Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

A number of years ago, Albert Sundberg wrote a well-known article arguing that the early church fathers did not see inspiration as something that was uniquely true of canonical books.[1] Why? Because, according to Sundberg, the early Church Fathers saw their own writings as inspired. Ever since Sundberg, a number of scholars have repeated this claim, insisting that the early fathers saw nothing distinctive about the NT writings as compared to writings being produced in their own time period.

However, upon closer examination, this claim proves to be highly problematic. Let us consider several factors.

First, the early church fathers repeatedly express that the apostles had a distinctive authority that was higher and separate from their own. So, regardless of whether they viewed themselves as “inspired” in some sense, we have to acknowledge that they still viewed the inspiration/authority of the apostles as somehow different.

A few examples should help. The book of 1 Clement not only encourages its readers to “Take up the epistle of that blessed apostle, Paul,”[2] but also offers a clear reason why: “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ.”[3] In addition the letter refers to the apostles as “the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church.”[4]

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, also recognizes the unique role of the apostles as the mouthpiece of Christ, “The Lord did nothing apart from the Father…neither on his own nor through the apostles.”[5] Here Ignatius indicates that the apostles were a distinct historical group and the agents through which Christ worked. Thus, Ignatius goes out of his way to distinguish own authority as a bishop from the authority of the apostles, “I am not enjoining [commanding] you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”[6]

Justin Martyr displays the same appreciation for the distinct authority of the apostles, “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number…by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God.”[7] Moreover, he views the gospels as the written embodiment of apostolic tradition, “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[8]

Likewise, Irenaeus views all the New Testament Scriptures as the embodiment of apostolic teaching: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”[9] Although this is only a sampling of patristic writers (and more could be added), the point is clear. The authoritative role of the apostles was woven into the fabric of Christianity from its very earliest stages.

Second, there is no indication that the early church fathers, as a whole, believed that writings produced in their own time were of the same authority as the apostolic writings and thus could genuinely be contenders for a spot in the NT canon. On the contrary, books were regarded as authoritative precisely because they were deemed to have originated fom the apostolic time period.

A couple of examples should help. The canonical status of the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected by the Muratorian fragment (c.180) on the grounds that was produced “very recently, in our own times.”[10] This is a clear indication that early Christians did not see recently produced works as viable canonical books.

Dionysius of Corinth (c.170) goes to great lengths to distinguish his own letters from the “Scriptures of the Lord” lest anyone get the impression he is composing new canonical books (Hist. eccl. 4.23.12). But why would this concern him if Christians in his own day (presumably including himself) were equally inspired as the apostles and could produce new Scriptures?

The anonymous critic of Montanism (c.196), recorded by Eusebius, shares this same sentiment when he expresses his hesitancy to produce new written documents out of fear that “I might seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.3). It is hard to avoid the sense that he thinks newly published books are not equally authoritative as those written by apostles.

Third, and finally, Sundberg does not seem to recognize that inspiration-like language can be used to describe ecclesiastical authority—which is real and should be followed—even though that authority is subordinate to the apostles. For instance, the writer of 1 Clement refers to his own letters to the churches as being written “through the Holy Spirit.”[11] While such language certainly could be referring to inspiration like the apostles, such language could also be referring to ecclesiastical authority which Christians believe is also guided by the Holy Spirit (though in a different manner).

How do we know which is meant by Clement? When we look to the overall context of his writings (some of which we quoted above), it is unmistakenly clear that he puts the apostles in distinct (and higher) category than his own. We must use this larger context to interpret his words about his own authority. Either Clement is contradicting himself, or he sees his own office as somehow distinct from the apostles.

In sum, we have very little patristic evidence that the early church fathers saw their own “inspiration” or authority as on par with that of the apostles. When they wanted definitive teaching about Jesus their approach was always retrospective—they looked back to that teaching which was delivered by the apostles.

