Posted on 05/17/2014 4:31:22 PM PDT by Gamecock
There’s an inherent problem in trying to have a logical discussion with a poster who seems incapable of following logic. I always admire your perservance.
It is wise of you to flee to Pelikan, but your failure to engage the substance of the issue, their own testimony that even their own doctrine should not be accepted unless it can "be brought out of the Holy scriptures," makes your attempt here to be totally in vain. Kelly is with me on Cyril and the others referenced, but what about Ireaneus and Tertullian? (You don't speak of Tertullian, but Kelly puts them together.)
Kelly notes that Ireaneus and Tertullian responded to Gnostic claims of a secret tradition with their own tradition, designed to support their claims of the authentic Gospels and New Testament. IOW, we know that our Gospel of John is authentic, and your Gospel of Thomas is a fake, because we have have a succession from the very beginning where we received this book, and an oral tradition which, though independent, confirms all the doctrines of Christianity. IOW, if the Gnostics have their own "secret" tradition to backup their interpretations and books, so do Christians, and it is a superior one. We know that our doctrines are correct, because the tradition handed down to us confirms it. This same "tradition," in theory independent of the scripture, was itself, however, still viewed as a summary of what was already written, and can be confirmed out of the holy scriptures, provided it was "taken as a whole."
"The whole point of his [Irenaeus] teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church's unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of revelation. If tradition as conveyed in the canon is a more trustworthy guide, this is not because it comprises truths other than those revealed in scripture, but because the true tenor of the apostolic message is there unambiguously." (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 39)
This is favorable to us, since tradition is again limited to that which can be "shown out of all the scriptures," since it is only the teachings of the scripture itself, making tradition and doctrine subservient to the Word of God, and not tradition over scripture, as the Papists must maintain to support their extra-biblical doctrines.
"In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition stood for the faith delivered by the Apostles, and he [Tertullian] never contrasted tradition so understood with scripture. Indeed, it was enshrined in scripture, for the apostles subsequently wrote down their oral preaching in epistles. For this reason scripture has absolute authority; whatever it teaches is necessarily true, and woe betide him who accepts doctrine not discoverable in it." (Ibid, p. 39).
Next, let's note explicit examples of what tradition are for Ireaneus and Tertullian. They are not the same traditions held today by Rome:
Tertullian -- Against Transubstantiation
On John 6, no literal enjoinment to eat Christ:
"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Ch. 37)
Tertullian-- "Show me where it is written." Against adding to or removing from the scripture:
"I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. John 1:3 But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. Revelation 22:18-19"(Tertullian,Against Hermogenes,Ch. 22)
Tertullian -- Babylon in John's Revelation is Rome
"So, too, Egypt is sometimes understood to mean the whole world in that prophet, on the count of superstition and malediction. So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints." (Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 9)
Tertullian -- Confession is to be done in public at the feet of the brethren, not alone in secret:
"But among brethren and fellow-servants, where there is common hope, fear, joy, grief, suffering, because there is a common Spirit from a common Lord and Father, why do you think these brothers to be anything other than yourself? Why flee from the partners of your own mischances, as from such as will derisively cheer them? The body cannot feel gladness at the trouble of any one member, 1 Corinthians 12:26 it must necessarily join with one consent in the grief, and in labouring for the remedy. In a company of two is the church; but the church is Christ. When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren's knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy. What a son asks is ever easily obtained. Grand indeed is the reward of modesty, which the concealment of our fault promises us! To wit, if we do hide somewhat from the knowledge of man, shall we equally conceal it from God? Are the judgment of men and the knowledge of God so put upon a par? Is it better to be damned in secret than absolved in public?" (Tertullian, On Repentance, Ch. 10)
Tertullian -- Against both the making of images of things in heaven and their worship
"Every form or formling, therefore, claims to be called an idol. Hence idolatry is all attendance and service about every idol. Hence also, every artificer of an idol is guilty of one and the same crime, unless, the People which consecrated for itself the likeness of a calf, and not of a man, fell short of incurring the guilt of idolatry.[...] God prohibits an idol as much to be made as to be worshipped. In so far as the making what may be worshipped is the prior act, so far is the prohibition to make (if the worship is unlawful) the prior prohibition. For this cause— the eradicating, namely, of the material of idolatry— the divine law proclaims, You shall make no idol; and by conjoining, Nor a similitude of the things which are in the heaven, and which are in the earth, and which are in the sea, has interdicted the servants of God from acts of that kind all the universe over." (Tertullian, On Idolatry, Ch. 3-4)
Tertullian- Early traditions
"To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week... We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful." (Tertullian, The Chaplet, Ch. 3)
Tertullian- Anti-Romish definition of the church
"For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three. And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted a Church, from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops" (Tertullian, On Modesty, Ch. 21)
In short, he states, Rome was on the side of every matter that was orthodox, and it became apparent early on whatever side Rome took was going to win.
