I'm not sure what game you, in fact, are playing, as this has nothing to do with what I said. You suggested that the New Testament was somehow up in the air. If you concede that the early church were highly familiar with the books of the New Testament, then they knew what the scripture was, regardless of the status of the apocrypha.
By the way, why did you rob Ignatius of his relationship with John the Apostle? Is it because he said that the head of the Bishop is God?
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.
This is like saying: "You've only wiped out my army, taken me captive, and have tortured me for the past 24 hours. You have not won the war."
Ignoring your, well, ignoring of the evidence presented (I've gotten used to it), a failure to uphold Matthew 16:18 means the death of Catholicism. It is the foundation of Rome's theological assertions of power, without which their claims are merely political in nature.
If all you want to do is debate politics with me on why I should follow Rome, then start a thread in a political section of the forum. The religion forum is for proper theology.
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,
I like how you pick and choose people to quote from and then treat it like all we have to do is demean them to avoid the substance of their writing. Now I know what to do when you quote Kelly and other random people at me in the future. I can just play your game and get out of commenting on the issue entirely.
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.
I've heard Papists say this before, but it's always struck me as very absurd. It would mean that Ignatius had no problem identifying people and praising them in great detail in all the other churches, as if he didn't care if they were kidnapped and murdered, but couldn't even mask a compliment to his "head," the Pope!
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,
IOW, Rome was not authoritative in the matter, only the church council had the ultimate say so, exactly as Augustine said.
As for the statement about Rome and Orthodoxy. I have never said Rome can do as it pleases.
This statement literally makes huge sections of your previous post completely useless. If Rome cannot do "all that it pleases" in terms of setting doctrine or excommunication, then all your talk about Popes acting "autocratically" or excommunicating people is just all laid to waste.
That is the Doctrine.
Not according to you. Matt 16:18 doesn't matter, remember?
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.
So HERE is the true rub, eh? So all this talk that sounded like the Roman definition of Primacy was negotiable was just a sham? And all we've been talking about is what color lipstick to put on the pig? But remember how you started on all this to begin with: The differing definitions of Peter the "rock" and the alleged primacy of Rome found in the church Fathers. Despite all the various assertions you've made throughout your post (and it is too tedious to point at them all), you've not really dealt with anything yet. I consider this my win then by forfeiture of my opponent. Standing outside the ring talking at me doesn't make you the winner!
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.
Perhaps that is what your Pope believes, but it is a very deceptive statement fogging Eastern-Western differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_%E2%80%93_Roman_Catholic_theological_differences#Extant_disputes_as_seen_by_Orthodox_theologians
The differences aren't cosmetic. They are very fundamental.
I am really not interested in what protestants think about Primacy. I am not.
Taking your ball and going home? About time!
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.
So now you want to talk about Matt 16:18 again? Can you please go and address the Church Fathers on this issue? By the way, note your logic: You confess that Rome as "Chief" was never "defined." (To be more accurate, it is better to say that it was defined, just not defined as you would like it.) And you even declare that "primacy" was misused, right after using the same example as evidence of primacy! (You just changed your tune since Victor didn't get his way.) Do you not realize how self-destructive your own constant assertions are?
As for Easter. In your first paragraph you told me that Polycarp knew John. You do realize that it was Polycarp who opposed a previous Roman Bishop on the issue, did NOT change his position, and declared his celebration of Easter to be in line with the Apostles?
Why did the Pope abandon the tradition that was handed from John to Polycarp?
"For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html
I will not argue about Transubstantiation because it will do not good.
You have to: You are claiming (as will be seen) that the view of the early church on the Eucharist is the same as the modern one. That simply isn't true.
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.
Who says I don't? But on Popery, they are quite correct.
In fact, there is one quote by Saint Augustine in their that connects this passage to Faith and works of Love as being connected.