Greetings:

That is your view of Lecture 23, Mine contradicts yours. The Letter describes in essence the Catholic Liturgy, it is very heavy in Eucharistic Doctrine, has a Catholic/Eastern Orthodox understanding of ministry, prayers for the Dead, In fact, what he wrote looks just like the Catholic Liturgy I attended last night. Again, in closing that Catechetical Letter [which means teaching or instruction] he closes with the directive “Keep these Traditions inviolate”

As for Jerome, there was never any duress for him to translate the Deuterocanonicals. Even a Reformed polemist like Schaff in his Introductory Letter regarding Jerome states his strong defense for the Hierarchical Church and in particular the Pope of Rome. Jerome was a man of the Church, not one to come up with his own Church. That would be left for Luther and Calvin.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.iv.I.html

Jerome in the 4th century yes, given the Jewish scholars in the Holy Land and their views of the LXX did question them. But he was in the minority in terms of those who even questioned them. Again, the Anglican Church History Scholar, JND Kelley in his word Early Christian Doctrines writes:

“In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement [3, 4; 27, 5] and Barnabas [6, 7], and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclesiasticus in the latter. [12, 1; 19, 9] Polycarp [10, 2] cites Tobit, and the Didache [4, 5] [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 26, 3; Book IV, cap. 38, 3; Book V, cap. 5, 2; Book V, cap. 35, 1] Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary [page 54])

Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant [Preface to Sam. and Mal.] that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha,’ not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded [Preface to Sal.] that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. (page. 55)

So as I stated again, the questioning of the Deutercanonicals is the very minority view and in the end, Jerome stayed Loyal to the Church. Jerome’s minority view did not win out and for the record, the Eastern Orthodox retain the Deueterocanonicals as well, in fact some of them include 3 and 4 Maccabees. Now how they view them in terms of principles of canonicity, I don’t know. For the Orthodox a book can be canonical if it is read in the Liturgy and/or if used to define Doctrine. Some books may be canonical under both, some only 1, but they do include the deuterocanonicals among their OT canon.

And the word Retractiones used by Augustine only means reconsiderations, revisions is only a stretch of mine, but I am not sure it can loosely mean that. The most literal meaning is reconsiderations. I stand by that statement. Augustine did not Retract anything.

Apostolic Sees did have authority, among them Rome was more authority than others, the only 2 that had authority that could be considered close to Rome was Alexandria and Antioch.

However Saint Augustine interpreted Peters Confession or his Person with respect to Matthew 16:16-18 is not relevant to the reality that Augustine recognized the Rome as chief apostolic see. You will see no statements to the contrary on that no matter how long you try to search. I have read most of Augustines works. No rejection of Rome as chief apostolic See. In fact, you will see over and over gain, the opposite

Sermon 131 where Augustine, when referring to the Pelagians states 2 Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See and there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end, would that the error too might sometime be at an end. [This is the famous sermon that is put in a concise Rome has Spoken]. I am not going to get into all that debate but it does show Saint Augustine saw Rome having authority. In his Letter to Generosus, 400D, he speaks of Peter and his confession of faith and then lists the Succession of the Bishops of Rome and among them, no Donatists will be found.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 both defined the Canon the same way as was done earlier during Pope Damasus time and which was done by Pope Innocent’s Letter of 405 sent to Bishop Exsuperius. Saint Augustine was a signer of those Canons and decrees and it directed that its Decrees be sent to the “Church beyond the sea to confirm this canon” [That Church was Rome]

The Council at Carthage in 419 again, as its 2 predecessors, state that its decrees should be sent to Boniface, Pope and Bishop of Rome.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

Now, I will not type all of Pope Innocent I Letter sent to Bishop Exsuperius but the canon their is no different than what the “Decree of Damasus” which you claim doesn’t exist, it is no different than the canons of Hippo and Carthage. So Innocent’s Letter is confirmation of an already established 46OT and 27NT in Rome as of 405 which suggest it was already in place before Innocent became Pope as the tone of the Letter states “A short annotation shows what books are to be accepted as canonical...”The tone seems like it was not a matter of debate in Rome by that time.

