Posted on 12/10/2010 9:27:36 AM PST by marshmallow
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case?
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.
Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address.
Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren.
Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
Reading it might make them think. Shame on you.
What is the pillar and foundation of truth?
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ...
Ahhh, another spurious generalization about FReepers. How juvenile
Actually, I find it quite interesting that no mormons have entered into this discussion since they are the ones who persistently claim that they and only they have the “true” and “restored” gospel.
It would be something to see them attempt to defend their “whore of Babylon” and all other religions being apostate doctrine. But knowing what I know about mormonism, I’d be really surprised if they tipped their hand.
But don’t let pesky little things like facts get in the way of your puerile and inane emoting regarding the “anti’s”.
I don’t need to “band together” with anyone to label mormonISM a cult. I lived it.
Scripture and Tradition were for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The Tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition (Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366). (See Sola Scriptura and the Early Church)
It is true that the early Church held to the concept of Tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices and that they often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles even though could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. But these practices did not involve the doctrines of the faith and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church. An example of this is found early on in the second century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a certain day, while the West celebrated it on a different one, but both claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the Apostles. It actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who was demanding that the Eastern fathers submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do firmly believing that they were adhering to Apostolic Tradition. Which one is correct? There is no way to ascertain which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. And there are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a particular Church father claims that a particular practice is of Apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily is. All it means is that he believes it was. But there is no way to verify if in fact it truly was a tradition from the apostles. There are numerous practices which the early Church engaged in which they believed were of Apostolic origin which are listed for us by Basil the Great which no one in the Church practices today. So clearly, such appeals to oral Apostolic Tradition are meaningless. (William Webster, Sola Scriptura and the Early Church)
Argument from age
Don’t confuse Catholic with Roman Catholic. See Apostles’ Creed.
This thesis is pure balderdash. Truth is to be found in what the Holy Spirit reveals to each one of us who really know Jesus, God’s Son. We do not need a church telling us what is God’s mind. Churches are all part of the Religion that man created. Jesus did not come to start a new religion, or to start a church.
He came to set each one of us free from the bondage of sin and death. He came to draw each one of us into a personal relationship with Himself. He came to find fellowship with man. He finds that 24/7 with those who are really a part of His kingdom. We are kings and priests in His Kingdom.
God walked with Adam in the garden in the cool of the day. God sought companionship with the created.
Enoch and Noah walked with God. Enoch and Noah responded to God’s cry for fellowship in ways that Adam did not.
Probably 1 maybe 2. I didn’t want to read it, just make some comment that is totally irrelevant or inflammatory. Isn’t that what this forum is really about?
I’m waiting for Team 1. That would really be funny.
I am amazed that any Christian would suggest that a mere mortal, no matter how righteous or well taught, is immune from spritual error. When the "first Pope" was called "Satan" by Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 16:23) and later denied his lord three times, wasn't blasphemy involved? The Early Church Fathers are profitable reading but they are not inerrant. I suspect that they would be appalled by your implication.
How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture. Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this:
For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) is a Gnostic line of thought.[ Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 133.]
The Catholic Church of today has strayed far, far away from the original Church of Irenaeus day.
Just as I expected - you have no idea of what you’re talking about. You apparently can’t offer any evidence for what you claim. Typical.
Selah! Here is wisdom.
Irenaeus always links Scripture to apostolic succession and tradition; IOW, the Church.
Any reading of Irenaeus makes it plain that the Church gave us Scripture and not vice versa. Ergo, the Church is entrusted with its authentic understanding.
Don't believe me?
Stay tuned!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
"The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles."185AD !!!
- St. Irenaeus
'Nuff said.
;-)
Tell me the answers to your questions; make your point. I think you are trying to imply something rather than state it in because you don’t have anything valid to say.
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.