Remembering the Early Church

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…."

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.

Never mind answering any questions in the last --- those were not posed for you to solve, for me. For those touch nearly upon the center of those differences remaining in regards to those both East & 'West' of the Latin Church.

There are those of Rome who have pondered these things, hoping and praying for solution, seeing the problem, grasping or sensing towards it, even much as I myself have touched upon it, seeing too that Rome must play a part in that...knowing that as Papacy there was once spoken of (and still is, often enough) was not fully justified. The extraneous baggage clutters the scene, too many words declared irrevocably true --- the lawyers can't save it now, other than to distract the juries, but still can't get it past the Judge.

In Francis, we see restraint (but too much openness for some RC tastes). It is as if he knows, and would rein back from the most far-reaching of Rome's assertions, that being what what she has spoken of for herself (in the Kingdom of God) not be accessible unless thru herself. THere is a search on for just the right words...which can smooth things over...but allow the same claims to stand, understood in some particular light, those words if found be able to make it (her past errors) all go away, allowing her self perceptions to see her still perched upon a throne, an singular Princess, the one-and-only Bride to be, etc.

Any God that would deliberately set up a choke-point on His own Graces such as Rome has shown that it can be, would not be a a Wise God, nor Gracious God, nor one all-powerful either, as in having once delegated, then can no longer bring correction. It didn't work that-a-ways for the children of Israel, and they had Abraham as earthly (visible) Father direct flesh and blood descent. There's some Incarnational thinking to put in the 'ol pipe, light it up and puff for a while...

And we think that government employee Unions have job-lock? Ha. They are mere pikers in comparison to hard-headed Jews & CHristians who think themselves their replacements. Careful for what one wishes for?

Christ did not give the master set of "keys" to Peter, and to Peter alone, but retained for himself Master copy of that same set of keys. The early church understood this, which is part of why so many were aghast at Rome's clawing and grasping to declare for itself that they be appointed over all, even by God, doing so by conflating all concepts and past expression of "primacy" to get there --- which centuries later Newman had to declare to have been -- not there in the beginning -- but only in form of acorn.

It's like ---- a contract be written up -- then one party begins adding clauses, exemptions (for itself) while redefining words and phrases which once meant one thing (even to themselves) but now mean something just a bit subtly different --- but which difference has FAR reaching implications, going much much further than the mere adjusting of the word's connotative meanings (helped along by the added clauses and exemptions) would seemingly take it.

For that is what it boils down to, or often did, even as there is a kinder face now shown. It went from regional dominance, to asserting that same be the will of God (for themselves) the world over, without restraint other than that which they themselves would declare.

She is only restrained now --- because others will not allow her free roam, as much as she would, for she tells us what it is she wants, on these threads, those demands echoing from when Damasus first dialed up 1-800 THUGS FOR JESUS to place himself upon papal chair -- since that time, she has proven over and again that she cannot be trusted with unrestrained claims upon 'authority' any more than would be expected from anyone else (in the Kingdom) thus having brought upon herself the abiding suspicions and animosities many others still have for her.

Yet it seems that those who make some of the straightest, best and most honestly based open challenges often then go too far, such as in speaking of woman priests, or something even more far from traditions (both East & West of Rome -- the best which can be found in those) so seem in my eyes to have done more damage then if they had not pressured for return back to primary foundational principles and spirit in the first place...for Rome not only would bristle at any who would point out that she need reel back extent of many claims in regards to herself, but the exclusivity of those also.

Yet what occurs --- but a pointing towards some error in others "see, you are not perfect" before going right back to the "we" are the only perfect --- even after it's been shown her six ways from Sunday that that is simply not the truth...

Groundhog Day? you don't say.

Now I see the acorn appearing again (i did mention we woudl get to it, didn't I?). I damaged it (slightly) so you need go back and make rhetorical retrieval of some sort for it? Is that it?

It's the same 'ol song and dance.

The arguments you have brought to this thread, if one was paying attention, unfolded as much a retracing of how things got to where they are today, from Romanist perspective. Always massaging and polishing that which came before, draping it all in copious rhetoric of "explanation" while turning blind eyes and deaf ear to what is not wished to be seen or heard. Backwards-ville PRIDE, seemingly not capable of admitting to the slightest error (in some contexts) lest the facade and charade come to an end.

