EWTN is available via cable and satellite dish transmission in most parts of the US.
Posted on 10/31/2005 11:59:19 AM PST by NYer
As I was coming to more assurance of the Catholic faith through the Scriptures, I became increasingly motivated to research the early church Fathers (the great leaders of the Church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries just after the era of the Apostles). What I found was complete confirmation of all I had discovered to be revealed in the Scriptures. While I needed no more reason to believe the Catholic faith today was the faith of the Apostles and the first century Church what I discovered here will perhaps help someone else to believe.
Within the first 160 pages of The Faith of the Early Church Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, I found over 40 clear references to distinctly Catholic tenants of faith in the 135 year period immediately following the New Testament era itself (A.D.100-235). Most of these references indicate these Catholic tenants were universally taught and believed through out the Church at the time. Since they were believed so universally at such an early date, to deny they were part of the Apostolic teaching would be foolish.
Protestantism then is not only based on, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Scripture but ignorance of the plain facts of history. In my Baptist college or seminary education this massive pile of evidence for the Catholic faith in the early Church was never mentioned. Totally ignoring the faith of this period we jumped ahead another 100-150 years to the time of Constantine. Discovering the Catholic faith there, we were quick to explain its appearance as the result of the "corruption" of the Constantine era. It was after Constantine declared religious freedom for Christianity in A.D. 312 and his support of the Christian faith that we claimed a massive corruption of the faith had occurred. According to the facts you are about to read, this massive corruption, however, must have taken place up to 200 years earlier, just after the Apostle John dies at the end of the first century! We are going to have to say this massive corruption of the faith took place almost instantly with no one in the Church, many of whom personally knew the Apostles, raising a peep of protest! Some of those whose testimony to Catholic faith you will read actually knew the Apostles intimately and all were respected as authorities in the Church. This corruption would also have taken place at a time when the Church was spiritually at its height. From 120 followers in A.D. 34, the Church had spread itself over the entire face of the known world and by A.D. 312, literally brought the mighty Roman Empire to its knees!
Someone in uncomforting wisdom has said, the wish is often father to the thought. Even the plainest facts can thus be often ignored when they threaten the comforts of our personal prejudices. Change itself can be most uncomfortable. For those who have at least the desire to be truly honest in mind and spirit, life itself will often expose our faulty thinking by showing us their unpleasant fruits. The seeds of humility first, then finally truth itself will sprout forth from such blessed disappointments.
ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION
(1) Justin the Martyr, in his First Apology (written between A.D. 148-155), says: "Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirt, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'...and in order to obtain in the water the remission of past sins, there is invoked over him who wishes to be reborn and who has repented of his sins, the name of God, the Father ....This washing is called illumination...Furthermore, the one being illuminated is washed also in the name of Jesus Christ...and in the name of the Holy Spirit..." [61]. (p.54).(2) Hermas, brother to Pope Pius I, in The Shepherd (A.D. 140-155), says that in a vision the Angel of God [The Shepherd] affirms that "when we went down into the water" we "obtained the remission of our former sins"[Mand. 4, 3, 1]. (p.35) The Angel refers to water Baptism as "the Seal," and "the Seal of the Son of God" at least five times [Par. 9,16,3,4; 9,17,4; 9:31,4]. (p.36).
(3) St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, A.D. 110 :"He [Jesus Christ] was born and was baptized so that by His submission He might purify the water" [18:2]. (p.18). Jesus' act was seen as having sanctified the water used in Christian Baptism.
(4) Letter of Barnabas, author unknown, A.D. 70-79 or 117-132? Speaking of the "flowing river" in Ezekiel 47:1-12 the writer then says, "We descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart" [11:10,11]... (p.15).
ON INFANT BAPTISM
(5) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (written between A.D. 180-199) makes the following comment about the sanctifying efficacy of Baptism for infants: "He [Christ] came to save all through Himself, –all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God, –infants, and children, and youths and old men" [2,22,4]. (p.87).
ON THE EUCHARIST AS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST
(6) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (between A.D. 180-199), presents not only his own faith in the miracle of transubstantiation in the Eucharist but demonstrates that this miraculous reality was so well established (even among the heretics) that he uses it to refute the heretics who were questioning the divine nature and origin of Christ: "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could He rightly take bread...and confess it to be His Body., and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His Blood"[4,33,2]. (p.97). That it took nothing short of divine authority to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ was universally believed.
