Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
Do you understand what take place at an ecumenical council?
Please try not to be so arrogantly condescnding.
If you did, you would understand that the local bishop presides.
Chrysostom was not speaking in limited terms of the first council of Jerusalem. He uses the exact same language that Rome tries to say denotes a "primacy" for the bishops of Rome for James, that James IS the "chief ruler" of the Church.
That is a genetic fallacy, one has no relation to the other. The Tertullian citation is limited to the specific topic of Rome's misusing and abusing Matthew 16:18-19, in which Tertullian is in agreement with the teaching consensus of the Church Fathers, nad has no bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity.
Once again we have a Roman CAtholic trying to distort the facts by entering a genetic fallacy.
Without the authority of Peter vested in the Bishop of Rome, there would be no doctrine of the Trinity, just a bunch of competing views,
In reality, the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with the doctirne of the Trinity, as it is taught by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church from it's inception.
By the way, so the readers are informed, the Nicene Council which first began codifying the doctrine into a formal dogma was convened and presided over by Constantine, and attended largely by bishops from the eastern Church, with Sylvester, bishop of Rome no where near Nicea. The bishop of Rome had nothing to do with the doctrine being formalized at all.
An honest presentation would give the credit where it is due, to Athanasius, and the eastern Church Fathers. I appreciate this opportunity to set right your erroneous assertions.
Of course, those letter of Ignatius are in dispute as to whether they are legitimate too.
The FACT still remains Rome has violated it's own principle, by misinterpreting Matthew 16:18-19 contrary to the teaching of the Church Fathers, basing it's claim to papal primacy on a misinterpretation and fallacy.
I’m still puzzled why you think I think it would have another meaning. But it does seem to mean sustenance in general in a few places:
“And [there was] no bread in all the land;” (Gen 47:13) But the Jews had plenty of meat and potatoes, right?
“Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; “ (Ex. 16:4) Manna didn’t exactly come down in loaves, you know...
“Neither from a stranger’s hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these;” (lev 22:25) But go ahead and feed him meat and potatoes, right?
“Give us this day our daily bread.” (Mat 6:11)
“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. “
“But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.”
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone,” (Luk 4:4) No, of course not! Meat and potatoes, too!
“Bread” seems to be used in general to mean “basic sustenance.”
What??? were these Irish Jews???The bread was their primary food made from the grains of the land. So if they had no crops they had no grain and no grain then no bread.
“Bread” seems to be used in general to mean “basic sustenance.”
Are you just trying to be cute or evasive? The Greek word "artos" does not mean "basic sustenance". It means specifically "bread" or "a loaf of bread". It is translated as such everywhere in the NT.
He gave to the 5000 loaves of bread [artos]. He took the bread [artos] in His hands at the Last Supper. And even after the blessing and the consecration at Communion years later, Paul acknowledges that the Corinthians are eating bread [artos]:
"For as often as you eat this bread [artos] and drink this cup, ye do proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [I Corinthians 11:26]
So whatever the 5000 ate was what Jesus took in His hands and broke and what the Corinthians and everyone else was eating in their communion feasts -- BREAD [ARTOS] -- not meat and potatoes.
You’re grasping at straws for some reason to find fault in what I say. The “meat and potatoes” reference was meant for a little humor.
>> Are you just trying to be cute or evasive? The Greek word “artos” does not mean “basic sustenance”. <<
I would certainly translate it as “bread.” As I said, I have no idea why you think I have a problem with that translation... And as I also stated, the most you could do with your line of argument is demonstrate that the doctrine of consubstantiation is preferable to that of transubstantiation. But that’s a far finer point that anything in this discussion was about.
But I think that there’s a very easy case for the notion that “bread” means sustenance in Greek; translating it into “bread” is such a dead cinch, however, because the notion of sustenance also translates. Hence, even money is called bread in slang. Or are you of the opinion that Jesus taught us to pray for wheat, that loaves fell from the sky for Moses, that Jews didn’t have to wash their hands if they just ate meat, etc.?
But if you don’t agree with me on that, I still don’t see how it affects the larger issue. Catholic doctrine also holds that the bread and the wine are each both the body and the blood of Christ. So, if one refers to that which was transubstantiated from the bread, as opposed to that which was transubstantiated from the wine, it makes sense to refer to it according to its accidents. Indeed, even the Cardinals who professed transubstantiation over consubstantation referred to it as “bread” and “wine” as they said mass.