With respect to Rome not being an Apostolic see. Really, You? It was an Apostolic see because both Peter and Paul were martyred there. That is why? There is no dispute on that by any Church Father that both Peter and Paul went to Rome to build up that Church and both were martyred in Rome. I challenge either you to find any Father that says otherwise. Even if you do not see the structure of the text in Canon 6 of Nicea as indicating Rome had an earlier established primacy than Alexandria and Antioch, the mere fact that Nicea mentions Rome and the other 2 Sees as having Primacy is in and off itself confirmation they are Apostolic Sees. And why, because all had some connection to Saint Peter.

Now, back to Jerome and the Vulgate. I never said he was censured. There was apparently some criticism of him going around in Rome. He actually writes to Saint Augustine and asks him about his role in this and whether he [Augustine] wrote a letter against Jerome. Augustine said he was critical of Jerome, but not against him. The tow ironed out their differences and remained friends. I don’t know who was criticizing Jerome, perhaps some clergy in Rome who did not like him. It doesn’t matter, no Pope ever criticized him

You state there was no Synod at Rome in 382 and a Decree of Damasus. Nonsense, There are 3 parts that are extant. Even the Gelasian Decree, a 5th century editing of the decree, is viewed legitimate. And as I noted earlier, Pope Innocent, who became Pope in 401 and who succeeded Damasus [died in 384] by 17 years, wrote a letter to a Bishop in Gaul detailing in pretty direct language the Canon.

There were 2 Councils held in Constantinopile, one in 381 and 1 in 382, which would have occurred around the same time as the “Council in Rome”. Constantinopile 381 would be recognized as an Ecumenical Council not until the Council of Ephesus in 431. In both of those 2 Councils, there is internal evidence of a Council in Rome around the same time, well one is clear evidence, the Opening Synod Letter speaks of a council in Rome and in the Canons of 381 Constantinopile, there is mention of a Tome from the Western Church, which in all likelihood that this was the Tome/Decree of Pope Damasus. In particular, given Canon 3 at Constantinople which now put that Bishop ahead of Alexandria and Antioch, when one reads Pope Damasus, that Tome very likely indeed is his for it says,

“The First See, therefore is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church...The second See is Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by Peter, and he preached the word of truth and was gloriously martyred. The third honorable see is Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christian was first applied. [Fr. Jurgens, Faith of our Fathers, Volume 1, pp.406-407”

And no, scholars don’t all agree with the guy you cite. For example, the article on the NT canon at Newadvent speaks of the Decrees of Damasus, and yes while some of it does date to the 6th century, not all of the decrees are from that time and some are from an earlier date again, internal evidence from the Council of Constantinopile in 381 and 382 speak of a Council in Rome and a Tome from the Western Church.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/3809.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

As for the quote regarding 3 proofs from scripture, rather than 7 is from this statement in Saint Jerome’s Letter number 51:7

7. “Instead of the three proofs from Holy Scripture which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, behold I have given you seven.”

I linked it earlier, you can read it if you like. And Wisdom 2:23 is quoted, do I need to quote it for you or can you find a Catholic bible on-line and will what work for you. It is a quote from Wisdom 2:23

http://newadvent.org/fathers/3809.htm

That is your view of Lecture 23, Mine contradicts yours...he closes with the directive “Keep these Traditions inviolate”

Since you've been using Kelly alot, here he is again on Cyril et al., confirming my point, even touching on the liturgy:

"'The Holy and inspired Scriptures," wrote Athanasius a century later 'are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth"; while his contemporary Cyril of Jerusalem laid it down that "with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine scriptures....For our saving faith derives its force not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible." Later, in the same century, John Chrysostom bade congregations to seek no other teacher than the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum of necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. In the west, Augustine declared that "in the plain teachings of scripture we find all the concerns of belief and moral conduct". A little later, Vincent of Lerins took it as an axiom that "the scriptural canon was sufficient and more than sufficient for all purposes." (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, p. 42-43).

"It was every where taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its scriptural basis... The creed itself, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine and Cassian, was a compendium of scripture. An exception to this general attitude might seem to be Basil's reliance... upon tradition as embedded in the liturgy, rather than upon scripture, to demonstrate the full deity of the Holy Spirit. Even he, however, makes it crystal clear, in the very discussion in question, that there is no contradiction between unwritten tradition and the Gospel, for in their traditionally transmitted teaching the fathers have only been following what scripture itself implied." (ibid., p.46-7) As for Jerome, there was never any duress for him to translate the Deuterocanonicals.

