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

You sit in your comfy sans the trials of that period & judge a brother. Not judging? re-read your posts. Shame, shame, on the both of you. I believe my anger is righteous, if not make a charge & let’s follow in the Spirit of Matthew 18.

Dahleide, I won't deny you your righteous anger at my judgment of Martin Luther's theonomic excesses. I admit your charge that it is comparatively easy for me, at a distance of 500 years, to "sit in my comfy chair sans the trials of that period & judge a brother".

I freely admit that Luther faced far greater trials than I have ever faced, probably ever will, and likewise any of the GRPL.

My view is just an objective observation from history, nothing more. In Retrospect, and in Principle, I simply believe that John Calvin's advocacy of a Republican form of Church Government was ultimately better and more Biblical than Luther's monarchism or Cromwell's independency, and this is proven in its ultimate Fruits (the Romanists can bring their slanders against Luther for the crushing of the Peasant's Revolt and against Cromwell for his crushing of the Irish Revolt, but what charge can they lay against the Theonomy of Calvin -- that he inspired the American Constitution? They won't get very far with that line of attack).

That is my view, and I hold to it... admittedly in my comfy chair, and at a distance of 500 years.

Is this "unfair" to Luther as a mortal human being, who was doing the best he could with the gifts God gave him under unimaginable difficulties? Perhaps so. But if "hindsight is 20/20", then we'd be fools not to use hindsight. And, in hindsight, I think that Calvin's theonomy is better than Luther's. That's my view, and I'm sticking to it.

Now, if you think that I have unfairly maligned Luther as a Person or as a Pastor, then I will apologize for doing so and recant if I have done so. I can only assure you that such was not my intent. However, and specifically, in considering their respective Theonomy, I believe that John Calvin's theonomy was a better Model for the Reformation than was Luther's, was more Biblical, and has borne better Fruit.

That's one OPie's opinion.

Best, OP

We need to see if the context refers to a specific authority of last instance reserved to St. Peter and the Pope...

...Firmilian's rhetoric is an early example of a sedevacantist argument. The very fact that the argument is made points to the reality of the institution of papacy, today, and in the 3rd century.

It seems to me that this is to assume the very thing in question; namely, was there any such thing as a bishop of bishops in the early church? What else can explain an interpretation of what was (to my knowledge) the very first recorded instance of a heretofore unheard-of demand by a Roman bishop that bishops of other Sees submit to his decrees, a claim that is excoriated to the point of ridicule, repudiated by the Eastern church, 86 bishops of the African churches, and the churches in Asia Minor as sedevacantist evidence of a papacy?

...he does so, interestingly, by disputing the validity of Pope Stephen's succession to the throne of Peter. He is not calling into question the institution of papacy at all.

Again, this is to assume the very thing in question, that is, that one particular bishop holds a position of authority over other bishops as head of the universal Church. Firmillian does not dispute Stephen's "succession to the throne of Peter" at all, because as the bishop of Rome he had that jurisdiction. However, since all Sees were viewed as possessing the throne of Peter, it is clear that he was repudiating Stephen's demand of obedience from his fellow bishops.

Cyprian, in a clear reference to Stephen, says in his opening remarks at The Seventh Council of Carthage,

...It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, 3 nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. 4 But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm

Cordially,

The "very first recorded instance of a heretofore unheard-of demand by a Roman bishop that bishops of other Sees submit to his decrees" would be by Pope Clement I in his letter to the Corinthians. There was a bishop, Apostle John, if I am not mistaken, in whose bishopric Corinth was, yet Clement, being the pope, asserted that certain priests be reinstated. That was in AD 80 (THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS).

Firmilian, and other bishops may be disputing the institution of the papacy, but the very fact that they were doing it means that there was someone else who asserted it.

Cyprian's comment about the equality of bishops needs to be seen in the context of this quote:

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter,10 saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."11 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep."12 And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; "13 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.14 Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her."15 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church16 trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "17
Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church

More quotes from Cyprian are at St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy, for example,

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.
(Letter 55)

That some sort of papal organizational, administrative, or legal bond among the churches could be derived, extrapolted from, or read into the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is astounding to me. Unlike Stephen, Clement made no demand in his own name as the personal, exclusive successor of Peter based on his interpretation of Mathew 16:18,19 in the way that Stephen did. Stephen was the first to do so, not Clement.