As a matter of fact, Rome has lost many times. On top of the Cyprian example from Augustine, here's another example:
"“Fifth Ecumenical Council
A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote “These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.”[104] German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called “ …without the assent of the Pope”[105]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#Orthodox_arguments_from_Church_Councils
I have been through it with Jerome already. He was a loyal Catholic, so if you see in duress force, I don’t.
Who cares what you see? Let the reader judge Jerome's words and response for themselves.
I understand the concept of Primacy is viewed differently in the East vs. the West.
Not only is it viewed differently, their opinion is actually supported out of the Pope's themselves. Again, let the reader judge who is right-- the Papist or the Pope! The Church Father or the modern true believer and his liberal Pope!
So the debate of the role and Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome is actually a legitimate one, but there is not debate that Rome had a “Primacy” .
There is certainly a debate on "primacy." After all, I've already presented one, which you've largely ignored. But if the definition of primacy really is up for grabs, this means that you are conceding the possibility that Rome really isn't the head of the church. This is a fatal position for the Papists to hold, though, perhaps they are hoping that no one figures out how different the definitions of "Primacy" is when they surrender to this. If the Bishop of Rome is not the "rock", as Augustine and others held, is not the universal head, might not have the keys, might not be the vicar of Christ, the one we must all be in communion with, then you have no church, no rule, no authority, no claims at all. Because what your church has been torturing and killing people for.. is a non-entity at worst, and a thing for debate, at best, by your own concession!
But Peter and Paul went there, built it to what it was when they both died there.
A mere repetition of what I replied to in my previous post. Reread my previous post as my second reply.
As for Jerome and his prefaces, no, the Church could allow him to write his views on the scriptures. That was well within the bounds so to speak.
IOW, the Church had not authoritatively taught against him, which you want us to believe is not the case.
Some like the Hebrews were debated for a long time [can’t make it on 1], some did not read it in Church,
As a matter of fact, Hebrews was not acknowledged by Rome, as Jerome reports. The Greeks, in their turn, refused Revelation.
As for the evidence you asked, I thought I linked the Councils of Constantinopile, both 381 and 382. In one of them, the opening Letter mentions the Council in Rome being held and that Constantinopile sends that council greetings. In another one, there is a mention of a Tome from the West. Now, that Tome is not defined, but it does mention a Tome from the West. This, some Catholic scholars argue, could likely be the Decree of Pope Damasus where he reminds the Bishops that gathered there that ROme, Alexandria and Antioch are the 3 major sees given their connection to Peter. I thought I had cited that statement earlier
IOW, you want us to believe that there is a tome, as confessed by you as "undefined," which only "some" Catholic scholars argue, "could likely" (they are not even confident in their own claims?) prove that the canon was sorted in Rome long before Trent?
You damage your own arguments even better than I can!
Greetings:
Now as for Tertullian, I tend not to site him, at least when he begins to go off the rocker, which is somewhere around 205AD. His works before that are generally orthodox, his ones around 205 to 215, he is in a transition, by 215 he is with the heretical Montanists.
As for show me in the scriptures, the scriptures themselves as what constituted the canon was not yet defined.
As for Rome, if a Council was called, that was fine, but unless Rome approved it, it never got the status of ecumenical. Nothing you cite goes against primacy. Primacy was operational as early as Clement of Rome in the late 1st century [it was a mustard seed, to use the NT image, but it is there]. For if he had no primacy at all, the Church of Corinth would have told Clement to get lost.
