Posted on 05/14/2008 1:54:32 PM PDT by NYer
.- In an interview with the Catholic organization “Early Christians,” Giovanni Maria Vian, director of L’Osservatore Romano, explained why Pope Benedict XVI is dedicating his Wednesday catechesis to the lives and witnesses of the early Christians.
During the interview, Vian called the early Christians “a light that comes from afar,” as Paul VI called them, and explained that they constitute “the Christian tradition, and this is the reason for the Pope’s decision to speak about them in the weekly meetings he has with the faithful and with visitors.” He has chosen to speak “first about the apostles and the very first generations of Christians, and after about the Fathers of the Church.”
Vian also explained the significance of the fact that Pope Benedict’s reflections help preserve the Church’s tradition. “Tradition means ‘to transmit,’ and tradition is a fundamental and essential concept of the Christian faith. This choice by the Pope is important because it is an invitation to Christians to renew their relationship with the tradition of the faith,” he said.
“It’s evident that the Fathers of the Church are above all intellectuals, masters of the faith, and in speaking of the first Christians one usually thinks of these authors. ‘Fathers’ is a word that in the tradition of the Church means ‘authorized person,’ someone who has authority. On the other hand, the martyrs are witnesses of Christ, because martyr means that, witness.”
Vian said the Fathers of the Church “are exceptional figures, but at the same they are figures who know how to convey their experience of Christ. In his first encyclical the Pope wrote that Christianity is not an ideology or an ethic. It is an encounter with a person, Christ. What the Fathers convey is an experience of Christ, but they do so in a way that is very creative and very simple. That is what the Pope himself is doing,” Vian continued.
He went on to point out that one of the main characteristics of Benedict XVI is that he is “so imbued with Christian tradition that he does not need to include many quotes; rather, he himself is so immersed that he speaks as a Father of the Church, what he says is understood, even though they are profound discourses. It is a way of drawing close to the Christian experience in a very lofty but understandable way.”
“In an age such as ours in which secularism is more and more rampant, it is essential that Christians acquire greater maturity in order to be more responsible and to be able to face these challenges,” Vian said. “The patristic period is essential for Christian thinking and culture.”
Ping!
You want to bring back Arianism?
The threat of the state was not an issue in 325 AD. All Constantine did with the Edict of Milan in 313 was grant the Church legal protection. The marriage of Church and state did not happen until around 380 when the empoeror Theodosius made Christianity the state religion. So, when the Roman empire collapsed in the mid 5th century, the only Institution that was viable to run the state was the Church. In many ways, it was the Catholic Church that preserved, promoted, and passed on not only the Christian faith, but Western Civilization.
Now, as government institutions became more viable as the time progressed, there were problems where the state tried to get inot the affairs of the CHurch, and the Church with state, and these were problematic for both. Thus, the Church has no temporal power, nor does it want any, and recognizes that the State has legitimate authority over certain affairs, independent from the Church while at the same time, the Church can make its voice heard on the justness of those decisions (e.g., Just War, social policy, etc,).
As for the earlier comment about reversing the Council of Nicea, to do so is pure heresy and will “never be done” by the Catholic Church.
Pax Domine Christi
Are you a Gnostic? An Arian? Those are two groups that definitely were on the receiving end at Nicaea.
Once you've completed that then let me know and I'll have another assignment which help cure you of your ignorance.
Faith of our fathers, living still,
in spite of dungeon, fire, and sword;
O how our hearts beat high
with joy whene'er we hear that glorious word!
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.
Faith of our fathers, we will strive
to win all nations unto thee;
and through the truth that comes from God,
we all shall then be truly free.
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.
Faith of our fathers, we will love
both friend and foe in all our strife;
and preach thee, too, as love knows
how by kindly words and virtuous life.
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.
Some Scripture and Holy Tradition was handed down by the Early Church Fathers.
You can disagree with the Council of Nicea, but is is illogical to suggest that Orthodox Catholics or Protestants, who define Orthodoxy, based on the early Church Councils, would consider an identity change. If individuals wish to follow a doctrine which was determined to be heretical by the early Church, they are free to do so, but then they would be Arians or Donatists or whatever, and not Orthodox Catholics or Protestants.
If you wish to argue that the Council was wrong, that could be an interesting discussion and a good opportunity to for posters to bone up on and better understand the early heresies. However the suggestion that the Pope should reverse Nicea is just plain silly.
Benedict XVI is providing a teaching master class for those who have ears to hear. Break tradition and you have broken transmission of the faith.
This is particularly pertinent for those who say that the Bible alone suffices. Scripture divorced from tradition becomes a map with no key. The key is necessary for reading and understanding the map.
To suggest that the Pope could "reverse" Nicea is also silly, and would drive the Greeks into such horripillating conniptions that they'd have to take up drinking Guinness in the morning.
(/avoiding Girl Scouts paperwork)
Works for me! Cheers!
Isn't that the truth!!! I am just amazed at his catechesis. Hopefully someone will compile these into one book that we can keep at home for reading, reflection and reference.
“So, when the Roman empire collapsed in the mid 5th century....”
Ahem; as a descendant of one who died at the Emperor’s side on the walls of The City on May 29, 1453 (Old Calendar), I beg to differ!
Fair enough, but I am referring to the Roman Empire, as understoood with Rome being the “center of the Roman” empire. As an American of Sicilian ancestry, and Roman-Rite Catholic, I still hold to the view that ultimately all roads lead to Rome.
Of course, I too am still saddened by the Mohamaden’s capture of the great city of Constantinopile in 1453.
Regards
“As an American of Sicilian ancestry,...”
Your ancestors were Greeks! :)
Good point, LOL, as there is some Greek-Sicilian ancestry in my family. So, the Greeks are definitely family, so to speak, with the Sicilians and Southern Italians.
Regards
Una faccia, una razza!
Yes, I know that well. Same face same race.
Regards and God Bless
How the Founding Fathers defined the various aspects of our government was documented by them and their contemporaries. When I want to understand how our government should work I refer to those documents and not to later interpretations.
Current experts like Supreme Court justices are unrestrained in redefining points, adding new ones and even in rendering portions of the original text to be obsolete or even replaced with ones more to their liking. Any week now we will have another example of this when the Justices tell us exactly how they will interpret the Second Amendment.
I don’t have to wait to know what the Second means. I just carefully read what the Founders wrote. It is not a matter of disagreeing with the Justices. For me, nothing they can say changes what the Founders said.
Similarly, I carefully read what the Founder and Rock caused to be written about the belief system that later came to be called Christianity. What later councils decided and wrote carries zero weight for me except as a matter of history.
It is not a matter of disagreeing, for nothing they decided can change the system that Jesus conveyed to His disciples.
Just as modern Justices can declare my opinion of the phrase “shall not be infringed” to be at odds with their edict, various groups of humans can declare the beliefs I have to be “orthodox” or “heretical”. We could likewise find ourselves in agreement on one point or many. Once again, that cannot change the meaning of the words as originally written. Those are the only words that matter to me.
From which canon?
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.