When because of its prestige the church at Rome was asked for its view or advice in the solution of the Corinthian problem Clement replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. It begins, "The Church of God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth", and remains collective throughout. By my count, in the letter there are twenty nine citatations to the authority of Scripture and exactly zero to Clement's personal authority. What other ecclesiology can be derived from the letter expressly mitigates against a papal ecclesiology because in 44:3, the congregations had to give their approval in the appointment of prebyters:

1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
1Clem 44:3 For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.
1Clem 44:4 Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.
1Clem 44:5 For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by them blamelessly.
1Clem 45:1 Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the things that pertain unto salvation.
1Clem 45:2 Ye have searched the scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy Ghost;
1Clem 45:3 and ye know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. Ye will not find that righteous persons have been thrust out by holy men.

Firmilian, and other bishops may be disputing the institution of the papacy, but the very fact that they were doing it means that there was someone else who asserted it.

Without a doubt, but the breadth and severity of their outrage indicates the novelty of Stephen's interpretation of Matthew 16:18,19. It was an innovation to them, one not based on Apostolic tradition.

Stephen had condemned Cyprian as ‘false Christ, false apostle, and practicer of deceit,’ because he advocated re–baptism; and the Bishop of Carthage reciprocated in kind. Since the headship which Stephen claimed was unwarranted, by the example of St. Peter, he could not force his brethren to accept his views. Even worse, his judgment opposed the authentic tradition of the Church. The bishop of Rome, wrote Cyprian, had confounded human tradition and divine precepts; he insisted on a practice which was mere custom, and ‘custom without truth is the antiquity of error.’ Whence came the ‘tradition’ on which Stephen insisted? Cyprian answered that it came from human presumption. Subverting the Church from within, Stephen wished the Church to follow the practices of heretics by accepting their baptisms, and to hold that those who were not born in the Church could be sons of God. And finally, Cyprian urged that bishops (Stephen was meant) lay aside the love of presumption and obstinacy which had led them to prefer custom to tradition and, abandoning their evil and false arguments, return to the divine precepts, to evangelical and apostolic tradition, whence arose their order and their very origin.

In a letter to Cyprian, Firmilian endorsed everything the bishop of Carthage had said and added a few strokes of his own...Recalling the earlier dispute about the date of Easter, he upheld the practice of Asia Minor by commenting that, in the celebration of Easter and in many other matters, the Romans did not observe the practices established in the age of the Apostles, though they vainly claimed apostolic authority for their aberrant forms. The decree of Stephen was the most recent instance of such audacity, an instance so grave that Firmilian ranked Stephen among heretics and blasphemers and compared his doctrines and discipline with the perfidy of Judas. The Apostles did not command as Stephen commanded, Firmilian wrote, nor did Christ establish the primacy which he claimed...To the Roman custom, Firmilian, like Cyprian, opposed the custom of truth, ‘holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the Apostles.’ And, Firmilian argued, by his violence and obstinacy, Stephen had apostacized from the communion of ecclesiastical unity; far from cutting heretics off from his communion, he had cut himself off from the orthodox and made himself ‘a stranger in all respects from his brethren, rebelling against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord. With such a man can there be one Spirit and one Body, in whom perhaps there is not even one mind, slippery, shifting, and uncertain as it is?’
(Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church (Princeton: Princeton University, 1969), pp. 31-32).

Cordially,

Just for the record, it is the Catholic Church. It is headed by the pope, who is in Rome, of which he is a bishop, or it can be also said that he is in the Vatican. The Church recognizes several "rites", that is liturgical and ecclesiological systems. They all share the same Catholic theology, but differ in how the liturgy is conducted, how the sacraments are administered and in the disciplines of their priests. Most people are only familiar with one, Roman or Latin rite that prevails in Western Europe and the Americas. But in Slav lands and in the Middle East there are about twenty small rites that are also Catholic, even though in appearance they resemble the Orthodox, and they admit married men into priesthood. There is also a rite or two that is Latin in appearance but is distinct and is kept by some monastic orders. The pope belongs to the Latin rite and he administers the Latin rite more closely than the Eastern rites. Catholic laity is free to take communion and generally fully participate in any rite and in fact it would be good if more Catholics visited Eastern rite churches that exist in larger cities, just to broaden their liturgical experience and avoid liturgical blandness that plagues many Latin rite parishes after Vatican II.