By the time of St. Ireneaus’s Against Heresies, he clearly cites Clements Letter to the Church of Corinth as an example of Rome’s preeminent authority and he does provide a list of all the Bishops from Peter till his day. Saint Irenaeus “Against Heresies” was written around 180AD, which still is in the 2nd century quotation.
The extant Letter of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth [dated circa 166AD] to Bishop Soter of Rome praising him for the ancient custom of the Rome of urging with consoling words, as a Father does for his children. He also makes reference again to the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth[Fragment in Eusebius, History of the Church Book 2, Chapter 23 and 25]. So at least this Church in the East saw Rome as “a Father who cares for her children], this is also in the 2nd century.
The Muratorian Fragment [155AD to 200AD] clearly uses the period of the Saint Pius, Bishop of Rome 140AD to 155AD to date why the Shepherd of the Hermas should not be included the NT books to be read in the Church at Rome [earliest NT canonical List!]. Now why is Pius Bishop of Rome important?
The issue of the Gnostic heretic Marcion, who was a wealthy cleric from the East and Son of a Bishop of an Eastern Church in what is now modern Turkey. In 144AD, he was excommunicated “unilaterally” by the Pius and the Church of Rome. There was no council, no protest from the Eastern Churches. So my questions to you are
1)On what authority Did the Church of Rome and Pius act in excommunicating Marcion, who was the son of a Bishop in the Eastern Church, and may have been himself elevated to Bishop?
2)What evidence do we have from any Eastern Churches that Rome acted incorrectly or usurped a role that should have been handled by say the Church in Antioch [which would be the closest major Patriarchal See] or Alexandria?
3)Take the Arius situation. Arius was a Priest Trained in Antioch who moved to Alexandria and preached the doctrine that there was a time when the Father was not a Father, for he was once Alone. The Bishop of Alexandria acting with a Synod of Bishops from all of Egypt “excommunicated Arius”. Arius doctrine had support near Antioch, where he had studied Theology and now you had rival parties, the orthodox, Arians and semi-Arians, and thus the Arian crisis was born [and the crisis was over interpretation of scripture, namely Proverbs 8:22-31].
It would take the Council of Nicea to condemn Arianism and reaffirm Bishop Alexander and the Synod of Bishops in Egypt, and even then, he still had supporters well after Nicea.
So while Arius’s excommunication by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the Synod of Egyptian Bishops was affirmed by Nicea in 325, it was still challenged and questioned and the Council of Nicea ultimately had to resolve the crisis [Even after the Council of Nicea, Arius still had supporters]. Conversely, there was never a question that Pius, Bishop of Rome did not have the authority to excommunicate Marcion [who again, was the son of a Eastern Bishop, a wealthy one at that].
So given Pius Bishop of Rome and the Marcion excommunication [144AD], that is evidence of some form of Papal Primacy well before the middle of the 2nd century.
So if we date the Apostle John’s death at around 90AD and we date Pius, Bishop of Rome’s tenure from 140 to 155AD, what we are talking about is whether or not we can find in the writings of the Fathers whether anyone cared who was the Bishop of Rome between that 50 year period. It is quite clear, given the Marcion excommunication, that Pius, Bishop of Rome’s authority carried significant weight. So even you have to concede the “Papists” theory of Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is operational in Church practice and discipline by the time of Pope Pius [140AD to 155AD].
Now, the 50 year period between 90AD [Apostle John’s death and Pius tenure as Bishop of Rome, 140D to 154AD]. The only extant writings are the Letter of St. Clement to Rome [93AD] and the 7 extant Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Clements Letter is consistent with Rome having some authority to correct the problems in at least 1 Church in the East, i.e. the Church in Corinth [again a Church in the East]. St. Ignatius Letter to the Romans does not mention the Bishop of Rome at that time [Saint Alexander I 105 to 115AD] but it does state that the Church at Rome “Presides in Love” and “You have envied no one; Others you have taught”
So there are clear examples of the basic principle of Primacy of the Church of Rome in the late 1st and 2nd century.
