What you actually mean is: The status of the apocrypha were not yet sorted. The Papists, when put to a corner, want us to think there was no scripture at all, just confusion and madness. Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and other early writers, have hundreds upon hundreds of quotations from the New Testament. Even before the end of the first century, all the Gospels were well known and gladly used. Even when Rome rejected Hebrews, and the Greeks began to look down at John's Revelation in Jerome's time, the church at large had a long history with these books long before the imbeciles set to work molesting these writings:
"This must be said to our people, that the epistle which is entitled "To the Hebrews" is accepted as the apostle Paul's not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times, although many judge it to be by Barnabas or by Clement. It is of no great moment who the author is, since it is the work of a churchman and receives recognition day by day in the public reading of the churches. If the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical scriptures, neither, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks accept John's Apocalypse. Yet we accept them both, not following the custom of the present time but the precedent of early writers, who generally make free use of testimonies from both works. And this they do, not as they are wont on occasion to quote from apocryphal writings, as indeed they use examples from pagan literature, but treating them as canonical and churchly works." (Jerome, Letter to Dardanus, prefect of Gaul (Ad Dardanum, no. 129 § 3). A.D. 414.)
Nothing you cite goes against primacy.
Notice what's missing: The "why". You're avoiding like crazy whether the Church Fathers agreed with Rome's doctrine of the Papacy. This is founded on Matt 16, with Peter being the "rock." If you do not have this, you have nothing. A "primacy" not of supremacy, but of honor, based on an alleged foundation of the church under both Peter and Paul, is a victory for me in every way.
Primacy was operational as early as Clement of Rome in the late 1st century [it was a mustard seed, to use the NT image, but it is there]. For if he had no primacy at all, the Church of Corinth would have told Clement to get lost.
There is nothing in Clement that supports your claims, and certainly even the writer of Clement would not have believed it. As the Roman Catholic theologian Klaus Schatz, promoting his "development of the papacy" theory, concedes:
"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy, page 3, top)
And he's not the only one (the above citation, and all that follows, is stolen from a previous post by Daniel1212. The following also touches on "lists" of Bishops and other matters brought up in your post):
Schatiz additionally states,
"Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
• Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:
"....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." — The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39
• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
"Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...
Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century."
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,24
• The Catholic historian Paul writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”
"Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria."
• Roger Collins, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:
"So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process...Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true...
"It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes. (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).
Roman Catholic [if liberal and critical] Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of “Why i am a Catholic:”
"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." — WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81
• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
• Raymond Brown [being censored here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)
1)On what authority Did the Church of Rome and Pius act in excommunicating Marcion, who was the son of a Bishop in the Eastern Church, and may have been himself elevated to Bishop?
1) The authority to excommunicate is a Biblical one, and is a power every local church has, to remove evildoers from communion with the faithful (though it does not damn them).
2) The heretic in question originated his heresy in Rome.
3) You are claiming that Rome had an absolute authority to do as they pleased, single-handedly, which is historically denied. Rome, for example, had condemned Cyprian for teaching that apostates/converts who had been baptized in heterdox churches, needed to be re-baptized, which Augustine defends on the basis of a council having not determined the matter:
“There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,-to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book I)
4) Many opponents of decisions made by Rome have appealed to other Bishops or to Synods, which, if what you say is true, was in contradiction to the sole and absolute authority the church in Rome practiced here. But is not on contradiction if we consider the ancient view, that each church was its own master, with the Bishop beholden only to God, as we see in Ignatius’ quote, and here:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.” (Nicea, 6th canon)
5) ALL Apostolic Sees, in those days, have an authority to excommunicate:
“You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion, claiming the name of Christians” (Augustine, Letter 232)
So given Pius Bishop of Rome and the Marcion excommunication [144AD], that is evidence of some form of Papal Primacy well before the middle of the 2nd century.
This language of "some form" is damning, and I'm surprised you still aren't talking about this. If the "form" of the Papacy is not the Roman form that it boasts of today, or is some "developmental" form, then Roman Catholicism has been overthrown. Either Peter's so-called successors have always held the keys to the kingdom of God, or they don't. There is no middle ground.