But you don’t really have any less of a problem with consubstantiation, do you?
>> Once again we have a Roman Catholic trying to impune a source often cited by Roman Catholics when they think Origen is in their camp. Convenient and also two faced and hypocritical. But the Roman Catholic fails to inform the readers that Origen is recognized as a respected “Church Fathers”, and repented of his once held view of anthropomorphism. <<
It’s not about whether Origen agrees with the Church’s positions *now*, it’s about whether he spoke for it *then.* When he’s not speaking for it, he’s just another heretic, and his writings only indicate his own personal views at the time. What’s important about his writings, and why the ancient Church Fathers referred to him in spite of his excommunication, is that what he wrote was an eloquent presentation of Church doctrine. When we know that it’s just his own opinion, it’s merely a historical curiosity, or maybe an example of heresy.
>> By, not a single quote is removed from context. The context is clear, and is made abundatly clear from the other citations from Augustine. <<
Thankfully, you do reprint the context. You just ignore it.
>> The Church Fathers are all in agreement, that Peter was symbolic of the Church and that every single beliver is a “rock” and are given the “keys to the kingdom”, in contradiction to the false claims of Rome.<<
Really? Well, whose faith is the rock then, when Origen and Tertullian were regarded as heretics? Everyone’s faith is a rock, when everyone’s faith depends on the teaching of the Church, personified in Peter. As Tertullian explained, apart from Peter, they are not the rock. You can’t have conflicting beliefs both be true.
>> Chrysostom was not speaking in limited terms of the first council of Jerusalem. He uses the exact same language that Rome tries to say denotes a “primacy” for the bishops of Rome for James, that James IS the “chief ruler” of the Church. <<
I see your quote of Philip Schaf’s characterization in this case, but no quote of John’s. You’re not mixing up Schaf’s characterization with John’s own words, are you?
Another fallacy.
So, if one refers to that which was transubstantiated from the bread, as opposed to that which was transubstantiated from the wine, it makes sense to refer to it according to its accidents.
Nonsense. Deception is not part of God's nature, and to create something that has the appearance [accidents] of one thing when in fact its substance is something else is deception and a lie. Name one occasion when God ever did such a thing or ever approved of man doing it. This whole doctrine of yours comes not from the God of the Bible but from Greek mysticism.
Indeed, even the Cardinals who professed transubstantiation over consubstantation referred to it as “bread” and “wine” as they said mass.
Only as such before the consecration, right? Just before they set the unleavened wafer on the lips of the congregant they say the words: "Jesus Christ -- body, blood, soul, and divinity".
And BTW just where and when did Jesus ever say those words. When did the magisterium start claiming that the bread was now more than just His body, but is now also His soul and divinity. Your magisterium keeps adding more leaven to that unleavened bread.
>> Nonsense. Deception is not part of God’s nature, and to create something that has the appearance [accidents] of one thing when in fact its substance is something else is deception and a lie. Name one occasion when God ever did such a thing or ever approved of man doing it. This whole doctrine of yours comes not from the God of the Bible but from Greek mysticism. <<
Anything you don’t agree with is a claim God is deceptive. You absolutely, prepostrously lost the argument that the ancient Christians didn’t believe that Eucharist was, in fact, always held to be the body of Christ, and so now you divert to other arguments. And as long as you can cling to anything to reject one argument, you justify yourself in rejecting all arguments.
You label it “Greek mysticism” as a means to reject it. Do you even know what Greek mysticism was?
>> Just before they set the unleavened wafer on the lips of the congregant they say the words: “Jesus Christ — body, blood, soul, and divinity”. <<
Lost an argument about it being the body of Christ, so now you’re moving on to another argument. Incidentally, although Catholics do believe those words to be true, they are not said during mass.
I'm sorry but any argument that you or any other person, ancient or modern, might have about the Real Presence bows before these inspired words of the Holy Spirit from the pen of Paul:
"For as often as you eat this bread [artos] and drink this cup, ye do proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [I Corinthians 11:26]
What are you eating? "this bread" not "flesh or body"
and when you are eating "this bread", you are doing what??? proclaiming the Lord's death at the Crucifixion until He comes [a statement which indicates that He is not present in the bread or in the cup]
Do you have a statement more inspired and authoritative than that? Clearly any church father who might have asserted otherwise was disagreeing with the inspired words of God or had failed to read them. Or are you asserting the Aristotle was one of your church fathers or a lost prophet who knew more than the Apostle Paul?