It is therefore a bit imprecise to call the Church Roman Catholic, unless a specific reference to the Roman rite is implied.

Thank you for the stimulating discussion of the early papacy, I enjoyed it very much.

I see connection of sorts between Luther & those holding to the validity of the charge of perjury during the recent impeachment.

I have always thought that there was more to “this is my body …” than “this (merely) represents my body …”; on the other hand I could not explain it to myself so “this represents …” was my only verbal explanation.

I was struck by what I read concerning the Marburg Conference. On recent FR threads the comment has been made that Luther kept that conference from being a success because he came to pick a fight with Zwingli over the Lord’s Supper.

Anyhow what I have learned is that they agreed on 14 of 15 points. That even on the 15th they agreed on 5 of 6 sub-points. The killer was the Lord's Supper. Luther refused to budge do to his adamant stance on taking Scripture literally; he of course disagreed with RC doctrine but he took the words seriously. According to Luther there cannot be a question as to the meaning of “is”. He went on to explain all the nonsense that would result from replacing “is” with “represents” or even “signifies” in various other parts of Scripture.

Apparently John Calvin did not agree with either Luther or Zwingli but was closer to Luther than Zwingli; as I understand it Calvin said “spiritual presence” which seems to me to put in words what Luther was, like myself, unable to find words for.

The connection – remember the recent “it depends on the meaning of is”?.

Your reply was gracious; more civil than some words & phrases used in my post.

Yes, yes... my response was "gracious" and "civil" -- all of which only proves that I am willing to admit when I have been overly-zealous in my argument, and step it back a bit.

Nonetheless, I wonder if I have not -- as our dearly-departed DrSteveJ's alleged "Minister of Diplomacy" -- been myself an hindrance to the GRPL which DrSteve and I orginally Founded.

Would you pardon me, if I commiserate a bit? I always tried to uphold the "Religion Moderator"s decisions, having great respect for him as a conservative Presbyterian Elder since long before the "Religion Forum" was founded -- and yet it seemed that despite all my "Diplomacy", my fellow GRPL Calvinists were reprimanded, suspended, and permanently banned according to a standard which seemed UnFairly Stringent compared to other Denominations.

Part of that can be blamed on a few "Bad Apples" (does anyone else want "Dr.Warmoose" back? Not me); and part of that can be blamed on "Logos", the Religion Moderator, asking a "higher standard" of his fellow Calvinists (a reasonable request, I thought)... but overall, it seems like the GRPL got slammed.

And -- though I still like and respect "Logos" a lot -- that just doesn't seem fair. Some "Minister of Diplomacy" I turned out to be.

My anger was based on specific words used in posts leading to my #277. I join you & plead for unity when essential doctrine permits, as I believe it does here; but those words which were objectionable to me fell short of our desired goal. Plus, & more importantly, they give, if I may use a military term, aid & comfort to the enemy; that, even to the enemy within, my old Adamic nature. Peace & to God be the glory as we look upon the face of Jesus.

I must admit, Dahlseide -- before our conversations, I was not aware that the FreeRepublic Counter-Reformationists were attempting to drive a wedge between Lutherans and Calvinists.

Nonetheless, you did nothing wrong, Dahlseide. I still maintain my objective position as to the rectitude of Calvinist Theonomy versus Lutheran Theonomy; However, given the choice, I would gladly take Lutheranism over and above Papism and Jesuitry any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.... and, whatever my Presbyterian Preferences, I am genuinely sorry if I ever maligned Martin Luther, either as a Person or as a Pastor.

If it's any consolation to you, I can tell you that I married my Wife on "Reformation Day", October 31, the Day of the Ninety-Five Theses. If the Prophet Elisha inherited double the Spirit of Elijah... well, then, John Calvin likewise needed his Martin Luther.

Best, OP

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.