As Pelikan The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: 100AD to 600AD ; Chapter 2 Outside the Mainstream] states, it is becoming increasingly that this primitive Catholicism with its movement from kerygma to dogma was far more explicitly at work in the first century than previously thought [p. 71]. He goes on to freely acknowledge in in the later part of Chapter 2 that the Church of Rome was chief among the churches in authority and prestige [p. 118].
Now, since you raised an issue about citing J. Pelikan. Rev. Henry Chadwick, The Anglican Patristic Scholar [Taught at Oxford and Cambridge] writes, with respect to the Church of Rome, that its role as a natural leader goes back to the early age of the Church. Its leadership can be seen in their brotherly intervention in the dispute at Corinth before the end of the first century. Chadwick continues and states that the first seeds of Rome’ s future development can be seen in St. Paul’s independent attitude towards the Church in Jerusalem and his focus on building up a Gentile Christendom focused upon the capital of the Gentile world. The standing of the Church of Rome was enhanced by its important part in the second century conflicts with heresy [I documented those earlier], and by it consciousness, expressed as early as 160AD in the monuments erected to the memory of St. Peter and St. Paul. By the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor insisted, in a manner that others thought autocratic , that all churches should observe Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome.. Chadwick continues that before the 3rd century, there was no call for a sustained, theoretical justification of leadership. All were brethren, but the Church of Rome was accepted First among equals. He points out that the Petrine text of Matthew 16:18 cannot be seen to play a Role in Rome’s leadership till the mid-3rd century when there was a disagreement between Cyprian and Stephen, Bishop of Rome over baptism but by the 4th century, Pope Damasus, Rome would then be seen as using this text more and more for the theological and scriptural foundation of Rome’s leadership [Chadwick, The Early Church Revised Edition, 1989, page 237-238].
In volume 2 of Pelikan’s work [The Spirit of Eastern Christendom], he starts out by stating the schism of Western and Eastern Christianity was one of the greatest calamities in the history of the Church [I agree] and it seriously undermined the powers of resistance in the Christian East against the advances of Islam and on the other hand, it hastened the centralization of Western Christendom which resulted in many abuses and provoked widespread discontent so that the Reformation itself, which split Western Christendom into two hostile camps, was one of its consequences. [I tend to agree with his analysis here].
He then goes on to discuss the Orthodoxy of Old Rome starting out by saying dominating the discussion between East and West was the massive fact of Rome’s spotless [or nearly spotless] record for doctrinal orthodoxy. The Pope’s made use of this record quoting the Petrine text [Mt 16:18-19; John 21-15-17] and Pope Agatho [678-681AD] would rely on Peter’s protection, etc. Pelikan then states that the positive evidence of history was certainly cogent and Pelikan cites his earlier work in Volume 1 noting that the East had to admit that Pope Leo [Church of Rome] had been hailed as the “pillar of Orthodoxy” and had been remembered ever since [p. 148 of Volume 2].
Pelikan continues on and notes that Rome had been on the side that “emerged victorious from one controversy to another”, and “eventually it became clear that the side Rome chose would be the one that would emerge victorious.”
Pelikan continues on by referring to the two issues discussed earlier in this work [Volume 2] and states that in the two dogmatic issues that we have discussed thus far, the person of Christ and the use of images in the Church, the orthodoxy of Rome was a prominent element, in the first of these perhaps the decisive element, so that when the relation of East and West itself became a matter of debate, the Latin Case could draw from the record established in the early centuries and the immediate past [p. 150].
Pelikan goes into the Monothelite issue and notes that even though Pope Honorius was said to have fostered it by his negligence [he never defined it, he said nothing in reality], what “Rome had sad in local councils in 649 and 680: became the orthodox definition stated at Constantinople in 681 and states Peter was still speaking thru the Pope.
So Their is a Doctrine of Primacy and it is well attested to by the 2 Protestant [well 1 former Protestant patristic scholars that I cited above. Primacy is non-negotiable and there is clear evidence for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Now, what does that Primacy entail and how it has been exercised in the past and how it could be exercised in the future is I think an interesting theological question and one I think the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church will one day have to sit down and honestly address if there is to be a Full Communion between our 2 Apostolic and historic Churches.