(7) Justin the Martyr, in his First Apology, written between A.D. 148-155, says: "We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these...the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him...is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" [66]. (p.55).
(8) Imprisoned and facing his end with the wild beasts, St Ignatius, in His Letter to the Romans, in A.D.110 writes, " I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ...and for drink I desire His Blood.." [7:3]. (p.22).
(9) St. Ignatius, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110. "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness raised up again"[6:2; 7:1]. (p.25).
(10) St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, A.D. 110: "Breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ" [20:2]. (p.19).
ON PRAYING FOR THE DEAD–PURGATORY
(11) Tertullian, in his treatise on Monogamy, written sometime after A.D. 213 says, "A woman, after the death of her husband...prays for his soul and...each year...offers the sacrifice"[10,1,4]. (p.158).(12) Tertullian, in another treatise, The Crown, written in A.D. 211, says, "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries" [3,3]. (p.151).
ON THE PRIESTHOOD IN THE CHURCH
(13) St. Hippolytus of Rome, in his work on The Apostolic Tradition, dated about A.D. 215, gave us great detail on the Liturgy and the hierarchical organization of the ancient Church. In the Order to ordain bishops we find bestowed upon them, but only through prayer of other ordained bishops, the office of "high-priesthood" and thus "the authority to forgive sins." Here is part of the bishop's prayer over the candidate: "...grant to this your servant...to serve without blame as your high-priest...and by the spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins...in accord with the authority you gave the Apostles"[2,3]. (p.166,167). In the Order to ordain presbyters, we find them also ordained to the priesthood, but they are under the bishops[8]. However, "a deacon...is not ordained to the priesthood, but [must] serve the bishop [who again is called "high-priest"]. ... He has no part in the council of the clergy..."[9]. (p.168).(14) Tertullian's An Exhortation to Chastity, dating between A.D. 208-212 is filled with references to the priesthood within the Church [7,2-6]. (p.150).
(15) Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200, and condemning the heretics who have departed from the doctrine of the Church says, "I must not omit a description of heretical conduct, how frivolous, how worldly, how merely human it is. ...So it is that today one man is a bishop, tomorrow another; today, a deacon, and tomorrow he is a lector; today a priest , who is tomorrow a layman. For even on laymen do they enjoin the functions of the priesthood" [41,1,8]. (p.123). Speaking of the right to baptize, Tertullian says, "The primary right is had by the high priest, that is the bishop; and after him, the presbyters [elders, or regular priests}..."[17,1]. (p.128).
ON HOLY MARY–THE SINLESS SECOND EVE
(16) Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200, wrote: "God recovered His image and likeness in a procedure similar to that in which He had been robbed of it by the devil. For it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, through a virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had ben laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" [16,4,5]. (p.147).(17) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (between A.D. 180-199), also taught that Holy Mary was the second and sinless Eve: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith"[3,22,4]. (p.93). Holy Mary certainly could not have been seen as loosing what Eve bound had the early Church believed she sinned as had Eve!
(18) Justin the Martyr, in his First Apology, written between A.D. 148-155, taught that Holy Mary, as the second Eve, was as involved in the reversal of the human sin problem as the first Eve was involved in introducing sin into the world: "He [Christ] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied: 'Be it done according to they word'" [100]. (p.62).
ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
(19) St. Hippolytus of Rome, in his work on The Apostolic Tradition, dated about A.D. 215, gave us great detail on the Liturgy and the hierarchical organization of the ancient Church. In the order to ordain bishops we find bestowed upon them only through prayer of other ordained bishops, the office of "high- priesthood" and thus "the authority to forgive sins." Here is part of the bishop's prayer over the candidate: "...grant to this your servant...to serve without blame as your high-priest...and by the spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins...in accord with the authority you gave the Apostles"[2,3]. (p.166,167). In the Order to ordain presbyters, we find them also ordained to the priesthood, but they are under the bishops[8]. However, "a deacon...is not ordained to the priesthood, but [must] serve the bishop [who is again called "high-priest"]. ... He has no part in the council of the clergy..."[9]. (p.168).(20) Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200 challenges those heretics who would dare to claim their doctrines were from the Apostolic days, to "show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which record that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans [Church of Rome] where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles"[32,1-3]. (p.121,122). Note: Just so there is no misunderstanding on this point, churches established even apart from Apostolic faith or authority can and will always be accepted as apostolic upon affirmation of the faith and practice of the Catholic Church and proper ordination of their bishops, presbyters and deacons. Many Churches have been founded outside the Catholic faith and discipline that have been later received into, and as a part of the one Apostolic Catholic Church.