Rome -- inapproachable, save on her own terms. That is why she is so isolated, and is only now in the last century or so since the Reformation, coming to grips with it.

She has painted herself into a corner, with her own rhetoric concerning herself.

Whatever she has from God (not because of herself, but due to Grace) God Himself pours abundantly elsewhere, to all who would open themselves for it, to learn of it, and how too themselves forgive.

This is nothing new, other than the Good News itself, which was new for all of us when it came to us from the children of Israel. God bless 'em.

BlueDragon:

In all honesty, you do post and discuss things and don’t resort to dropping “20 scripture posts” in your post and trying to make them say what you want them to say or what you think they say. And you do refrain from the polemic labels. There are some here that I just don’t even bother posting and responding with or if I do, I seldom do so.

So while I don’t always agree with you, that is correct. I have developed a good deal of respect towards you. Can’t say that for many of the FR Prots here.

You and I have been here a long time and I think most people who have read my posts and dialogued/discussed Theology, Doctrine and Scripture with me realize that I am going to look at a theological issue and scripture thru the context of if it there is a Dogmatic Teaching via a Church Council and related Creed or Papal Definition. So any passage that speaks of God in the Bible or specifically to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I am going to look at those verses in lite of Trinitarian Doctrine and the Creed and I am going to try to reinterpret said verses.

If there something in scripture that relates to a Doctrine or the meaning of a passage is not clear, I will always do my best to go back ad read the great Theologians and Church Fathers to get an insight on how those passages are interpreted and thus construct my views in light of those writings.

That is just how I operate. I am always going to read the Scriptures in light of the rule of Faith of the Catholic Church, and if something in Scripture is not definitively linked or defined to a doctrine, then read it in a manner that is not inconsistent with the Rule of Faith of the Church is it is expressed in the Creed, Liturgy, etc.

And for the record, I do get a sense of what you are trying to convey. The Primacy of the Church of Rome should be operationalized and done in the spirit of Christian Love towards the other Churches, not in a sense of Domination. I at the same time can 100% affirm the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and thus the Church of Rome [and I do] while also recognize that at times the Bishop of Rome has not acted in a manner that was an inappropriate and even incorrect use of Primacy. For example, Victor, the Bishop of Rome in 189 to 199 was incorrect to impose a Roman custom on the celebration of Pascha [Easter] given there were other legitimate expressions of it also rooted in Apostolic Tradition, as Polycarp [a pupil of the Apostle John] told Anicetus [Bishop of Rome] in circa 155AD shortly before his Polycarp’s martyrdom. There can be “complimentary” Liturgical customs and prayer traditions and devotions and disciplines in the Catholic Church that are not all Roman but these complimentary Liturgical traditions are each legitimate expressions of the Faith, just not all Roman, some have their roots in Alexandria, some Antioch, some Byzantium, etc.

For the record, I can in theory see the Primacy of Rome operationalized in manner consistent with the first 1,000 years of Christendom in a hypothetically Restored Church of Full Communion between Rome and Constantinople and constructed along these lines:

1) Rome is the First See and thus no Ecumenical Council can be called except by Rome or with Rome’s approval
2)No Council is Ecumenical unless Rome ratifies it

3) Liturgical matters and prayer devotions, disciplinary and management of the Eastern Churches rests with the Eastern Bishops. If there is a dispute on some issue within the Eastern Churches on these matters, the highest ranking Eastern Bishops should resolve the matter, if the issue can’t be resolved, then Rome can be asked to be arbitrator between the Eastern Churches in disagreement over any said issue.

So what is an example for part 3, Rome can’t impose the Rosary as a prayer tradition on the Eastern Church, for it is a Roman prayer tradition. The Stations of the Cross is a Roman Lenten Prayer Tradition, and Rome imposing it on the Eastern Churches Prayer Traditions would be inappropriate. Now, if the Eastern Churches on their own adopt the Roman style of Stations of the Cross into their Lent Liturgical season, that is different.

Sorry for the long post but I do get the sense of what you were trying to convey and I hope my post above was seen as an honest discussion to actually express some agreement with your concerns regarding misuses or inappropriate uses of the concept of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but at the same time it confirms that I do believe and accept the Primacy of the Bishop and thus Church of Rome and the necessity of being in communion with it.