Is that all? Shows how sloppy Aquinas was then. To begin, Calvin's suprasubstantiation is, in fact, entirely stolen from Augustine. This view upholds the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, maintaining that the body of Christ is His body, and the cup is His blood, while denying transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in the eucharist to receive "saving" grace. Observe:
Augustine - Against Transubstantiation
From Augustine’s commentary on the verses in John 6 which are traditionally Rome’s proof texts for the necessity of oral consumption of Christ — The body and blood of Christ consumed through faith without eating or drinking. Believe, saith Augustine, and thou hast eaten already.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
The fact that Christ may be consumed by faith, even without the eating of the bread and wine, is fatal to Roman Catholicism’s teachings on transubstantiation.
Compare with Father John Bartunek, LC., whose interpretation requires the actual use of “teeth and stomach”:
“This was the perfect opportunity for Christ to say, “Wait a minute, what I really meant was that my body and blood will just be symbolized by bread and wine. Of course I didn’t mean that bread and wine really would become my body and blood. Don’t be foolish!” The strange thing is he doesn’t say that. He does not water down his claim, as if eating his flesh were just a metaphor for believing in his doctrine; on the contrary, he reiterates the importance of really eating his flesh and drinking his blood.”
http://rcspiritualdirection.com/blog/2012/08/15/258-eating-right-jn-652-59#ixzz2pZMDVk3c
Augustine, writing on his “rule for interpreting commands,” calls the eating of Christ to be figurative, since otherwise it compels us to do something that is unlawful.
“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, He who loves his life shall lose it, we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, Let him lose his life— that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, help not a sinner. Understand, therefore, that sinner is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 16)
When the Eucharist is offered, it is ourselves who we receive. (Are we transubstantiated into the bread?) A spiritual lesson is to be received from it, which is the purpose of the sacrament.
“How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood? The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you.” (Augustine, Sermon 272)
Take special note for Augustine’s definition of what a sacrament actually is. Let’s continue. Same theme, different sermon:
“I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)
(The Catholics will often quote the first part of this sermon, but will not attempt to discuss the lesson of it.)
In fact, throughout this sermon, sacraments are tools to impart spiritual lessons. For example, the sacrament of the Holy Spirit (oil), but it is not actually the Holy Spirit:
“Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.” (Same as above)
Another, the sacrament of the kiss of peace:
“After that comes Peace be with you; a great sacrament, the kiss of peace. So kiss in such a way as really meaning that you love. Don’t be Judas; Judas the traitor kissed Christ with his mouth, while setting a trap for him in his heart. But perhaps somebody has unfriendly feelings toward you, and you are unable to win him round, to show him he’s wrong; you’re obliged to tolerate him. Don’t pay him back evil for evil in your heart. He hates; just you love, and you can kiss him without anxiety.” (Same as above)
The Eucharist, which symbolizes both the entire church and Christ, “not really consumed.” The Eucharist signifies an invisible reality, and is not that reality. Christians should take the spiritual lesson of unity from the Lord’s supper. Also from sermon 227.
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
To believe in Christ is to eat the living bread. This cannot be so if transubstantiation is true.
“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
The body of Christ not held by any believer, even in the sacrament. Christ is held in the heart, and not in the hand. This cannot be so if transubstantation is true.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)
Christ must be understood spiritually, not carnally.
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
These things cannot be so if transubstantiation is the historical Christian interpretation.
More:
In another place, he tells us that it is weakness to interpret the sign as being what it signifies:
“To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 9)
In still another place, he calls referring to the Eucharist as the “body and blood of Christ” as only a “certain manner” of speaking, the act itself obviously being non-literal, but spiritual only:
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.” (Augustine, Letters 98)
That’s a mouthful, but remember that for a devout RC, Scripture,tradition, and history can only support Rome, or at the least cannot be allowed to contradict her. Scripture is not the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God as it is abundantly evidenced (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial) to be.
The veracity of RC teaching does not rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, but for the RC Rome is the supreme authority, and their assurance of Truth is based upon the premise of her assured veracity.