(21) Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200, and continuing to challenge the heretics who have departed from the doctrine of the Church says, "Come now,...run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place...Achaia...Corinth...Philippi...Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [John the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffered no hurt, was exiled to an island"[36,1-3]. (p.122).
(22) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (between A.D. 180-199), "the true gnosis [wisdom] is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, the manifestation of the Body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" [4,33,8]. (p.97).
(23) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, continues: "The preaching of the Church truly continues without change and is everywhere the same...That in which we have faith is a firm system directed to the salvation of men; and since it has been received by the Church, we guard it. Constantly it has its youth renewed by the Spirit of God, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel; and it causes the vessel containing it also to be rejuvenated....In the Church, God has placed apostles, prophets and doctors, and all the other means through which the Spirit works; in all of which none have any part who do not conform to the Church. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace"[3,24,1]. (p.94).
(24) St. Irenaeus, again in his Against Heresies: "It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure chrism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But of the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion"[4,26,2]. (p.96).
(25) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, continues: "The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. [Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy.] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were still many remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles.... [After Clement] Evaristus....Alexander....Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed....[then] Telesphorus....Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us. Polycarp...was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna....He always taught those things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church had handed down..." [3,3,3; 3,3,4]. (p.90). "It is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is so easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone who soever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life....cherishing with the utmost diligence...the tradition of truth"[3,4,1]. (p.90, 91).
(26) Finally, St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, says: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church...to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times...to whom they handed on their authority"[3,3,1]. (p.89).
(27) The form letter entitled, The Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp (A.D. 155-157), from the Church of Smyrna to Christians in Philomelium of Phrygiawith opens with these words: "To the Church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place..." In one of his final prayers Polycarp was quoted as remembering "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.... " Polycarp, is also described as "an apostolic prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna." The letter closes with the affirmation that Jesus Christ is the "Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world"[The Address; 8:1; 16:2; 19:1]. (p.30,31).
(28) St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third Bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He is considered an Apostolic Father in that he was a hearer of the Apostle John. Because the seven letters attributed to him present such a strong case for the hierarchical and monarchical Church, they have long been questioned by protestant scholars. The genuinity of the letters has now, however, been long since vindicated by J.B.Lightfoot. Adolph von Harnack, Theodore Zahn, and F.X. Funk; and their authenticity is now almost universally accepted. In his Letter to the Ephesians, A.D. 110 , he said: "For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ...Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop....we must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself" [3:2; 5:3; 6:1]. (p.17,18).
(29) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Magnesians, A.D. 110, wrote, "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles..."[2]. (p.19).
(30) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Trallians, A.D. 110, wrote," In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church....Anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience"[3:1; 7:2]. (p.20,21).
(31) St. Ignatius, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110, wrote, "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles....Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"[8:1,2]. (p.25).
(32) St. Ignatius, in his Letter to Polycarp, A.D. 110, wrote: "It is proper for men and women who wish to marry to be united with the consent of the bishop, so that their marriage will be acceptable to the Lord..."[5:2]. (p.26).
(33) St. Clement of Rome, fourth Pope A.D. 80, in his Letter to the Corinthians said: "The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from God....They appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers [42:1, 2,4]....and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry [44:2]." Clement continues by saying that this approval must come, not from the local church congregation, but from "illustrious men" that have the approval or "consent of the whole Church" [44:3]. (p. 10).
ON THE INFALLIBLE CHURCH
(34) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (written between A.D. 180-199), "the true gnosis [wisdom] is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, the manifestation of the Body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere"[4,33,8]. (p.97).
