communities “born out of the Reformation” do not share that union as they “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders,” the Vatican congregation said”
I’m not even sure why you posted that section NKP_Vet.
I will respond in this way:
The Roman church claims a series of things we clearly reject as unBiblical. We simply do not care what blustery opinion is put forth. If they want to believe it fine, but there is no reason why non-Roman churches or Christians should believe it. Posting an opinion - even when from the “Vatican congregation”, is just that, an opinion. They can hold whatever opinion they want.
Long gone are the days of the Inquisition, when they could just kill those who dare question them.
So here it is in summary (some Protestant congregations hold other views):
No Apostolic Succession is promoted by Christ
No “real presence” in communtion - Christ died once.
No alters.
No sacraments that give grace.
No purgatory (speaking of which, the Church taught at one time you could cut your purgatory time in half just by making a pilgrimage to where -supposedly- the bones of the Apostle James was buried).
No holy water
No priests
No worldly costumes
No churches - just ekklesia, as Christ said He founded.
Now, if along the way you find some factual stuff you would like to discuss rationally, I am open to having that conversation with you FRiend.
“Apparently you don’t know how to read.”
Reading and disagreeing are two different things.
You’ve had your “last word” a number of times now. None of the subsequent “last words” have added any facts.
“We simply do not care what blustery opinion is put forth”
Perfect definition of protestantism found below.
“Me and Jesus got us a good thing going, we don’t need no stinkin’ church (or anyone else), telling us what’s all about. I know how to read”.
Now that is some kind of belief system. In otherwords believe what you want to believe and ignore scripture. Afterall 50,000 different protestant sects are in agreement with each other. And a cat’s got a carburator and I believe in the tooth fairy.
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.