Former Pope Benedict [writing then as Cardinal Ratzinger] in Principles of Catholic Theology (1987, p.217) notes that when Patrirach Athenagoros met the Pope in 1963 in Phanar by stating “Against all expectations, the Bishop of Rome is among us, first among us in honor, he who presides in love [Saint Ignatius of Antioch, epistle to the Romans ). It is clear, Pope Benedict writes [then Cardinal Ratzinger] that the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Church or acknowledge the primacy of the West. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank, of the equal Bishops in the Church and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with jurisdiction, but does confess a primacy of honor and love might be a formula that recognizes the place of the Church of Rome in the Universal Church.
As then Cardinal Ratzinger noted, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the Doctrine of Primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium (p.199).
So, in closing, the Primacy of Peter as First among the Apostles and thus the Church of Rome has a basis in history and is supported by NT Text, Church Fathers, and the Councils of the Church, as Pelikan noted in his work. However, how that Primacy is exercised, it seems, is still something that can be adapted, while still holding to the Doctrine of Primacy. Even then Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that as I noted above. So a model where the Pope is the only Bishop that can call a council or if it is called by Other Bishops, the Pope approves their request, and when a council is convoked, the Pope presides over the Council appears, if I am reading Pope Benedict correctly, a model for the Doctrine of the Primacy that would be able to help heal the schism of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.
So does the Pope micro manage ever area of the Church, if that is what is Universal jurisdiction, then the Popes today do not do that. Universal jurisdiction would only apply to ensuring orthodox doctrine is preserved. The Pope does not have the authority to tell the Eastern Church how to do their Liturgy. The Eastern Liturgies are as valid as the Roman Rite.
As for the Eucharist. Here we go again. The celebration of the Eucharist, is the representation, in an unbloody manner, of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The Catholic Church reads the entire Scripture, with Christ as the reference point, thus everything in the Old Testament points to Christ and everything in the NT epistles are understood in reference to Christ.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml
The CCC discusses Typology in section 128. Typology is the Catholic view of reading Sacred Scripture as a unified whole, with the person of Christ as the center. Thus, Catholic theology sees OT persons, events, signs, as prefigurements or “types” of persons and events that occur in the NT all understood in reference to Christ. So, King David prefigures Christ the King of the new Israel. So I would like to look at Eucharist using the Catholic Biblical principle of Typology
In Genesis 14:18, we read “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram.” Later in Genesis, we read where Abraham was told to sacrifice his son Isaac and he tells his son, that God will provide the Lamb. Of course, God command Abraham to not sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham later sacrifices a Ram (c.f. Gen 22:7-14). So, two themes are already developed here, Melchizedek a priest offering Bread and Wine and the image of the Lamb.
As we move to Exodus, we see the Passover ritual described in Exodus 12: 1-20. Some key themes emerge in this text, “the blood of the Lamb is spread on the doors” (c.f. Ex. 12: 7) and the Jewish People “should partake of the Lamb and eat unleavened bread” (c.f. Ex 12: 7-8). Later in the text, we read “This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generation shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the Lord, as a perpetual institution” (c.f. Exodus 12”14) and again, “keep the custom of unleavened bread…celebrate as a perpetual institution” (c.f. Ex 12:17). So some themes emerge hear, that connect back to the passages in Genesis. The blood of the Lamb is put on the door, and the angel of death passes over God’s people. To celebrate and actually participate in this saving action of God, God prescribes a Liturgy/Rite whereby the Jewish People are to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread as a “Perpetual Institution”, i.e. a celebration that transcends time and space. For the record, the reading from Exodus 12 is read every Holy Thursday in Catholic Churches ,which is when Christ celebrates the Last supper with the Apostles.
As the Jews cross the read sea in Exodus 14 [a prefigurement of Baptism], we see them on the journey to the promise land and they are without food, so what do we read in scripture. We see in Exodus 16:13-15, God providing his people with “manna”, i.e., “bread from heaven” as Moses states “This is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat” (c.f. Ex 16: 15). So again, the sign of God giving his people bread to sustain them on the journey to the promise land is coming into play here again. As we get to Exodus 24: 6-8, we see the covenant ratified in blood as we see Moses taking blood and sprinkling it on the altar [a sign of the presence of God among the people] and then taking the same blood and sprinkling it on the people. So, from this text we have a covenant being made in blood and the mingling of the blood on the altar and people now indicates that God and the people are one, i.e. in communion. Again, for the record, this OT passage is read in Catholic Liturgy on the Feast of Corpus Christi, which was celebrated a few Sunday’s ago.