He certainly felt he was forced, and says so directly. However, considering how he openly compared their "judgment" as siding with heretics, (and they, in turn, accepted his prefaces along with those books labeling them apocrypha), and then confesses to doing it the quick and lazy way, it certainly is an interesting reaction to have to that "force" which you put so much weight on. It says a lot that Jerome felt the freedom to behave that way in the first place, and even more interesting is that his view was tolerated and even sanctioned in copies of his translation for centuries thereafter.

Jerome in the 4th century yes, given the Jewish scholars in the Holy Land and their views of the LXX did question them.

The Jews were always absolutely correct in their views on what is and isn't part of the canon. After all, the oracles of God had been entrusted to them. Texts like Judith, for example, which have incredible historical errors such as making Nebuchadnezzar to come from Nineveh, are obviously not inspired. This is what makes the Papist insistence of holding to them, despite the history of canon from the Jews and church Fathers such as Jerome and on and on and on, even more absurd.

But he was in the minority in terms of those who even questioned them. Again, the Anglican Church History Scholar, JND Kelley in his word Early Christian Doctrines writes:

Kelly makes clumsy errors such as citing the "Council of Jamnia," which, perhaps at the time of the writing was taken more seriously, but which is no longer seen as actually even being a real thing. He also assumes apriori that the apocrypha belong in the canon (so much for being protestant on the issue!). Kelly still manages to confess, however, the united front of the Jews to the apocrypha, as well as my conclusions on Cyril, Athanasius, and the others, and even adds the names of Hilary, John Chrysostom, and others. I will state that Kelly makes the dubious conclusion that the "majority" were with him and the Papists in defense of the apocrypha, but names none save Augustine, and all his citations of church fathers are entirely with me. He also dismisses the authority of the Jews, since, allegedly, Jerome relied too heavily on scholarly considerations when rejecting the apocrypha. (IOW, too heavily on the facts.) Kelly is with me in the conclusions that Jerome never changed his views on the apocrypha, and that Cyril relegated the apocrypha to a secondary status. See the entire section on this area. To conclude, Kelly is more "grudgingly" with me than he is with you.

The most literal meaning is reconsiderations. I stand by that statement. Augustine did not Retract anything.

Augustine even explicitly explains the change in question. You can stand by your statement, but you can't get out of the problem.

Apostolic Sees did have authority, among them Rome was more authority than others,

To remind you not to drift too far away into your delusions: You will not find this in Augustine's writings, but the exact opposite actually, as already quoted. You should reply to the quotations, rather than hoping that they are forgotten and that your bluffs are believed instead.

However Saint Augustine interpreted Peters Confession or his Person with respect to Matthew 16:16-18 is not relevant to the reality that Augustine recognized the Rome as chief apostolic see.

We must point out that there are two different ideas of "primacy," one of honor, which is the Eastern view, and then the Catholic view: One of not honor, but of supremacy, requiring all the churches to be unified with them in order to even BE a church. Whether Augustine acknowledged Roman claims of being the "rock" is most certainly relevant, since Matthew 16:16-18 is the basis for Rome's claims to a primacy beyond that of "honor," but of being the sole head of the church. Rome enjoyed an "honor of primacy" in the limited sense of being the capital of the empire in those days, but not one that they could force their dictates over others: This type of power Augustine most certainly rejects, as seen in his defense of Cyprian and in his teachings on the authority of all the Apostolic Sees, and in giving to all Bishops and their churches the title of "Christian."

If you claim that Augustine favored the Roman view of supremacy, even though he had no theological reason to do so (as you seem to concede), please present that evidence.

the only 2 that had authority that could be considered close to Rome was Alexandria and Antioch.