St. Ignatius Letter to the Romans does not mention the Bishop of Rome at that time [Saint Alexander I 105 to 115AD] but it does state that the Church at Rome “Presides in Love” and “You have envied no one; Others you have taught”
His letter is a good argument for there not being any single Bishop in Rome at all at the time, as the other Papist I quoted suggest. Ignatius greets and greatly praises the Bishop of every city he wrote to, but when writing to Rome, did not even bother to say "hi". He also greets these other churches with great praise, similar to what the Romans received, and, as mentioned before, contradicts the supremacy of your church:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, 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, Ch. 0)
By the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor insisted, in a manner that others thought autocratic , that all churches should observe Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome..
Autocratic is putting it mildly. He excommunicated all those who celebrated Easter on the "wrong day", resulting in "sharp rebukes" by the churches.
"But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor." (Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Chapter XXIV.—The Disagreement in Asia.
The Roman Bishop has, in fact, been threatened with excommunication, resulting in interesting reversals:
"A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote "These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decress of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical."[104]
German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called " …without the assent of the Pope"[105]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy
Now, what does that Primacy entail and how it has been exercised in the past and how it could be exercised in the future is I think an interesting theological question and one I think the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church will one day have to sit down and honestly address if there is to be a Full Communion between our 2 Apostolic and historic Churches.
Interesting, but such theological questions make me wonder why you are debating with me at all? I am terribly confused by your statements. Why is a Roman Catholic arguing for a generic "primacy" that has no jurisdiction over me? Unless there is double-talk going on, I am greatly pleased with these statements, as they free us from Romanism's claims entirely. Your arguments depicting Rome as having an unquestioned and unique authority to do as it pleases, such as in the matter of excommunication, are absolutely contradicted by these statements here. Either Rome can open and shut the kingdom of heaven, or it can't. You can't keep having it both ways.
So does the Pope micro manage ever area of the Church, if that is what is Universal jurisdiction, then the Popes today do not do that. Universal jurisdiction would only apply to ensuring orthodox doctrine is preserved. The Pope does not have the authority to tell the Eastern Church how to do their Liturgy. The Eastern Liturgies are as valid as the Roman Rite.
Is this the double-talk right here? Are you saying that Rome ought to have the authority to tell the Eastern Church how to do their THEOLOGY, but that you'll leave them their liturgy? "I'll tell you what to believe and to do with your life, but you can choose what clothes you want to wear?" The differences in Eastern theology with Rome are quite big. If you think that it's only the liturgy that's different, you're in for a surprise.
As for the Eucharist. Here we go again. The celebration of the Eucharist, is the representation, in an unbloody manner, of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Huh? Where did this come from? I never talked about the Eucharist in general. While it is true to say that transubstantiation was not clearly defined in the Church Fathers, it is however, an “organic development” that is entirely consistent with the clear doctrine of the “real presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist which no Church Father ever denied.
This is quite silly, considering you took the time to depict Tertullian as a heretic in order to get out of his sayings. The problem isn't that it was not "defined," the problem for the Papists is that it was defined, and defined contrary to Roman Catholicism. Your "organic development" at the point is merely another way of saying that the current doctrine of transubstantiation is an invention, and not something passed down by the Apostles. You almost disarm me, since I have so many quotes to offer showing exactly how the Fathers contradict the modern church, but it's like you give up before we even begin by saying this stuff.
In closing, the evidence of the New Testament, the writings of the Early Church clearly do show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I stand by this belief and if you think I took a beating from you, that is in your own imagination.
Well that's easy to say, since the issue of the Real Presence is a strawman. Presbyterians and Lutherans believe in the Real Presence too. It's easy to claim you won't get a beating if you're avoiding the beating by fighting about something we agree on. On Transubstantiation and the reading of John 6, however, you will receive a beating.
As for the NT, Rome by 405 had defined the canon.
You're just repeating yourself. There's nothing here for me to worry about.
Ah. The Good Thief! But at least they are not forgeries, which Rome made use of to supply what Scripture or history did not.