For as often said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
It is under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, which in spirit extends beyond infallible statements, that Scripture Tradition and history are servants which are compelled to support her, and it is held that no evidence can be seen as contrary to the claims of Rome.
Thus pope Leo P XIII asserts:
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.
Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
This is consistent with recourse of Manning in the classic quote:
The doctrines of the Church then are as unmixed as the light ; and undiminished in all the perfections of truth, which like Jesus ‘ is yesterday and to-day, and the same for ever...’
And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive...
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation pp. 227-228.
And even the EOs find fault with Rome due to her attempts to justify her claims:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of “doctrinal development.”
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an “original deposit” of faith, a “seed,” which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.
All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of “papal infallibility” and “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
As I said earlier, I not going back into the Eucharistic discussion in detail. I have a long post on that before. I did not see this post until after. I read your post on the Westminster confession and thought that was your last post. Your first quote??? you went way over the top here, I will speak more on the context later.
You wrote
“I’m not sure what game you, in fact, are playing, as this has nothing to do with what I said. You suggested that the New Testament was somehow up in the air. If you concede that the early church were highly familiar with the books of the New Testament, then they knew what the scripture was, regardless of the status of the apocrypha.
By the way, why did you rob Ignatius of his relationship with John the Apostle? Is it because he said that the head of the Bishop is God?”
You are really making claims that I did not say. I never said the Early Fathers were not familiar with NT writings, I just said from the time of Saint Clement of Rome to the end of the 2nd Century, the time of Saint Irenaeus, not every Church Father cited every NT writing, best I can tell and based on the scriptural cross-references in Fr. Jurgens Volume 1 of The Faith of the Early Fathers, not all of the books were cited in the 2nd century. For example, Saint Hippoltyus of Rome seems to be the first to clearly site James in the early 3rd century and Saint Clement of Alexandria cites 22 of the 27 books, but not 2 and 3 John, Philemon and James, although it seems to be the first to site 2 Peter in the early 3rd [though some question that, maybe he alludes to it]. Even at the time of Saint Irenaeus [180AD], who cites maybe 20-22 of the 27 NT books, he also cites Clement of Rome and the Shepherd of the Hermas as authoritative. Now he is the 1st to clearly state that there are only 4 orthodox Gospels [again best I can tell].
The earliest list of NT books was put together by the Church of Rome [Muratorian Fragment] and it lists 22 of the 27 books in the NT canon.
Terullian in “Against Marcion” [written around 210AD] during his transition phase to the heretical Montanist sect. I only cite him because he also lists a Canon which would be normative for what the Catholic Churches in North Africa recognized at that time, although while this is his semi-Montanist phase, it is the best source on Marcion, who was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144AD.
Origen it seems is the 1st to cite all 27 NT books, although he does cast doubt on several books as to canonicity, in particular, 2 and 3 John and 2 Pater. He cites James pretty directly [the Faith and Works passage] but concedes that it is not universally accepted. Like Saint Ireneaus, he also cites 1 Clement, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas as inspired [whereas as the Muratorian Fragment in Rome, 180AD rejects it as being inspired.
So all I am saying is that there is no universal acceptance of the NT in the 2nd century, and that is still the case in the 3rd century, and if you read Eusebius, he states there is still some questions about Hebrews and Revelation. In addition, there were some books cited as canonical scriptures by the Fathers, that would not be put into the Canon. So my cite statement, if you are going to do a cite analysis in the 2nd century has to recognize that the Deuterocanonicals were frequently cited along with NT books along with books like the Didache, The Letter of Clement of Rome and the Shepherd of the Hermas.
The biblical canon was in a development stage until the second half of the 4th century. That is the only point that made. As for Saint Ignatius of Antioch, not somebody I ignore, one of my favorites, Eucharistic theology is evident, the clear teaching on 1 Bishop leading City-Church, the Letter to the Church at Rome which presides in Charity. I just did not cite him in the context of quoting the Deuterocanonicals because he did not. In fact, best I can tell, he only quoted from about 8 NT books and only Isiah from the OT seems to be quoted.