Shall we put this argument to rest by doing a certified scientific analysis of one of those consecrated wafers??? What are you willing to bet on the outcome???
It’s not about whether Origen agrees with the Church’s positions *now*, it’s about whether he spoke for it *then.*
Origen and Tertullian BOTH were in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers on Matthew 16:18-19. When they spoke, they were speaking in consensus with the Church Fathers, whereas Rome is contrary to the Church Fathers. When he’s not speaking for it, he’s just another heretic, and his writings only indicate his own personal views at the time.
Origen was speaking in agreement with the Church Fathers while Rome is contrary.
What’s important about his writings, and why the ancient Church Fathers referred to him in spite of his excommunication
You do realize that Origen repented and was restored to communion with the Church don't you?
is that what he wrote was an eloquent presentation of Church doctrine. When we know that it’s just his own opinion, it’s merely a historical curiosity, or maybe an example of heresy.
Please learn real history instead of the distorted, self serving version created by Rome.
As has been demonstrated, Origen was not contrary to the Church Fathers on this matter of Matthew 16:18-19, of the "rock" and the "keys", Origen was in agreement. It is ROME that is contrary.
>> By, not a single quote is removed from context. The context is clear, and is made abundatly clear from the other citations from Augustine. <<
Thankfully, you do reprint the context. You just ignore it.
Quite the opposite, when the fathers cited says, "what was given to Peter was given to ALL", it is YOU who ignores the context, not I. And on that point the fathers were in agreement whereas Rome is contrary.
>> The Church Fathers are all in agreement, that Peter was symbolic of the Church and that every single beliver is a “rock” and are given the “keys to the kingdom”, in contradiction to the false claims of Rome.<< Really?
Yes, really.
As Tertullian explained, apart from Peter, they are not the rock. You can’t have conflicting beliefs both be true.
Once again we have a Roman Catholic reading the erroneous, and contrary position of Rome into the fathers where it does not exist. Tertullian did not say that "apart from Peter, they are not the rock", not even close. Not a single one of the fathers say that at all. Tertullian, in agreement with the Fathers agrees that it is the faith IN CHRIST that Peter professed that makes one a "rock".
The fact is Rome is contrary to the Church Fathers, and has redefined "tradition" to be whatever Rome says it is, because most of Roman Catholicism is contrary to the New Testament Apostolic teaching and the teaching of the early church.
I see your quote of Philip Schaf’s characterization in this case, but no quote of John’s.
Wrong again. I quote Chrysostom who was quoted by Schaff, and not Schaff's characterization. Please try not to misrepresent the facts.
Another fallacy.
Another example of a Roman Catholic trying to have it both ways.
At one point when I commented that the bread and wine was not the actual, real, literal body and blood of Christ, dangus says the "accidents" are, now dangus says they are the real, actual, body and blood. But then, Roman Catholicism is full of contradictions.
You or Schaf so abused the quote, that I had thought Schaf was paraphrasing. The quote is actually an assemblage of scraps from a much longer quote, put together in such a way as to make Chrysostom appear to be saying the opposite of what he actually wrote, but as I now see, each word comes from the original.
The full passage is about ten times longer than what you quote. And it makes plain that James presides in Jerusalem, while Peter presides universally, exactly as Rutles4ever formulated:
“But observe the discretion shown by him [James] also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem,”
See? If James had made the argument, it would only have had authority in Jerusalem, but because Peter made the argument, it was not “locally fixed in Jerusalem.”
Thus, we have the form of obedience in the Catholic Church: the Pope (as Peter did) proclaims doctrine, while the local bishop (as James did) reigns in his own diocese (such as Jerusalem).
Given the fact that I had just explained why “bread” and “wine” are still used to refer to the transubstantiated body and blood, I thought you’d understand that I was not using those terms to deny the transubstantiation. I guess I was wrong.
The FACT is that you have made a claim about the early Church that has been shown to be in error. You merely dismiss the writings of the 3rd Bishop of Rome. Who disputes them besides you?
We base Peter’s primacy on a whole lot more than these two verses. If you wish, New Advent has a thorough entry on the subject.