That's painfully close, but in part painful for reason this capital "P" primacy idea, was an "idea" of men, not of instituted by God, for when Christ walked the earth in human form and was able to answer directly, in more than one place in the scriptures, He warned or led us against considering such things -- in such manner, for although it [the above] does sound nice, not dominating and the like, the very capitalization of the word primacy shows us a much different face, all at the same time, with such as the term operationalized giving away the game -- that game being the same as ever, Rome not giving one inch in regards to it's own demand that it be accepted as foremost among all, for all time. "Period" as has otherwise been much repeated...

No, I cannot agree to things, on terms such as those. If any misled in this regard (I'm shaking my head, at this point wondering), then they can believe what they will, as to their own, and I will yet speak for myself, even as God's own gift(s) allows...and also requires, come what may...

We (the Christian world, as it was) went from some late 3rd & 4th centuries notions of actual and effective primacy being in several places, to primacy+ for one, and then to capital "P" Primacy for only one, with the "only one" pushing for that, doing so not for some other, but for itself/themselves. That's a shorthand version of how the notion of singular primacy flowered (like one of those stink-flowers?) into being.

Better for all to recall that in the upper room, they all sat at the same table with Him. Even there, they dipped their hands to the same dish, Judas too, Christ speaking of Judas doing so having been the manner in which he foretold who it was that be a devil among them. I cannot help but to consider they didn't quite understand at the time, for they had all been sopping from the same dish as it were...

Forgive me for raising objection on this thread, when I had just previous said I would no further -- yet that had been in some acquiescence to just drop the matter, on this thread. But I tell you what. It's not over. No, the things you have "declared" truth (but which many of are not, being untrue for how they are being sought to apply) do not "stand" for some reason that I did not go chasing down all the bunny-trails, capturing each little rabbit (item of argumentation) and wringing all the scrawny necks. Attempting to do so, I know from experience (and from recent dream) leads one to cross paths also with deadly, fanged vipers -- which even if one amputate one's own right hand high at the wrist, can still leave poison enough to kill.

I should have known--- in fact did suspect that it would not be the end of it, and that your previous was something of a polite effort to get me to agree to having one or both hands tied behind my back, while you once again restated you own views, but did not quite expect the wresting of my own agreement to them -- by restating my own "view" in your own words, for you had led me to believe we had both said enough...

While I could offer some thanks for yourself being polite about it, the methodology displayed throughout this thread as on others where we had been continuing this same or similar conversation, itself highlights the difficulties with any type of discussion or hopes of finding agreement with those of Rome --- for by every twist and turn imaginable and then some, it is sought for all to bow to Romish preeminence with nothing holding that in check but as I have previously said --"the goodness of their (Romanist) hearts".

Getting my own views a bit wrong --- though I am condemning the effort for what I see as some aspects of the "getting" --- I can otherwise also forgive you for that, for towards the latter portion of our discussion here, it had turned to some contemplation of rapprochement, that of the Latin Church with all others.

"They" may be able to dictate to those amid their own ecclesiastical community -- but no one else much cares for that, and for good reasons, though those may be mixed in with some not-so-good, which was how the world got into this fix, in the first place -- that very mixing of the holy with unholiness of the worst sort --- which worst is the type engaged in, in God's own name.

Where considerations along lines such as the above may leave negotiations, say between Rome, and those also ancient ekklesia traditions, is anyone's guess.

Yet such as you outlined [highlighted at the top of this note] --- what is it but Rome's current & best pipedream? But with this engaged in when she cannot more simply just swallow them whole? For they certainly do show propensity for that in the manner Ordinariates were established among a few Anglican congregations, a setting up of Romeward tilt within buildings and amongst congregations -- if majority vote of congregation could be secured to lean towards it -- but which will be those persons last say on much of anything beyond management of cupcake/bake sale committee.

Very well then. Here again on these FR RF pages, is The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 Compiled by William Webster, himself adding or declaring such work as his there as being The Most Extensive Documentation of the Patristic Understanding of the Rock of Matthew 16 in the English Language, Spanning the Third to the Eighth Centuries.