Two Psalms have strong Eucharistic imagery, as well as sacramental imagery. For example, in Psalm 104:14-15, we read “You raise grass for cattle and plants for our beasts of burden. You bring bread from the earth and wine to gladden our hearts, Oil to make our faces gleam, food to build our strength.” In Psalm 110:4 we see the connection to Melchizedek again as we read “The Lord has sworn and will not waver: like Melchizedek, you are a priest forever.” In addition, the Prophet Malachi (c.f. Mal 1:11) writes “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, a pure offering.”
So again, the signs of bread and wine are in the Psalms and the Psalmist makes a prophetic statement about Christ being like Melchizedek, you are a priest forever and later the prophet Malachi indicates that a sacrifice will be offered everywhere.
In closing with respect to the OT, the themes, signs, persons and events in these passages, which include bread and wine, priest, sacrifice, Lamb, Passover, unleavened bread, and Melchizedek, through typology, point to the person of Christ and find there fulfillment in his person.
So, staring with the New Testament, John the Baptist identifies Christ as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (c.f. John 1:29). In St. John’s chapter 6, we see Christ giving the bread of life discourse, where he cites manna that God gave in the OT and now indicates that he is the true bread from heaven. In the Gospels we read that Christ Passion took place in the context of Passover (c.f. Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Luke 22: 7; John 19:14) and all them make the point to indicate that it was the “feast of unleavened bread and St. Mark and St. Luke make the point that this was when the Passover lamb was sacrificed. We also read in the three synoptic Gospels that Christ celebrated the Last supper with his Apostles (c.f. Mk 14: 22-26; Mt 26: 26-30; Luke 22: 14-20), using bread and wine, and stated “This is my Body; This is my Blood and do this in memory of him” and Christ stated that the bread and cup were the new covenant of his blood (c.f. Luke 22:20). St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-29, which interestingly, is written before any of the Gospel accounts gives a strong narrative on the Tradition of the Eucharist as he writes that Christians are to celebrate the Eucharist and indicates that it is a covenant in Christ blood and each time you celebrate the Eucharist, you proclaim the death of the Lord. St. Paul also clearly states that partaking of the Eucharist must be done worthily and a person should examine himself/herself before receiving the Eucharist (c.f. 1 Cor 11:27-28).
In St. Luke’s Gospel, we see the post resurrection account of the road to Emmaus (c.f. Luke 24: 13-35) Christ appearing to two of his Apostles (who are not named) and they do not recognize him until Christ celebrates the “Eucharist” as we read “And it happened that while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him…….and the two recounted how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread (c.f. Luke 24:30-35). St. Luke, in Acts of the Apostles, gives us an account of Church life as he writes “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” (c.f. Acts 2:42). We see the importance of gathering to break bread again in Acts 20:7 where we read “On the first day of the week, when we gathered to break bread” and Paul again breaks bread before he leaves (c.f. Acts 20:11).
So, taken collectively, the Catholic Church sees the Eucharist as the ritual, sacramental action of thanksgiving to God which constitutes the principal Christian liturgical celebration of communion in the paschal mystery of Christ and the celebration of the Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life (Catechism paragraph 2177). The Eucharist then fulfills all of the Old Testament signs and events in the person and actions of Christ, and thus it is the celebration commanded by Christ to make present the sacrifice of Christ throughout the ages until Christ comes again. Christ entrusted this memorial of his body and blood to his spouse, the Church and thus it is an action of both Christ and His Church and it again, re-presents [makes present] the sacrifice of the cross and an because it is a memorial, it applies its fruits. The sacrifice of Christ and the Eucharist are one in the same and as Christ once offered himself in a bloody manner on the Cross, the Eucharist as a sacrifice and an offering of bread and wine is the same offering in an unbloody manner.
