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.
I wasn’t aware that speaking the truth was an attack. I get frustrated trying to get the truth out I guess, but the 2nd Timothy verse was a good one that was posted earlier.
“Protestantism is a HERESY.”
Simply an opinion. Really, do you know what the word “fact” means? Or do you not care about facts? Or something else?
There are many places to acquire factual evidence, yet you seem repelled by the idea. I will take you seriously to the degree you use your mind to back up your specious claims. If you cannot do that, your posts are just a “noisy gong.”
Are you saying that Jesus founding the Catholic Church on the Apostles as the first Bishops is not a biblical fact?
The Catholic church has existed for nearly 2000 years. Read some of St. Justin Martyr’s writings about the first home Masses. Our Masses today basically follow the same rubrics that they honored in the Early Church.
Please get the facts and stop believing the pamphlets and preachers who hate Catholicism.
Yes, I’m saying your first paragraph is false. For the record I don’t hate Catholics at all, quite the opposite. I love my fellow man therefor I try to encourage people to seek the truth. It’s up to the Holy spirit to move who he moves.
“Read some of St. Justin Martyr’s writings about the first home Masses. Our Masses today basically follow the same rubrics that they honored in the Early Church.”:
By referencing Martyr’s writings, you’ve just demonstrated how far the Church drifted into paganism just 120 years after Christ. From there, all kinds of pagan beliefs were added over the centuries.
Disagreement doesn’t demand hate. I dearly love many Romans. I just disagree with the pagan teachings that crept into their church.
When you pose as a victim of hate, it does not advance your position as true or false.
Yes, it must have drifted into paganism in such a short time because it disagrees with the Protestant interpretation of Scripture which came 1500 years later. And yet, if such early Christianity fell into error how can we have confidence in what is, or is not, Scripture in the first place since the canon of the Bible would not be definitively decided until over a hundred years later?
The RCC has constructed a false history ...
Adhering to a false gospel ...
Producing false converts ...
Clinging to a false hope ..
That's no way to slip into eternity
I think the stories are part of "sacred tradition."
“Yes, it must have drifted into paganism in such a short time because it disagrees with the Protestant interpretation of Scripture which came 1500 years later.”
No, it disagrees with Scripture, which you can look at today and see that those things are not there.
“And yet, if such early Christianity fell into error how can we have confidence in what is, or is not, Scripture in the first place since the canon of the Bible would not be definitively decided until over a hundred years later?”
I am always amazed that catholics do not worship a God who is both Sovereign and Omnipotent. As a Christian, my confidence is in Him. It always takes me by surprise that people who claim to be Christians see God as weak, ineffectual and unable to carry out His will.
Is that when the Holy Spirit started his 1500-year long nap? Or was he away on important business?
Like the Mormons, you think that Jesus was incapable of founding a church that could sustain itself and stay faithful to him for more than a few years, so it required a "reformer" (which one? there are dozens!) to come along and restore what had supposedly been lost.
Why would you worship such a Jesus? He was obviously an abject failure, according to your view of history.
“Is that when the Holy Spirit started his 1500-year long nap? Or was he away on important business?”
Why would you think the Holy Spirit was not actively at work??
“Like the Mormons, you think that Jesus was incapable of founding a church that could sustain itself and stay faithful to him for more than a few years, so it required a “reformer” (which one? there are dozens!) to come along and restore what had supposedly been lost.”
No I do not. Where I likely differ from the standard Roman belief is that I don’t believe Christ founded a “church”. He said He was founding an assembly. The errors of man and the sins of man cannot stand in His way, anymore than a rock can stop a river.
“Why would you worship such a Jesus? He was obviously an abject failure, according to your view of history.”
Because the Christ I worship isn’t the one you imagine. He has never failed. Yes men fail, yes churches fail, yes paganism renders churches neutered, but that does not stop the plan of God any more than Israel’s failures.
When one does the research, it turns out that the pamphlets and preachers were right...
As with many of the church father's works, most of Justin Martyr's writings have been shown to be forged...So what's new, eh???
Truth and facts matter not...
You haven’t DONE ENOUGH research.
I certainly have...
I’ll pray for you to be enlightened.
“So you are Eastern Orthodox?”
I have heard of Papists, who read too much of the church fathers (on the topic of the Papacy) and question Papist assertions like what you provide, convert to the Eastern Orthodox because they think that they, in fact, have the “tradition” that was really from the days of Christ to the modern age. And all this on the basis of the Pope losing his allure.
The problem with the EOC, however, is that even though they get rid of Roman power presumptions, they still don’t realize that they are only picking and choosing which “Apostolic” tradition to uphold. They’ll reject Augustine, for example, and instead prefer some useless bugger who tickles their ears. And they really, like Papists, don’t truly appreciate how different their religion is compared to the first few centuries.
They’re basically just like Papists in this regard, except, instead of being obsessed with the Pope to the complete ignorance of doctrine, they obsess with their tradition to the complete detriment of holy scripture.
So, I would never be an Eastern Orthodox. That’s like downgrading to a slightly evolved version of Papist.
Give me my Bible, and I am quite happy. That’s the only sure “tradition” you can count on.
“St. Clement of Rome wrote the letter to the Church in Corinth in 95 AD. He was certainly the Bishop of Rome. I know of no reputable Protestant patristic scholar that questions the authenticity of this latter.”
That’s like saying “The Constitution is a living, flexible document. No reputable scholar questions the authenticity of the Constitution.”
It’s stupid, of course, since the letter in question does not support the assertions being made.
“So, rather than check the post you suggested, I just went to my Church Father writings and found evidence that clearly contradicts your assertion that it is hard to tell wehter Rome even had Bishops at all during the first and second centuries.”
Depends on what you mean by “Bishops” and “church fathers.’ As Dr. White observes:
“First and foremost, there is tremendous confusion concerning the early “lists” of the bishops of Rome, and for good reason. Different sources give different renderings. Why? As simple as it may sound, the reason is easily discovered: no one really cared for the first century of the history of the church at Rome. All the lists come from at the earliest many decades later, and show a concern that did not arise until the Church as a whole began struggling with heresy and began formulating concepts of authority to use against heretics. But in those first decades, even into the middle of the second century, no one was particularly concerned about who the bishop of Rome was. Why? Because no one had the concepts that Rome now presents as “ancient.” No one thought the bishop of any one church was above any other, or that the bishop of Rome was somehow invested with any particular authority.
No Monarchical Episcopate
What’s more, there is a fatal historical fact that is overlooked consistently by Roman Catholic apologists. Joseph F. Kelly in his The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 2, notes,
The word “pope” was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.”
http://vintage.aomin.org/1296CATR.html
placemarker
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Mind reading is against the rules here on the Religion Forum.
That poster did not say he/she got any information from "pamphlets and preachers" "who hate Catholicism."
Most of the other-than-Catholic posters get their information from the Bible.
LOL @hate Catholicism!
Like the Mormons, it seems Catholics feel hated if someone does not agree with them!
For poster Bulwyf: I know you don't need anyone to stand up for you when false accusations are posted--those that post them should be called on it.
The Catholic Church started about 300 years after Jesus started His church in the first centuary--made up of all born again believer who follow Jesus.
It was built on The Rock, Scripturally many times in the OT and the NT referring to Jesus and God.
Perhaps the RM should be informed of the mind reading?
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.