The latter above italicized may be bold talk (and I take it Webster not exactly a one-eyed fatman?) but if the boldly declared be not true --- then feel free to show us all (Webster included) differently.

Any other sort of talk focusing only upon those times and places where support for some concept such as Petrine Primacy be passed only to one gathering or location of ekklesia --- only one "church" among the several (or seven? going all the way back to the seven lamps in original sanctuary, with that tent, being much literally inside yet a larger tent of sorts) can be easily enough falsified when going back to the earliest of those who are referred to as Church Fathers.

I added ping to GPH for this last note, for reason that in the flow of things here, this seeming agreement we had between ourselves (to stop arguing?) I do hope didn't lead to his own last reply to yourself be fully ignored, for in that reply there can be foundation found also in information found at the link to Webter's gathering of patristic exegesis of Matthew 16.

As Mel Brooks would say --- ~~intense~~ 'In tents'. bwahahaa

BlueDragon:

And I understand you can’t agree to my understanding of Primacy. I was recognizing your concerns and trying to address them and my suggestion of a change in the operationalization or Function of the Bishop of Rome with said Primacy with respect to the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. I made no such suggestions as to the Catholic Church and Protestantism. My suggestions were in light of your own recognition that Professor Pelikan, while he went back to his Orthodox Roots, was someone who had wished the Orthodox and Catholic Church had made more progress towards reunion. Again, my suggestions were in the context of Rome and the Orthodox East.

The Anglican Ordinaries, as you mentioned were set up by Rome at the request of those Anglicans and they have been allowed to retain much of their Liturgical Heritage that developed since the 16th century from the form of the Roman Rite that was celebrated then [Sarum-Rite Liturgy]. So, Rome did not impose the Roman-Rite Liturgy on the Ordinariate, rather, it allowed them to keep their Liturgy and only make adjustments at the margins to it to ensure doctrinal consistency with the broader Catholic Church.

Again, we will not agree on this question no surprise. However, as I stated in my last few posts, my “polite” posts were in fact an attempt to dial down the heat in this thread. My last post, as this, were not written in a debate counter point fashion, but as an attempt to make a suggestion as to how Rome and the Orthodox could find reunion, which Prof. Pelikan’s Op-ed clearly was about, as you yourself admitted.

So, I am done with the debate, point, counter point posts in this thread.

Perhaps I should need confess, that despite the kind words of another here --- I am among the polemists. For despite my own desires for unity of all [persons] possibly able to be able to open their own doors, to Christ who stands and knocks, I also can be at times and places, in almost every note, polemical. I certainly was in that recent [larger] one, firing zingers to the end, reaching back to other previous 'arguments', to declare my puny little self winner of those also.

But to what effect? Why? I do not require anyone much to leave the RCC, for Christ can be truly found there (if one searches the proper quarters, not confusing the pathways or methods with the 'inner room' at the end of the best hallways) I do believe, and we do hear testimony for --- which when checking carefully enough, those testimonies can align well enough with many other [testimonies] to be very much shared witness, as to Him, and what He is like...

Yet too, as many of our counterparts are, very much wishing for us to be all united in Christ, for all those outside the bounds of their own fellowship, to know Him as they may do, (*some* anyway? the historical record along with present-day witness does indicate such to be true also) regardless of all the various sins of mankind in evidence wherever one cared to much look.

In this it can be agreed that the church (disagreement in definitions of what composes that notwithstanding) is indeed infallibly led, but with a persistently nagging problem being "it" not infallibly following.

I speak here of the Lord Himself, the One Good Shepherd, not those who may be able to become transparent/invisible enough, that all of that which is more themselves (thus not God) is set enough aside, any remaining clearly enough delineated as to what that is, that purer untainted Word of the Lord can be clearly heard, even as He at times can use persons as his instruments...wherever they may be found among the ekklesia.

Meanwhile, persons like myself, with our own personality flaws, like veins of differing mineral within, can be singularly (that word again, lol) known by their own inherent flaws as it were, but if well polished enough can hold interest and value.

May we all be as lively stones of the sort He Himself gather and collect, for He was the one who breathed life upon and into them all, as from our own genesis as "man".

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.

Remembering the Early Church

Lately, I have been hearing a lot about how the primitive Church was not Roman Catholic.