Greetings:
I am well aware of the early Fathers quoting certain NT books, those same early Fathers also quote the Deuterocanonicals, and there are some NT books not quoted at all as there are some of the proto-canonical books not quoted at all. Just a quick summary, Clement of Rome cites MT, MK, and Luke, Acts, 1 Cor, 1 Peter, Titus and Hebrews along with Romans. Of the OT, he cites Wisdom, Num, Deut. The Didache cites Sirach, Tobit, and Wisdom from the OT along with Deut, Proverbs, Exodus. The Gospel of Mt is cited frequently along with 1 Peter, 2 John, 2 Thess, Revelation. Luke is also cited at least 1 time. Ignatius cites from very few OT books at all [Psalms is 1 he does site, he does cite from 8 or 9 NT books. Polycarp, who new the Apostle John sites from Tobit among the OT, not too many others, and cites 17 to 18 or so NT books.
Saint Irenaeaus who you cited cites from Wisdom and the portions of Daniel found in the LXX. Again, he cites from the Deuterocaonicals.
So if you are going to play the cite game, then all those early Fathers cited heavily from the Deuterocanonicals, and 2 of them, based on the scholarly consensus new 2 of the Apostles [CLement new Saint Paul; and Polycarp new Saint John]
No I am not avoiding anything. None of the Church Fathers rejected Rome and Primacy. The issue you are debating is how Matthew 16:18 related to the Primacy of Rome and how Rome may have used it in how it defined primacy or exercised said Primacy. That is the only debate about Matthew 16:18. As for Klaus, that is his view, maybe individual Christians if you asked them that question, they may have answered it in the way he speculates they would. We will never know, he obviously is a Catholic who wants to downplay Primacy, for what reason, perhaps like many post Vatican II Catholics, a weaker notion of Primacy, which many of the higher critic Catholic Scholars have been screaming about, will allow them to push the Catholic Church towards what the Church of England now looks like. There is nothing in those “Catholic” writers that you cite that is surprising. There are plenty of those guys around. Fr. Charles Curran did not like Humanae Vitae so he challenged Rome’s Primacy, Fr. Hans Kung challenged the notion of Primacy, ordination reserved only for me, along with Humae Vitae, and he was no longer considered a theologian in good standing [same with Curran]. Fr. Sullivan, who you cited, is also in the “theological camp” of Kung and Curran.
As for Single Bishops, at least one NT Church had a “single Leader” that would be James at Jerusalem. From the others it is pure speculation why there were not single leaders “overseers” although Saint Paul tells Titus to rebuke with all authority [Titus 2:15] and in 1 Timothy 5:20 he tells Timothy to Reprimand[rebuke] publicly who sin [the presbyters under Timothy’s leadership]. In other words, the notion of a single Bishop [Overseer] is in the NT in at least those 3 instances. As to why there is no evidence of a single Bishop at every NT Church, well as long as the Apostles were leaving, they would still be consulted, also culturally, perhaps in some areas a group of presbyters fit the local culture better and those who had groups of presbyters could always appeal back to an Apostle. As the Apostles died, the question that has to be asked is why did the basic model laid out by Saint Paul in the pastoral epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus become the dominate model so quickly. Even in the Letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Polycarp, we see what is likely a model that came from the Apostle John because those Churches [Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, see Revelation 2 and 3] all had single Bishops and Saint Ignatius writing from Antioch [also a NT Church] was the single Bishop.
So the model of a single Bishop and Overseer is indeed in the NT, it is just uneven as to where it becomes the norm. By the early 2nd Century, it is the norm in the entire Church. Now, the issue you are trying to make is when did “Rome have a single Bishop”. That is hard to tell from direct evidence. At least by 140AD when Saint Pius was Pope as indicated by the Muratorian Fragment, which states that that Shepherd of the Hermas is not read in the Roman Church’s Liturgy since it was written in recent times when Pius had the “Chair of the Church in Rome”. Further, that language implies that the notion of “Chair of the Church in Rome” was a common usage and that there has always been a person who held “said Chair”.
