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.
Nor do we have any original manuscripts of the Bible, only manuscript copies made and preserved by the Catholic Church.
That’s exactly right. God gave the Catholic Church this teaching authority.
If Rome does say so herself. Cultic devotion. Thus you refused to answer the basic questions i asked in response to your previous argument by assertion.
The One, True, Apostolic Church is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. That is fact, whether protestants want to believe it or not.
Iscool:
I am aware of that, my point is after reading his introduction, he finally conceded late in it that the letters are extant.
“Disregard any PROTESTANT theology PHDs.”
Oh I see. You’re changing the end zone now that it is demonstrated your statement was false. Sorry, you didn’t require denominations, just familiarity with church history.
“Do you actually think they would say anything that proved the early Church was Catholic. I think not.”
Well, the ones I know are both truthful and objective. Your new vacillation does point out that to support your false claim requires a roman historian! Oh sure, the roman guy will be the only unbiased source! Not!
“Look to Pope Benedict 16, probably the greatest Christian historian in the world, and no one else.”
So to summarize your position:
1 you have to avoid non-Catholics who read history
2 you have to pick a roman guy or better yet a people.
What a delusional point of view you are espousing.
Why do you guys tell these stories??? Of the 5000+ manuscripts and fragments available today, only about 250 are Catholic manuscripts...
You start with an attack and bemoan the fact that people don't want to reason things out with you.
You were sooooo close to making a true statement!!!! Darn!
I’ll help. You did try hard, after all.
The One, True, Apostolic assembly is the universal bride of Christ. That is fact, whether anyone wants to believe it or not.
Iscool;
There are extant copies to Clement and Igantius as well as Irenaeus. Did you not read the introduction in Philip Schaff’s commentary on those Letters.
Iscool:
Or maybe the Mitra followers mimicked the Catholics. For the record, the OT Jews used bread and wine to celebrate the Passover. You going to criticize them as well.
The Use of Bread and Wine goes back to Melchizedek in Genesis.
According to their own Bible, not once did Christ refer to any of these that came after for His ‘gospel’. However, Christ constantly referred to those that Peter calls holy prophets.
So rather than spend the time learning what Christ said, and quoted, all this time is devoted to what Tom, Dick, and Harry had and have to say about being the closest to, not Jesus but Mary.
There is the ‘tradition of Glastonbury’, which holds as much historical weight as any of the other claims to being the one and only.
The UNIVERSAL church is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, sometimes called Roman Catholic Church, although faiths in communion with the Catholic Church are part of the Catholic Church. It is the only faith located in every corner of the world. Worldwide, universal. God’s one, true, apostolic church. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Christ started one Church, which is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. There is no such thing as an invisible church. His church is very visible. Just look around, you’ll find one close to you.
Of course I consider the entire undivided church of first millennium as Catholic. The manuscripts of the Bible come to us through this source.
Considering some of the books he’s written, George Sim Johnston evidently believes the early church was evolutionist.
“The UNIVERSAL church is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, sometimes called Roman Catholic Church,”
Simply an opinion. You are making an assertion without facts to back it up. Your posts never include factual support. Because of this, no one can take them as true, unless they already believe exactly as you do. Dismissed.
“It is the only faith located in every corner of the world.”
Simply an opinion. Where does the roman church have a location (not counting their playground the Vatican), that protestants do not? You are making an assertion without facts to back it up. Your posts never include factual support. Dismissed.
“Christ started one Church”
He started one “gathering”, as He said in Greek.
“which is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Repeating something twice just means you stutter. It remains your opinion. Simply an opionion. You are making an assertion without facts to back it up. Your posts never include factual support. Dismissed.
“There is no such thing as an invisible church.”
Simply an opionion. You are making an assertion without facts to back it up. Your posts never include factual support.
“His church is very visible.”
Parts of it are.
“Just look around, you’ll find one close to you.”
Yes, I attend one.
Come back with facts. Opinions wear thin.
Read the Bible.
“Read the Bible.”
Done. Outlined every single book. Translated large portions from original languages.
Now, get back to rounding up one or two facts and try to get them to follow you onto FR. We’ll take a look at them.
Yes, please read that CATHOLIC document called the Bible.
“Yes, please read that CATHOLIC document called the Bible.”
Simply your opinion. Again, not a single fact posted to back up an assertion.
If you cannot round up a single fact and get it to follow you back here, please at least go down to the fact store and see what they have on sale. Once you find or buy a fact, please bring it back so we can discuss it.
Until them, dismissed.
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.