As for Mt 16:18, the statement that it is a fatal blow to Catholicism!!!! Really. The primacy of the Church of Rome and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome are related. The Primacy of the Church of Rome also actually rests on the fact that Both Saint Peter and Paul were martyred there. I am not going to post the mountain of Patristic evidence that states this [I will post a good bit], but all of them talk about the Church of Rome in connection to both Peter and Paul. The Catholic Church has an important feast day in June called the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul [together]. There is some evidence that the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul goes back to around 260AD but there is not a doubt by the 4th century, the Church of Rome was celebrating the Marytrdom of Saints Peter and Paul on the same day.
For example,St. Augustine wrote in Sermon 295 “Both apostles share the same feast day, for these two were one; and even though they suffered on different days, they were as one. Peter went first, and Paul followed. And so we celebrate this day made holy for us by the apostles’ blood. Let us embrace what they believed, their life, their labors, their sufferings, their preaching, and their confession of faith.”
As early as 1 Clement, there is an appeal to both Peter and Paul [Clement likely new Saint Paul {Phil 4:3} and was ordained by Peter, as later Fathers cite]. Saint Ignatius of Antioch states “Not as Peter and Paul” Do I command you [105-107AD]
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, Bishop of Rome around 166AD [most of this letter is extant in Eusebius work]
“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time”
A Roman Priest named Caius, around 198AD also recounts Peter and Pauls Martyrdom in Rome during Nero’s Time [the Letter or most of it is extant n Eusebius History] and in that letter he speaks of the “Trophies of the Apostles, i.e. where they are buried” and states you will find those who found/built this Church [Rome].
Saint Irenaeus writing around 180-189AD
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (same cite as above).
Tertullian writes [citing him only for another witness from a different part of the Church [N. Africa] writes in Against Marcion [207-212AD]
“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood”
Eusebius writes around 300-305AD:
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42).
Later in his Church History [325AD], he writes
“When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1)
Peter of Alexandria in his Canonical Letter writes:
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius, who wrote a good work, with shortcomings [per Fr. Jurgens in Faith of the Early Fathers] to develop a Latin Theology, writes:
“When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5) [Per Fr. Jurgens work, dated Inter A.D. 316-320]).
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Interesting, while Saint Cyril does not cite Mt.16:18 directly, he clearly is alluding to it here. Still, the point is the connection of Peter and Paul in Rome. So the Primacy of the Church of Rome is in fact, via Liturgical Tradition [The Solemnity of Saint Peter and Paul is Liturgically celebrated as 1 Feast day in the Church of Rome] and has been way before the 16th century and subsequent debates about Matthew 16:18.
So independent of Sacred Scripture, there is Sacred Tradition as expressed by the Church Fathers that connect both Peter and Paul to the building of the Church of Rome and Liturgically, the Church in Rome had a feast of these 2 Apostles together. In addition, Saint Peter’s Basilica is one of the Papal Churches, yes, but Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls is another Papal Basilica and both of these Churches were built way, way, way, back
Saint Clement of Alexandria around 200AD speaks of Saint Peter as preeminent without using Mt 16:18 [He actually uses 3 other passages] now this only speaking of Saint Peter, and not directly his successors, but others, namely Saint Irenaeus, about 10 to 15 years earlier, talk about succession. Saint Clement of Rome clearly talks about it at the end of the 1st.
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5)
Saint Cyprian of Carthage writes in a Letter to Pope Cornelius something interesting:
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).”
The letter above is written even after the famous passage a few years before where he actually wrote about Mt 16:18
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Now He did write another version of that with respect to Mt 16:18 but he never denied Peter and Rome’s primacy. Notice though he also cited John 21:17 which is also a Petrine passage along with Luke 22:31-32. But his letter per se to the Pope was never recanted.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in another writing states
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).”