Yes, I know St. Ignatius does not address a Bishop in Rome, but rather the Church of Rome as presiding in Charity. That does not mean there was no Bishop in Rome. It just means Saint Ignatius wrote the letter that way, perhaps knowing that naming the Bishop of Rome would immediately put his life in jeopardy.
The entire early Church in the 2nd Century clearly saw the Letter of CLement as being written by him as the Leader of the Church of Rome. Critical scholars look at the text and say well, Clement does not write his name on it thus we can determine from the internal evidence that he was the single Bishop of Rome. But you can’t saw he was not either.
Raymond Brown is a loose Canon, whom you cited. Yes he was being censured in some regards. Again, I have the New Jerome Commentary which he was 1 of the 3 Editors [for the record, had he alone edited it, I would not have purchased it]. He was a higher critic type Biblical scholar and those guys, as Pope Benedict noted in his Jesus of Nazareth 3 Volume series have done some “good scholarship” but their approach in general is limited and in reality has not made major contributions to theology and our understanding better the person of Jesus Christ [I am summarizing the Emeritus Pope Benedict here].
Not to attack you personally but as for higher critic Catholic Scholars, I have less use for them than Protestant higher critical ones [it started in German Protestantism in the 19th century so it comes from the Protestant tradition] because they should know better and be guided to serve the Church and look at Creeds, earlier commentaries from the Great Theologians of the Church, COuncils and use their scholarship to compliment those other methods of reading scripture, not the modern critical perspective alone. Just to clarify, I have no problem with “critical scholarship” when it is connected to the broader Catholic Theological and Biblical Tradition. When it stands alone apart from it, well, you get Fr. Curran, Fr. Hans Kung, Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Francis Sullivan, Fr.Fleger of Chicago [although he has toned down a bit, good work by Cardinal George of Chicago]
As for the rebaptized of those who were baptized in heterodox Churches, whatever Cyprian and the Pope’s opinions were, it was Rome’s view that ultimately was the orthodox one and even Saint Augustine, when writing against the Donatists, made theological arguments that some sacraments are valid outside the visible Catholic Church. The Council of Nicea would define what Rome in essence taught ealier, there is one Baptism and if done using the Holy Trinity and water, even if done outside of the visible Church, the Church would not rebaptize.
As for Marcion, he was from the East and brought his heresy to Rome from the East. In fact, there are some who state that if Father, a Bishop in the East was so done with him that he kicked out the house due to his theology.
As for the statement about Rome and Orthodoxy. I have never said Rome can do as it pleases. I said Rome has a Primacy. That is the Doctrine. What can be debated and discussed is how can “said Primacy” be exercised in a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. This is not new. Pope John Paul II in Ut Unam Sint basically proposed this question to the Orthodox. Pope Benedict has said the same thing. How can Primacy of Rome [not negotiable] be “exercised in terms of ministry” with a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. that is the question. And note, I made no such claims as to how it would be exercised with you Protestants. That is long gone and will never happen.
The fact that the Patriarch of Constantinopile asked Pope Francis to meet him in Jerusalem to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras [spelling] meeting 50 years ago is a good sign. The fact that the Patriarch and Emeritus Pope Benedict a few years back recited the Nicene Creed together at Mass [using the Greek edition, for the record] is a good sign. What Pope Benedict was saying is that Rome will not impose the Latin version of the Creed, with the Filoque [which is orthodox doctrine] on the Greek Church when saying the Liturgy together as both understanding of how the Holy Spirit is sent are complimentary theologies, not opposed, they just reflect different ways of expressing the same doctrine.
I am really not interested in what protestants think about Primacy. I am not. I am more interested in how Catholic and Orthodox can find a solution to how Primacy can be exercised in a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church.