(35) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, continues: "The preaching of the Church truly continues without change and is everywhere the same...That in which we have faith is a firm system directed to the salvation of men; and since it has been received by the Church, we guard it. Constantly it has its youth renewed by the Spirit of God, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel; and it causes the vessel containing it also to be rejuvenated....In the Church, God has placed apostles, prophets and doctors, and all the other means through which the Spirit works; in all of which none have any part who do not conform to the Church. ... For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace" [3,24,1]. (p.94).
(36) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, continues, "It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But of the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion"[4,26,2]. (p.96).
(37) St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, continues: "The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. [Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy]. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were still many remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles.... [After Clement] Evaristus....Alexander....Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed....[then] Telesphorus....Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us. Polycarp...was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna....He always taught those things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church had handed down..." [3,3,3; 3,3,4]. (p.90). "It is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is so easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone who soever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life....cherishing with the utmost diligence...the tradition of truth"[3,4,1]. (p.90, 91).
ON PETER HELPING TO ESTABLISH THE CHURCH IN ROME
(38) St. Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 166-174) in his Letter to Soter of Rome, testifies that Peter and Paul died as martyrs at Rome after having planted the Church at Rome. This testimony is preserved by Eusebius: "That both [Peter and Paul] suffered martyrdom at the same time is affirmed as follows by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, when writing to the Romans: 'You [Pope St. Soter] have...brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome...both alike...suffered martyrdom at the same time" [History of the Church, 2,25,8]. (p.45).
(39) Caius (Gaius), presbyter of Rome wrote a testimony in A.D. 198-217, affirming Peter and Paul's founding the Church at Rome and their martyrdom in that city. Eusebius [A.D. 275-339] refers to this testimony in his History of the Church, Bk 2, Ch 25:5-7: "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter, likewise was crucified, during the reign [of Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome [A.D. 198-217]. This Gaius, in a written disputation [with a certain Montanist]...says this of the places in which the remains of the afore-mentioned Apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church'"[Disputation With Proclus]. (p.44).
ON THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH AT ROME
(40) Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200, and continuing to challenge the heretics who have departed from the doctrine of the Church says, "Come now,...run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place...Achaia...Corinth...Philippi...Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [John the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffered no hurt, was exiled to an island"[36,1-3]. (p.122).(41) Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, (between A.D. 180-199), says further, in what has been preserved only in the ancient Latin: "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall...[point] 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, the 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 of the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition" [3,3,2]. (p.90).
(42) In A.D. 110, addressing the Church at Rome St. Ignatius said, "to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God...to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love..."[The Address] (p.21).
All quotes are taken from The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William A. Jurgens, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota. 1970.
Bracketed references at the end of the quotations are locations in the original works cited in The Faith of the Early Fathers. Page numbers in parenthesis are locations in The Faith... .
Bold lettering is my own personal emphasis. DJW
EWTN is available via cable and satellite dish transmission in most parts of the US.
Ping!
Jurgens trilogy of books are amazing. I have no idea how someone could read those books and remain outside the Church.
There is dispute about using Tertullian as support for purgatory.
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/mason_tertullian_and_purgatory.htm
Also given the number of disagreements amoung the early church fathers it seems over-simplified to quote one of the early fathers exclusively as speaking for the whole of the early church.
That said reading even a handful of the early church writings denounces many protestant practices. Much of Protestantism is as much a rebellion of God's will as it is of Catholic teachings.
Thanks.
Color me skeptical ... the very first quote, of Justin the Martyr, seems to support the concept of adult baptism, which many Anabaptists died in support of.
He's talking about adult converts; not surprisingly, adult conversions lead to adult baptisms.
Justin Martyr also says elsewhere that there were old women alive in his day who had been baptized by the Apostles; they would have to have been baptized as very young children.
Tertullian wrote a passage where he seemed to object to infant baptism, not on theological grounds but on practical ones: he said that the children baptized as infants would likely fall away in late adolescence and that would reflect badly on their godparents.
To make her sinless. Honestly. It's a prior application of the grace purchased at the Cross; the Papal bull dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception says flatly that it's a privilege granted by God "in view of the merits of [Mary's] Son".
Mary didn't make herself sinless; that's not Catholic doctrine.
Where?
"Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirt, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'...and in order to obtain in the water the remission of past sins, there is invoked over him who wishes to be reborn and who has repented of his sins, the name of God, the Father ....This washing is called illumination...Furthermore, the one being illuminated is washed also in the name of Jesus Christ...and in the name of the Holy Spirit..."
Nothing in this rules out infant Baptism.
I saved this post put up by Irishlass several years ago:
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery... (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]...It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)
ST. IRENAEUS (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
...He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? ...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the SACRIFICIAL prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD...THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE... (Prayer 19:1)
The flesh feeds on THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that the SOUL TOO may fatten on God. (Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)
The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations... WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries.... We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground... (The Crown 3:3-4)
A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband...Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)
ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33)
You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)
But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)
You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish....how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)
...now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)
Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3)
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)
And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body...
He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18)
Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured...The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)
If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)
Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers
COUNCIL OF NICAEA (c. 325 A.D.)
It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor the custom permits those who do NOT offer sacrifice to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer the sacrifice... (Canon 18)
APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE (c. 280 - 345 A.D.)
After having spoken thus ["This is My body...This is My blood"], the Lord rose up from the place where He had made the Passover and had given His Body as food and His Blood as drink, and He went with His disciples to the place where He was to be arrested. But He ate of His own Body and drank of His own Blood, while He was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented His own Body to be eaten, and before He was crucified He gave His blood as drink... (Treatises 12:6)
ST. EPHRAIM (c. 306 - 373 A.D.)
Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: "Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven." But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out...Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: "This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old." (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)
ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)
You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ....Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 350 A.D.)
For just as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ... (Catechetical Lectures 19 [Mystagogic 1], 7)
This one teaching of the blessed Paul is enough to give you complete certainty about the Divine Mysteries, by your having been deemed worthy of which, you have become united in body and blood with Christ. For Paul proclaimed clearly that: "On the night in which He was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: 'Take, eat, This is My Body.' And taking the cup and giving thanks, He said, 'Take, drink, This is My Blood.'" He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, "This is My Body," who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, "This is My Blood," who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood? (22 [Mystagogic 4], 1)
Once in Cana of Galilee He changed the water into wine, a thing related to blood; and is His changing of wine into Blood not credible? When invited to an ordinary marriage, with a miracle He performed that glorious deed. And is it not much more to be confessed that He has betowed His Body and His Blood upon the wedding guests? (22 [Mystagogic 4], 2)
Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but -- be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ. (22 [Mystagogic 4], 6)
Having learned these things, and being fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the apparent Wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so... (22 [Mystagogic 4], 9)
Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual songs, we call upon the benevolent God to send out the Holy Spirit upon the gifts which have been laid out: that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanctified and changed. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 7)
Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED.
Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT.
For I know that there are many who are saying this: 'If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?'...[we] grant a remission of their penalties...we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)
ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (c. 315 - 368 A.D.)
When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously -- had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: "My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in Him." As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14)
ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)
To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly: "He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life." Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week...and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint. (Letter of Basil to a Patrician Lady Caesaria)
ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (c. 330 - 389 A.D.)
The tongue of a priest meditating on the Lord raises the sick. Do, then, the greater thing by celebrating the liturgy, and loose the great mass of my sins when you lay hold of the Sacrifice of the Resurrection. Most Reverend friend, Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword. (Letter of Gregory to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium)
ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (c. 335 - 394 A.D.)
This Body, by the indwelling of God the Word, has been made over to divine dignity. Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency, bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh. From the same cause, therefore, by which the bread that was made over into that Body is made to change into divine strength, a similar result now takes place. As in the former case, in which the grace of the Word made holy that body the substance of which is from bread, and in a certain manner is itself bread, so in this case too, the bread, as the Apostle says, "is consecrated by God's word and by prayer"; not through its being eaten does it advance to become the Body of the Word, but it is made over immediately into the Body by means of the word, just as was stated by the Word, "This is My Body!" ...In the plan of His grace He spreads Himself to every believer by means of that Flesh, the substance of which is from wine and bread, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, so that by this union with the Immortal, man, too, may become a participant in incorruption. These things He bestows through the power of the blessing which transforms the nature of the visible things to that [of the Immortal]. (The Great Catechism 37)
The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ. So too the mystical oil, so too the wine; if they are things of little worth before the blessing, after their sanctification by the Spirit each of them has its own superior operation. This same power of the word also makes the priest venerable and honorable, separated from the generality of men by the new blessing bestowed upon him. (Sermon on the Day of Lights or On the Baptism of Christ)
He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed. (Sermon One on the Resurrection of Christ)
ST. EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (c. 315 - 403 A.D.)