Saint Optatus, a Bishop from North Africa writes:
“In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Saint Opatus is not someone cited much in protestant circles as I am not sure he was translated by the Anglican divines like Lightfoot or the Lutheran Harnack [I am not sure]. He is translated by Fr. Jurgens and New Advent has a detailed article about him [see link below]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11262b.htm
It is interesting that the earlier doctrine of Pope Stephen, which Saint Cyprian argued about, would in fact be the doctrine that the Catholic Church would define. So in the end the orthodoxy of the earlier Pope Stephen would be what would be the standard.
Saint Ambrose of Milan writes:
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [seems to be alluding to Matt. 16:18] (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
So the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Bishop of Rome are joint. They are not independent and they do not rely on Mt. 16:18. And this notion of win. Really? I am not trying to win anything nor I am loosing anything. Nothing you can say is going to impact my view of the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Pope similar to the discussion on the Eucharist. If you choose to characterize this as winning and loosing, well, that is you, not me. For the record, I used “game in an earlier post” in a strictly allegorical sense, not in the sense that this is a football game, etc. Just for the record.
Now as for what the previous 2 Popes believe, Pope John Paul II did issue and encyclical Ut Unam Sint which was a call to the Orthodox to enter into Dialogue about how the Ministry of the Bishop of Rome could be exercised in terms of Primacy. Pope Benedict has said the same thing.
Now Rome can’t do what it pleases on everything, even Popes are bound by Canon Law. So the Pope can’t say the Nicene and Apostles Creed are not valid, the Pope is bound by Doctrine, so he can’t do what he pleases in that regards. He has to say Mass the same way every other priest and Bishop does. He can’t make up his own Liturgy. So in that context, yes, he can’t do what he pleases. However, he can, if a question faith and morals is so urgent, he can excommunicate someone if that person does not recant. The Pope by himself can all a Council. No other Bishop can do so. For a Council of the Catholic Church to be valid, the Pope has to recognize it, etc. So try to understand Catholic Doctrine from Catholic Doctrine, not some internet theologian who thinks they know, but they don’t know.
Pope Victor and the issue of Easter was not a matter of Doctrine, it was a matter of Liturgical Tradition. So in this regards, the Pope, who was following the Roman Tradition that most likely had come from Peter and Paul, and the Eastern Bishops were following a tradition that came down from The Apostle John. There was no doctrine at state here, it was only which date should Easter be celebrated on. Nevertheless, the COuncil of Nicea would adopt the Roman Tradition and ensure that Easter would be celebrated always on Sunday. So, given the question, a Council was a better way to handle this than threatening to excommunicate orthodox Catholics for a different Liturgical tradition. So, this is not a form of Primacy rooted in Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s “Presides in Charity” or to use a later expression from Pope Gregory the Great, the Bishop of Rome should always be the Servant of the Servants of God when exercising his ministry as Pope. So no conflicts here at all.
As for the Eucharist, even without the term “Transubstantiation”, the Doctrine of the Eucharist would be unchanged and exactly the same in the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is a word to convey that after the epicisles, it is theologically wrong to call Bread and Wine “bread and win” it is now the Body and Blood of Christ. So like I said, Not going to go into a long debate over that term again. Have already been through it in an earlier post and I stand by that post.
Nobody in the early Church had a view that it was only a mere symbol. And Saint Augustine did not write against what you are saying he wrote against. He defined a sacrament as a visible sign of an invisible reality. So if you understand the definition of a sacrament, the sign conveys what is being signified. When Augustine speaks of latent Mystery here, he is talking about something that is real not figurative. I have read those same Augustine passages and don’t read them the way you do. For the record, the Lutherans read them and they don’t come to the position that we Catholics have, or you Reformed or the Anglicans, yet all claim to be reading Saint Augustine’s statements on the Eucharist