As for your arguments about middle ground or not. That is protestant internet polemics. Not interested in it at all. Peter was first among the Apostles, there are plenty of NT texts that clearly indicate this in addition to Mt 16:18. Rome as chief and had the 1st primacy in the early Church, even before Nicea named 3 in Canon 6 [and note the language, giving ALexandria and Antioch a primacy like Rome] but nowhere was Rome’s primacy ever really defined. even before Nicea, Rome was using a basic form of Primacy, although in one instance, perhaps used incorrectly in the case of Pope Victor. However, the Roman way of celebrating pascha/Easter would be the way that the Council of Nicea defined some 140 years later, for the record. So Pope Victor was somewhat arrogant in his use of Primacy. Primacy needs to be rooted in service and Love [per Jesus command to his Apostles] and as noted by Saint Ignatius of Antioch [Church of Rome presides in Love].
I will not argue about Transubstantiation because it will do not good. Here is a quote from an Eastern Orthodox Theologian and it is not a problem for the Catholic Church [for the record, an Eastern Orthodox Christian can take Communion in a Catholic Church]. Transubstantiation is clearly only a Latin Theological term. In this sense, Rome would not ever require the Orthodox to use that term to describe what happens during the Eucharistic prayer. So in this quote we See the Eastern Orthodox describing the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ:
“In the East, however, the culminating point of the prayer is not in the remembrance of Christ’s act but in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which immediately follows: “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts here spread forth, and make this bread to be the precious Body of Thy Christ... .” Thus, the central mystery of Christianity is seen as being performed by the prayer of the church and through an invocation of the Spirit. The nature of the mystery that occurs in the bread and wine is signified by the term metabole (”sacramental change”). The Western term transubstantiation occurs only in some confessions of faith after the 17th century.”
Now note, the “Western term” appears... Now, what this is describing is the Epiclesis [calling upon the Holy Spirit. If you read the links below under the label “epiclesis”, you will see the same notion of calling upon the Holy Spirit in all Catholic Liturgical prayers.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm
Where Catholic Theology differs from the Eastern Orthodox, only in degree, not substance, is that Catholic theology uses the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodoxy does not attempt to define it, but leaves it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Below are links to one of the chief Liturgies of the Orthodox Church, the first 1 is the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrystostem. The 2nd Link is a theological explanation from the Orthodox Church of America on the Eucharist. Nothing in it that I was a Catholic disagree with. The 3rd link is from the Orthodox Church of America regarding Holy Orders [Bishops/Priests/Deacons]. Again, nothing that I disagree with as a Catholic. The 4th link is an Orthodox explanation of the epiclesis, which I linked earlier in the context of the Roman Liturgy and Catholic Church. Link is one on the Eucharistic prayer. Nothing again that presents a problem for me as a Catholic. In fact, the Orthodox priest is saying the Eucharist ad orientalem, which is the classic posture in the Roman Rite before the change at Vatican II whereby the Priest faced the assembly vs. facing “allegorical East”. Personally, I like the ad orientalem posture at Liturgy and wish the Roman Rite would use it more often.
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-orders
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/epiklesis
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/eucharistic-canon-anaphora
The Catholic Liturgy is linked below, if you look at it, the basic structure of the Roman Liturgy is the same as the Orthodox Liturgy. Where the Eucharistic Rite is in the following link, the Eucharistic prayers that I linked earlier are what is said at that part of the Liturgy.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm#Introductory
I have read every Liturgical writing in the patristic period and all of them are in the basic structure and in fact, have specifically the same prayers, as the Roman Liturgy of today. The Didache, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome and Cyril of Jerusalem all have Liturgical writings. So proper worship is Liturgical, and for me Catholic Liturgy, which is centered on the Eucharist and a set order of prayers that conveys the “symbola” of faith [Creeds, etc] and the public reading of scriptures, all together is true worship. Orthodox have true worship and for that reason, the Catholic Church sees the Orthodox as having valid Eucharist.