We see that the Savior took in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: "This is really Me." And He gave to His disciples and said: "This is really Me." And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, "This is really Me"; and none disbelieves His word. For anyone who does not believe the truth in what He says is deprived of grace and of Savior. (The Man Well-Anchored 57)
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (cd. 428 A.D.)
He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood," but "This is My Body and My Blood," teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood. (Commentary on Matthew 26:26)
It is proper, therefore, that when [Christ] gave the Bread He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body," but, "This is My Body." In the same way when He gave the Cup He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Blood," but, "This is My Blood"; for He wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but [that we should] receive them as they are, the Body and Blood of our Lord. We ought...not regard the [Eucharistic elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the Body and Blood of Christ, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit. (Catechetical Homilies 5)
[If we have sinned], the Body and Blood of our Lord...will strengthen us...if with diligence we do good works and turn from evil deeds and truly repent of the sins that befall us, undoubtedly we shall obtain the grace of the remission of our sins in our receiving of the holy Sacrament. (Catechetical Homilies 16)
At first [the offering] is laid upon the altar as mere bread, and wine mixed with water; but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into the Body and the Blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment. (Catechetical Homilies 16)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)
When you see the Lord IMMOLATED and lying upon the ALTAR, and the priest bent over that SACRIFICE praying, and all the people empurpled by that PRECIOUS BLOOD, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (Priesthood 3:4:177)
Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! (Homilies on Romans 8:8)
Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)
Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His WORD be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect to the [Eucharistic] Mysteries, not looking only upon what is laid out before us, but taking heed also of His WORDS. For His WORD cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His WORD never failed; our senses err most of the time. When the WORD says, "THIS IS MY BODY," be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the REBIRTH and the RENEWAL....How many now say, "I wish I could see his shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals." ONLY LOOK! YOU SEE HIM! YOU TOUCH HIM! YOU EAT HIM! (Homilies on Matthew 82:4)
Take care, then, lest you too become guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ [1 Cor 11:27]. They slaughtered His most holy body; but you, after such great benefits, receive HIM into a filthy soul. For it was not enough for Him to be made Man, to be struck and to be slaughtered, but He even mingles Himself with us; and this NOT BY FAITH ONLY, but even in every DEED He makes us His BODY. How very pure, then, ought he not be, who enjoys the benefit of this SACRIFICE? (ibid 82:5)
...if everywhere grace required worthiness, there could neither then be Baptism nor Body of Christ nor the sacrifice priests offer.....now He has transferred the priestly action [of ancient times] to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, He commands the offering up of Himself....What is that Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body....For you are not nourished by one Body while someone else is nourished by another Body; rather, all are nourished by the same Body....When you see [the Body of Christ] lying on the altar, say to yourself, "Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ash, no longer a prisoner, but free. Because of this Body I hope for heaven, and I hope to receive the good things that are in heaven, immortal life, the lot of the angels, familiar conversation with Christ. This Body, scourged and crucified, has not been fetched by death...This is that Body which was blood-stained, which was pierced by a lance, and from which gushed forth those saving fountains, one of blood and the other of water, for all the world"...This is the Body which He gave us, both to hold in reserve and to eat, which was appropriate to intense love; for those whom we kiss with abandon we often even bite with our teeth. (Homilies on Corinthians 8, 1[2]; 24, 2[3]; 24, 2[4]; 24, 4[7])
"So also was Christ offered once." [Hebrews 7-10] By whom was He offered? Quite evidently, by Himself. Here [Paul] shows that Christ was not Priest only, but also Victim and Sacrifice. Therein do we find the reason for the words "was offered." "He was offered once," [Paul] says, "to take away the sins of many." Why does he say of many and not of all? Because not all have believed. He did indeed die for all, for the salvation of all, which was His part....But He did not take away the sins of all men, because they did not will it....What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of His death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this Sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This Sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one Sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the Sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one Body. And just as He is one Body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one Sacrifice. (Homilies on Hebrews 17, 2[4]; 17, 3[6])
Not in vain was it decreed BY THE APOSTLES that in the awesome Mysteries remembrance should be made of the DEPARTED. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. For when the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome SACRIFICIAL VICTIM is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have DEPARTED in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf. (Homilies on Philippians 3:4)
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (c. 400 A.D.)