The only genetic fallacy is the disinformation campaign you're married to. It's been demonstrated in many places on this thread where you've played fast and loose with your "evidence". You're trying to charge up a "down" escalator by truncating, cherry-picking, and ignoring evidence to the contrary of your views. Translation: you're getting nowhere fast.
In reality, the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with the doctirne of the Trinity, as it is taught by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church from it's inception.
Jesus taught nothing explicit about the triune nature of the Trinity. If you can provide evidence in Scripture of the theological meaning of the Trinity - not just "it's made up of three guys" - then you've accomplished something (since the Apostles, themselves, who were taught directly by Christ didn't even try to formulate what we know as the dogma of the Trinity). The Church, however, as guided by the Holy Spirit, has defined this belief, based on the implicit Scriptural evidence - which is not acceptable under the rigors of "Sola Scriptura" - and the TRADITIONAL BELIEFS of the Church Fathers. However, the Church Fathers were not imbued with the ability to define infallibly, only the Holy Father in Rome. If the Bishop of Rome did not speak on it, it would not be dogma. You may think that a small contribution, but without it, the dogma of the Trinity would be nothing more than yet another "unacceptable" Tradition of my faith.
By the way, so the readers are informed, the Nicene Council which first began codifying the doctrine into a formal dogma was convened and presided over by Constantine, and attended largely by bishops from the eastern Church, with Sylvester, bishop of Rome no where near Nicea. The bishop of Rome had nothing to do with the doctrine being formalized at all.
Pope Sylvester sent his legates, Victor and Vincentius. Since this was an ecumenical Counsel, he would not preside locally, and so, his attendance was not mandatory to the process. Canon law provides that legates may make endorsements on his behalf. According to Pius VI: ""By virtue of his Apostolic prerogative, while providing for the care of all the lambs and the sheep confided to him, the Roman Pontiff discharges his Apostolic duty also by delegating ecclesiastics for a time or permanently as may seem best, to go into distant places where he cannot go and to take his place and exercise such jurisdiction as he himself, if present, would exercise." So, by virtue of his appointed Roman legates, Pope Sylvester I indeed ratified the decisions at Nicaea.
An honest presentation would give the credit where it is due, to Athanasius, and the eastern Church Fathers. I appreciate this opportunity to set right your erroneous assertions.
Who said they didn't? The Church isn't a one-man band, as you seem to think. But the final decision lies with Rome.
Please try not to be so arrogantly condescnding.
Your posts indicated that you didn't know what an ecumenical council is or how one operates. Since a false understanding is the basis of your argument, it's a fair question.
Chrysostom was not speaking in limited terms of the first council of Jerusalem. He uses the exact same language that Rome tries to say denotes a "primacy" for the bishops of Rome for James, that James IS the "chief ruler" of the Church.
dangus did a nice dissection of this cherry-picking.
Why is it you wish to assign infallibility to Origen, but not the pope?
Do you impugn Al Gore? Because he was once pro-life, you know. Therefore, he must be right about being pro-choice now.
Origen contributed greatly to Catholic theologic development. That doesn't make everything he said correct. Your source quote landed Origen in quite a bit of hot water because it's theologically flawed. Origen had a habit of over-reaching and digging much too far into the symbolic nature of Scripture to make his points.
The Roman Catholic also fails to recognize that Origen's view was exactly the same as the rest of the Church Fathers, so OPrigen was not simply making a statement that was unconventional or novel, but was in conformity with the teaching of Church Fathers, when Rome is not.
I've already cited Augustine and Clement as contradicting Origen, so (once again) you're proven wrong on this assertion. There are plenty more quotable refutations.
Firstly, not a single quote is removed from context. The context is clear, and is made abundatly clear from the other citations from Augustine.
How much clearer is "Rome has spoken. The matter is decided"? (Augustine)
and both are included as church fathers.
Rightfully so. It doesn't mean they were infallible.
No he doesn't and the few citations given prove it conclusively.
Repeating. "Rome has spoken. The matter is decided" (Augustine)
The Church Fathers are all in agreement, that Peter was symbolic of the Church and that every single beliver is a "rock" and are given the "keys to the kingdom", in contradiction to the false claims of Rome.
It's still not sticking. You're repeating the same unfounded ideas that you've provided paltry and questionable evidence for. The evidence to the contrary is so daunting, it's a spectacle to ignore it so willfully.
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.