As a matter of fact, even Pope Gregory regarded them as having an equal authority, with no sense of them being "lesser," as they also held the "throne of Peter." This idea of them being lesser is merely your invention:

ding to the Catechism, the Roman Bishop is:

882 ... the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403 883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404

It was this same idea of “General Father” or a ‘Universal Bishop” that Gregory condemned in the then Bishop of Constantinople who had taken the title Universal Bishop:

“Consider, I pray you, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless you yourself wilt have power to grow so far as you determine with yourself to do so. And you will become by so much the greater as you restrain yourself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and you will make advance in proportion as you are not bent on arrogation by derogation of your brethren. Wherefore, dearest brother, with all your heart love humility, through which the concord of all the brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved. Certainly the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ 1 Corinthians 1:13, regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord’s body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High Isaiah 14:13.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm

It wasn’t until one of Gregory’s successors, Boniface III, that the Roman Bishop petitioned the emperor for the title of Universal that they enjoy today.

Some Catholics can read this letter and say that Gregory only condemned the title, but not the power they claim he still possessed. However, there are other instances where Gregory could have embraced his power as “universal” Bishop of the entire church. While at this time the idea of the “Primacy of Peter” was in vogue, yet this same primacy was not translated to a supremacy over the entire church. And, in fact, there wasn’t just one person who held the “throne” of Peter; according to Gregory, it was held by one Apostolic see ruled by divine authority by THREE separate Bishops, which is that of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. This is a view absolutely fatal to Catholicism, as they do not recognize multiple successors of Peter. Here is the letter in full, but first I am going to quote the RCC abuse of it:

The link to the whole letter first http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

Now here are the Roman quotations of this letter, wherein they assert that Gregory is a champion of the Primacy of Rome. Take special note of the clever use of ellipses:

Pope Gregory I

“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

I provide their versions of the quotations only to highlight for you the parts they omit. And, really, there is no reason for them to omit them. The lines they remove are small sentences, and then they continue quoting right after they finish. It’s quite an embarrassing display!

In this letter, Gregory is specifically attributing to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch the “Chair of Peter” and its authority that they bestowed upon him. In the first quotation, the Romans omit the sentence which says: “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, [they omit here] yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. [They rebegin here]” After telling them about the “special honor” that is respectively given to both parties, Gregory immediately goes into a discussion on what that special honor is... which is the authority of Peter they all enjoy:

“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.”

Notice how different this reads when one does not omit what the Romans omit! Gregory declares that the See of Peter is one see... but in THREE places, over which THREE Bishops preside, which is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, the latter of which he was now writing to.

So while the Romans insist that the Primacy of Peter refers to the Bishop of Rome, Gregory applies the Primacy of Peter to ALL the major Bishops of the See. They are, in effect, ALL the Church of Peter, having received the succession from him and possess his chair and authority.

And Gregory, of course, isn’t alone in this. Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:

“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

In fact, what I have presented here are the principle arguments of the Eastern Orthodox, the other guys who claim to be the One true Holy and Apostolic church of God on Earth.

I am not going to get into all that debate but it does show Saint Augustine saw Rome having authority.

The question isn't "does Rome have authority?" It is, "Does Rome have authority over all the universal church, and above all other churches with authority?"

You're repeating your false claim on Damasus even though I already took care of that. What we do know, however, is that Damasus commissioned Jerome and accepted his prefaces in the copies of his translation which rendered those books useless for the confirmation of doctrine. There was no "synod of Rome" where these books were officially recognized by the church, there was only the "judgment" of the "Pope" to use Jerome's work. Pope Innocent lists the "canon," possibly without the Epistle to the Hebrews, but does not settle the controversy: Whether, as Cardinal Catejan put it almost a thousand years later, they are canonical in a limited sense, for the edification of morals, or canonical "for the confirmation of doctrine."

This is interesting. Since when is primacy given based on where the Apostle died, and not where he ordained the Bishop of Rome? Having people die in Rome is no basis for establishing its primacy of headship over the church. The keys to the Kingdom did not just fall off his corpse for some random person to pick up. When you say that THEY built up the church, that is easily disputed, and the Fathers are far from being consistent on the matter on whether any building went along. I'll also add that a primacy based on both Peter and Paul is not the primacy of Matthew 16 that Rome appeals to. The testimony of the Fathers on where Peter even was and when is quite divided amongst them, and contradictory to the scripture account.