A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, he OFFERS THE SACRIFICE...A deacon does not bless. He does not bestow blessing, but he receives it from bishop and presbyter. He does not baptize; he does not OFFER THE SACRIFICE. When a bishop or a presbyter OFFERS THE SACRIFICE, he distributes to the laity, not as a priest, but as one who is ministering to priests. (8:28:2-4)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. 333 - 397 A.D.)
We saw the Prince of Priests coming to us, we saw and heard Him offering His blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests; and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. And even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. For even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer Himself He is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered. (Commentaries on Psalms 38:25)
A priest must offer something in sacrifice and according to the Law he must enter the holy place through blood. Therefore, because God had repudiated the blood of bulls and of rams, it was necessary for this Priest, as you have read, to enter into the Holy of Holies, penetrating the heights of heaven, by means of His own blood, so that He might become an eternal oblation for our sins. Priest and Victim, therefore, are one and the same. But the priesthood and the sacrifice are a duty of the human condition; for like a lamb He was led to the slaughter, and He is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. (The Faith 3:11:87)
"My flesh is truly food and My blood is truly drink." You hear Him speak of His flesh, you hear Him speak of His blood, you know the sacred signs of the Lord's death; and do you worry about His divinity? Hear His words when he says: "A spirit has not flesh and bones." As often as we receive the sacramental elements which through the mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into the flesh and blood of the Lord, we proclaim the death of the Lord. (The Faith 4:10:124)
Perhaps you may be saying: I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the Body of Christ? It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! Let us prove that this is not what nature has shaped it to be, but what the blessing has consecrated; for the power of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing even nature itself is changed...Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: "For our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink" (1 Cor 10:2-4; 15:44). For the body of God is a spiritual body. (The Mysteries 9:50; 9:58)
You may perhaps say: "My bread is ordinary." But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ? By the consecration. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus. Like all the rest of the things said beforehand, they are said by the priest; praises are referred to God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other persons; but when the time comes for the confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words but the words of Christ. Therefore it is the word of Christ that confects this Sacrament....Before it be consecrated it is bread; but where the words of Christ come in, it is the Body of Christ. Finally, hear Him saying: "All of you take and eat of this; for this is My Body." And before the words of Christ the chalice is full of wine and water; but where the words of Christ have been operative it is made the Blood of Christ, which redeems the people. (The Sacraments 4:4:14; 4:5:23)
ST. JEROME (c. 347 - 420 A.D.)
Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the Apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ, and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians... (Letter of Jerome to Heliodorus)
The flesh and blood of Christ is understood in two ways; there is either the spiritual and divine way, by which He Himself said: "My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink"; and "Unless you shall have eaten my flesh and drunk my blood you shall not have eternal life." Or else there is the flesh and blood which was crucified and which was poured out by the soldier's lance. (Commentaries on Ephesians 1:1:7)
After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood. (Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26)
Can infants be taught and can they be someone who "professes to be able to live accordingly"?
By definition, you are dealing with a "whoever" that can be communicated with in terms of concepts such as "truth" "evil" "sin" etc. No infant I know of can grasp these concepts.
You can also only be redeemed through baptism. Chrisimation and Baptism should be done as soon after birth as possible. If not there is the oppurtunity for that person to die unbaptised regardless of what they beleive.
All humans rebel against God's will for humanity, it's called sin, people do this baptised or no, but through baptism we are saved. It is not a matter of 'professing to live accordingly'.
"By definition, you are dealing with a "whoever" that can be communicated with in terms of concepts such as "truth" "evil" "sin" etc. No infant I know of can grasp these concepts."
Apparently The Church, from very early on, dealt with and rejected your thesis, as is shown from the following from an Epistle of +Cyprian of Cathage concerning the question of infant baptism discussed at the 3rd Council of Carthage in 253 AD:
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.
3. Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift. Elisha, beseeching God, so laid himself upon the infant son of the widow, who was lying dead, that his head was applied to his head, and his face to his face, and the limbs of Elisha were spread over and joined to each of the limbs of the child, and his feet to his feet. If this thing be considered with respect to the inequality of our birth and our body, an infant could not be made equal with a person grown up and mature, nor could its little limbs fit and be equal to the larger limbs of a man. But in that is expressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by Cool; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the love and mercy of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since He shows Himself Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace.
4. For, with respect to what you say, that the aspect of an infant in the first days after its birth is not pure, so that any one of us would still shudder at kissing it, we do not think that this ought to be alleged as any impediment to heavenly grace. For it is written, “To the pure all things are pure.” Nor ought any of us to shudder at that which God hath condescended to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace; since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought for his very religion’s sake, to consider the still recent hands of God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing, in the man lately formed and freshly born, when we are embracing that which God has made. For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.
5. For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, “The Lord hath said to me that I should call no man common or unclean.” But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted—and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace—how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins—that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.
6. And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to he hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to he observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell."
Beautiful post! Thank you for saving and posting it.
If you need me to validate your "religion", I can't help you...
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.
Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.
Source: Scripture Catholic
"... tenants of faith in the 135 year period"
I hope he's getting good rental income from his "tenants" of faith.
;-)
Judging by the number of callers to the program tonight, there seems to be an excellent return on his 'investment' ;-D.
Okay .... ;-D. You're already catholic but just don't realize it.
Wonderful article.
Color the facts true, and believe.
Thanks for saving that!
Thank you so much for that.
Well, inasmuch as all of these early Fathers manifestly believed in all of the key elements of Catholicism, present in the Faith from their day to ours, then, yes, I suppose that it WOULD "turn out that early Christianity was Catholic." I leave out your word "essentially," as that translates to "mostly." The early Church was, simply, Catholic.
I find it interesting that there seems to be a growing interest in the early Church Fathers even among Evangelicals. There are several ramifications to studying the Fathers that seem to have escaped their notice. Nearly all of these men were priests or bishops. None of them contradicts any doctrinal assertions of the Catholic Faith, few of them even contradict the "probable opinions" of the modern Church that do not involve the deposit of faith. Many of the Fathers are quoted in the context of regional councils or Ecumenical Councils, which were undeniably Catholic. Those Councils, themselves, constitute an authority the Church ascribes to itself that is clearly supplemental to the authority of "Scripture alone." Those Councils, and the comments on them by the Fathers, are therefore an ancient witness to the magisterial authority of the Church. And ALL of this is an unbroken witness to the Faith beginning from within the Apostolic Era itself.
It is therefore remarkable that such an imposing "sign of contradiction" to novel doctrines never dreamed of till 1500 years after the Apostles, and 800 years after the last of the Fathers, can be read by modern non-Catholics without those glaring implications making an impression. This is rather reminiscent of the situation in Matt. 13:14-15.
These documents speak to an *authority* that overlaps the time of the Apostles at their beginning, and that testifies in *numerous* documents and authors within a few hundred years thereafter, which treats to any number of doctrines concerning the Sacraments, the nature of the Church, justification, grace, Scripture, eschatology, etc., with an entirely Catholic slant. Their chronological proximity to Christ Himself makes it clear that the Catholic Church's schema concerning its own authority and teachings is a witness to its legitimacy. Yet, in all of this, the modern non-Catholic reader merely says "Well, that's nice, but the Fathers aren't really authoritative..." Their doctrinal authority is considerably better attested to by their chronological proximity to the time of Jesus than any authority that can be scrounged-up out of wholecloth in the 1500's or later, yet the canard persists that it is the Catholics who invent doctrines!
I should think that it is a very uncomfortable thing to read the Fathers carefully as a Protestant. A yawning doctrinal gulf of well over 1000 years disconnects such a reader from the early Church, such that it *should* be impossible to claim possession of the "fullness of the truths of the Faith." It's human nature to dig-in about being "right," even, sometimes, in the face of overwhelming evidence. But we're supposed to let grace triumph over nature.
There is only one Truth, and that Truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15), and that Church, being Truth, is of an identity with Christ Himself (John 14:6). May God's grace flow to those who can discern the implications!
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.