I used the Orthodox here because there is no basis for protestant polemics against Rome. For if you are going to criticize us, then you need to criticize them. They have the same belief in the Eucharist as we Catholics. The only difference is they do not use the “Latin term transubstantiation” to try to define the change that take place during the “epiclesis”. If there is a criticism of Eastern Theology, it can be that they tend to not define too things and that is why, in my opinion, most if not all the major heresies of the early Church tended to start in the East. If there can be a criticism of Roman-Latin theology, is that we sometimes tend to over-define [that would be the criticism from the Greek tradition] because you will always have a hard time coming up with an appropriate word to describe something that is ultimately “Holy Mystery” [to use the Greek Orthodox terminology]. Nevertheless, regardless of the Latin usage of Transubstantiation, the Orthodox, without the use of that term, have the same doctrine of the Holy Eucharist as we Catholics. It in no way reflects Reformed, Lutheran or even Traditional Anglican views of it, which at times can be close to the Catholic and Orthodox view.
Now as I wrote to another poster in another thread [I will not bring that debate here, but it is related to the Eucharist], among the Protestants, the Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed all are closer to historic worship than the rest of Protestants. All of you retain some degree of Liturgy with Eucharist, Creed, Scripture. Protestantism beyond those 3 and what they call worship is only partially worship. All it really involves in Teaching a sermon and songs. That is partially worship but not Liturgy. Now, those who go to those types of Protestant churches I am sure are going in good faith, but the early Church was a Church that viewed Liturgy as the most important action of the Church, the worship of God a the public Liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist.
So while I think it is clear “that you and I will Never totally agree”, I do acknowledge that you do have a stronger belief in the Eucharist and Sacramental Presence of Christ in the Eucharist than found in the majority of Protestantism which is basically Pentecostal and non-confessional reformed.
With that said, ok, you disagree with Catholics and our doctrine of the Eucharist [you also disagree with the Eastern Orthodox]. Things like Killing Christ again or re-sacrificing Christ and cannibalism, etc, is excessive rhetoric that makes this place a zoo at times. So if you disagree, ok, you disagree, but many of your cohort are over the top [maybe not you]
I think any honest reading of the NT Gospels and Saint Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians will see a strong foundation for Eucharistic Doctrine. A reading of the early Church Fathers will only reinforce that an indicates how men who new the Apostles viewed the Liturgy [i.e. Clement of Rome most likely new Saint Paul], Saint Polycarp was a disciple of Saint John, and Igantius of Antioch was a pupil of Polycarp, etc. and thus the Eucharist. The Liturgy and Eucharist are continually written about throughout the Patristic period and the Canons of all the Councils have in their canons teachings about the Eucharist and other sacraments.
So the Catholic position on the Eucharist is well founded as is the Orthodox. For protestants who have a view of real presence of the Eucharist that is not quite 100% the Catholic view or even the Orthodox view [I believe theirs is 100% consistent with ours], yet still hold to sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist [as many Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed actually do], I have no problem with you guys stating something to the effect that I think the Catholic view of the Eucharist has a basis in the NT and Church Fathers [we also see a sacramental or real presence], I just think that Catholic theologians of the 2nd millennium in trying to define what happens during the “epiclesis” was not something that needed to happen because any term you use [in this case Transubstantiation] would never be adequate enough to fully define it. That is a fair criticism and one that I think the Orthodox actually hold to. They just leave it as a Holy Mystery, don’t define what happens in the epiclesis, but again, they end up in the same place as we Catholics do in terms how they understand the Real Presence of Christ, it is under the forms of bread and wine, his true Body and Blood.
Finally, with respect to John Chapter 6, I linked Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Patristic Commentary on the Gospels which Cardinal Newman translated into English. The commentary is an excellent one. In no way does that commentary, a summary of all the Patristic commentaries on John 6, reject the Eucharistic presence of Christ or treat it as a mere symbol. In fact, there is one quote by Saint Augustine in their that connects this passage to Faith and works of Love as being connected.
http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/John
Again, with respect to Fathers of the Church, if 1 Father says it, I read it, but if the Church does not define that 1 Fathers theology as authoritative, then it is 1 Father. Now that 1 Father’s theology can be acceptable as a way to understand a doctrine, but not the only way. If 2, 3 or 4, Fathers say the same thing, then it has more weight, If 10 or more, etc, more weight. Now if the Pope or a Council defines anything from a Father’s theological writings as an orthodox way of explaining a Doctrine, then that has higher authority with me than anything else.