“We read in the Chronicle of Eusebius, at the year 43, that Peter, after founding the Church of Antioch, was sent to Rome, where he preached the Gospel for twenty-five years, and was Bishop of that city. But this part of the Chronicle does not exist in the Greek, nor in the Armenian, and it is supposed to have been one of the additions made by Jerome. Eusebius does not say the same in any other part of his writings, though he mentions St. Peter’s going to Rome in the reign of Claudius: but Jerome tells us that he came in the second year of this emperor, and held the See twenty-five years. On the other hand, Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius himself, says that Peter went to Rome towards the end of his life: and Lactantius places it in the reign of Nero, and adds that he suffered martyrdom not long after.” http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-eusebius-say-peter-was-bishop-of.html

Now it does not appear that either Peter or Paul founded the church in Rome at all, since all the Biblical evidence points to believers already being in Rome, without any mention of their founding pastor. If it were an Apostle who had founded the church in Rome, it is illogical that Paul would not have at least mentioned him or wrote to him if he were the head of all the churches. This is what the Roman Catholic Joseph Fitzmyer concedes here:

“…Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the “superfine apostles” who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].

If what Jerome wrote of Eusebius is correct, then Peter would have been in Rome when Paul had written the epistle to the Romans, which is reckoned to have been written around 58AD. When Paul does write to them, he writes only to the members of the church, some by name, but none about its reigning pastor who was supposedly the head of the church.

Not even the supposed successor of Peter, Clement (or the epistle that has his name) is any reference made either to the primacy of Peter (he is instead listed with the other Apostles as fellow workers) or to his own primacy as Pope over the church!

Ingatius, in his letter to Polycarp, writes to his fellow Bishop greeting him thus: “to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp).

Now this cannot be so if the Pope is the “perpetual” head of the church, whom all local Bishops must submit to. In Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, he does not even write to or mention its Bishop, even though he had written to the Bishop of every church he had before written to.

In Irenaeus, deeper into the second century, builds the church of Rome on Peter and Paul, whom he writes ordained Bishops of their own, and not founded upon the authority of only one of them.

Even into the 6th or 7th centuries, when the idea of the Primacy of Peter was more developed, was it even defined in the same way that Rome does today.

Even if you do not see the structure of the text in Canon 6 of Nicea as indicating Rome had an earlier established primacy than Alexandria and Antioch,

And yet, the histories reported by some of the Fathers place Peter in Antioch, and setting up Bishops there, before he went to Rome!

Now, back to Jerome and the Vulgate. I never said he was censured.

Of necessity, if Jerome's views were unacceptable, not only must he be censored, but his prefaces ought not be included with the scripture, lest his views taint the authority of the apocrypha. This is only logical. That the exact opposite happened, that his views were provided with the copies, is proof that his views prevailed in the West.

In both of those 2 Councils, there is internal evidence of a Council in Rome around the same time, well one is clear evidence, the Opening Synod Letter speaks of a council in Rome and in the Canons of 381

You are free to provide this evidence with accurate citations for me to check. Of the document itself, it is not regarded by all scholars as being what you claim.

More misdirection: I obviously told you before. More than 7 sources are cited. Can you show me that Wisdom is part of that 7, and which ones are not part of that 7?

Cyril of Jerusalem does not hold to Sola Scriptura, no Church Father did. Now, I will use Pelikan this time and just use a short quote “In the Anti-Nicene Church...there was no notion of sola Scriptura, but neither was there a doctrine of tradition sola” Pelikan points out that Liturgical practice and prayers, exegetical material, etc, were all part of Tradition....Pelikan states that Ireneaus, with respect to this Apostolic Tradition saw Christ was both the origin and content of Tradition. Christ got it from the Father and gave it to the Apostles who gave it to the Church....He compares that Tradition to the Gnostics and he states “so palpable was this apostolic tradition that even if the apostles had not left behind the scriptures to serve as normative evidence of their doctrine, the church would still be in position to follow “the structure of tradition which they handed on to those to whom they committed the Churches”

Pelikan continues and points that the anti-Gnostic Fathers used the early Creedal statements of faith as integral elements in the determination and demonstration of apostolic continuity. These statements were integral for continuity before, during, and after the establishment of the NT canon: before, in order that Christians might have the essentials of faith assured to them; during, so that a principle of discrimination might enable the church to sort out the writings claiming apostolic sanction; and after, because the canon of the New Testament was too long and complex to act as standard of faith and needed to be condensed into a rule or rule of faith. The term “rule of faith” did not always refer to Creeds and confessions, and seems to have meant the “tradition,” sometimes the Scriptures and sometimes the message of the Gospel. [Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100-600AD, pp. 115-177]

Now this is from Pelikan and yes he is speaking of the Pre-Nicene Church, but as he states, there was no “sola Scriptura” or “sola Tradition” but Apostolic Tradition was One, which was expressed via Liturgy, Creeds and confessions, and Scripture, and other exegetical material [I assume the writings of the anti-Gnostic Fathers, as he quotes many of them in this section]

So scriptures being sufficient to teach the faith is not an endorsement of Sola scriptura.

I have been through it with Jerome already. He was a loyal Catholic, so if you see in duress force, I don’t. He saw Rome as his Mother Church and was loyal to Popes and corresponded with Popes even after he left Rome when Damasus died.

I understand the concept of Primacy is viewed differently in the East vs. the West. Rome did have a primacy, I can go to Pelikan’s Spirit of Eastern Christendom and go through his work again. In short, he states, Rome was on the side of every matter that was orthodox, and it became apparent early on whatever side Rome took was going to win. He also points out that no council was viewed as universal unless the Bishop of Rome approved it and that Rome could veto a canon on its own and it would carry weight with the entire Church.

So the debate of the role and Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome is actually a legitimate one, but there is not debate that Rome had a “Primacy” . the only question is the nature of that Primacy in terms of how it is to be exercised. I am well aware that Alexandria and Antioch had connections to Peter, I pointed that out with what Fr. Jurgens calls a legitimate statement from Damasus regarding the 3 major sees, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, all connected to Saint Peter. Gregory is only repeating what the early Church already new. Nothing new here nothing earth shattering.

So how Rome exercises Primacy in a hypothetical reunited Rome and Orthdodox Church, good question, probably something of the order as outlined by Pelikan Volume 2 or what one can extract from it.

As for all you write about Rome and early Church, yes, nobody knows he first founded the Church. But Peter and Paul went there, built it to what it was when they both died there.

As for Jerome and his prefaces, no, the Church could allow him to write his views on the scriptures. That was well within the bounds so to speak. What he could not do, and remain Catholic, was to translate the Bible not in accordance with Tradition of what Scriptures have been used.

Now, this debate about canonicity only proves the point I have made, the Bible and what it should entail was a messy process. Again, the principles of canonicity were generally 4, for the NT 1) Apostolic origin, 2)Read in Liturgy, 3) Universal acceptance, 4) Consensus of Message of the Faith.

Some made it on all 4, those like 1 Peter, Acts, 4 Gospels, and the Pauline Corpus. Some like the Hebrews were debated for a long time [can’t make it on 1], some did not read it in Church, so not 2, etc, James, Revelation, 2 Peter, some of John’s epistles also shared the same fate as Hebrews.

So during the debates over canonicity, some might have argued that NT books that met all 4 were more canonical than others, some viewed canonicity strictly on “what was read in the Church” for it was read in Church, it was de facto teaching doctrine via the Liturgy.

As for the evidence you asked, I thought I linked the Councils of Constantinopile, both 381 and 382. In one of them, the opening Letter mentions the Council in Rome being held and that Constantinopile sends that council greetings. In another one, there is a mention of a Tome from the West. Now, that Tome is not defined, but it does mention a Tome from the West. This, some Catholic scholars argue, could likely be the Decree of Pope Damasus where he reminds the Bishops that gathered there that ROme, Alexandria and Antioch are the 3 major sees given their connection to Peter. I thought I had cited that statement earlier

As for the quote of Wisdom 2:23. If you go to P. Schaff’s translation of the letter, he had well documented footnotes and I think he cites this passage. I know the translation of Jerome’s Letter here at Newadvent cites it.

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.