So the notion that Christ’s Sacrifice is only “Past” is actually a limitation on God. Christ by his Incarnation entered into time and space and thus the Crucifixion happened 2,000 years ago yet God who is not bound by space and time can make the same “once for all Sacrifice” present in perpetuity because Christ is God. The Eucharist makes present through Sacred Mystery the Sacrifice of Christ 2,000 years ago.
As for the notion of Transubstantiation, this dogma has to be understood in the context when it was defined during the middle ages as it is a Philosophical Definition in response to Philosophical question about the Eucharist that arose during this period of history and thus should be understood as such. It is not the only way to explain or define the Eucharist because what we are talking about is a “Sacred Mystery” and thus the Eucharist can never be totally defined with theological language, which is why the Eastern Orthodox Church refers to Sacraments as “Holy Mysteries” consistent with the expression of St. Paul who referred to priests (i.e. St. Paul described his ministry as priestly, see Romans 15:16) those should be thought of as stewards as we read “Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (cf. 1 Corinthians 4: 1). In the Catholic Church, this expression is also used as you will often hear the Priest in the opening prayer before Mass/Liturgy saying we come to ‘celebrate these Sacred Mysteries”, etc.
While it is true to say that transubstantiation was not clearly defined in the Church Fathers, it is however, an “organic development” that is entirely consistent with the clear doctrine of the “real presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist which no Church Father ever denied.
In addition, many of the best non-Catholic scholars of Early Church History, who have far more credentials than you and I both, indicate the evidence of the Early Church Fathers supports the Catholic and Eastern Orthdoox Doctrine on the Eucharist. Again, I will cite the same two to make my point, Henry Chadwick, a Professor of Church History at both Oxford and Cambridge [not sure if he is still with us], and the late Professor Jaroslav Pelikan, who taught at Yale University.
For example, Henry Chadwick, in the “The Early Church Revised Edition”, published by Penguin Press, writes “The Earliest second century-texts (Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr) agree that the regular Sunday worship of the Christians was first and foremost ‘thanksgiving’, eucharista, a term which gradually replaced the more primitive term of ‘breaking bread’ (p. 261).” The term breaking bread of course is used in Luke 24:35 (Road to Emmaus) and Acts 2:42.
Chadwick (pp. 261-262) elaborates further on St. Justin Martyr’s writing. Chadwick states “The Roman Eucharist of 150 is described by Justin Martyr in a passage to reassure pagan readers that Christian rites are not black magic. After readings from ‘the memoirs of the apostles’ and from the Old Testament prophets, the president (evidently the Bishop) preached a sermon…….Then bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together were brought to the President who ‘to the best of his ability’ offered a prayer of thanks to the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit, concluding with the people signifying their ratification by saying Amen….The Communion followed at which each person partook of the break and wine distributed to them by deacons, and received it no as common food for satisfying hunger and thirst, but as the flesh and blood of Christ. Finally, pieces of the sacred bread were taken to the sick and those in prison. If is clear that, although attending the service meant risking one’s life and liberty, all Christians regarded it as an absolute obligation to be present each Sunday if it was in their power. Justin saw in the universal Christian custom of a weekly Eucharist a direct fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi 1: 10-11 that in every place a pure sacrifice would be offered to the Lord from the rising of the sun to its setting.”
The late Jaroslav Pelikan, who was a Distinguished Professor at Yale who again wrote an excellent 5 volume history of the Church entitled “The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine while he was a Protestant (Lutheran), as he later entered into the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has a view of the Eucharist consistent with the Catholic Church [as I have already noted].
In Volume 1 of Pelikan’s series, entitled ‘The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), he reviews all of the early Church Fathers and their writings on the Eucharist. Pelikan (p. 167) states “Yet it does seem “express and clear” that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record either declared the presence of the body of blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so)…Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence.” Pelikan uses the Liturgy to further show the belief in the real presence as he writes “yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence….The Theologians did not have adequate concepts with which to formulate a doctrine of real presence that was evidently already believed in the Church even though it was not yet explicitly taught by Creeds..(p. 168).
Pelikan concludes (p. 170) by stating “Liturgical evidence suggests and understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old Testament was one of archetype or type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation’ just as the bread of the Eucharist “re-presented” the Body of Christ.”
In closing, the evidence of the New Testament, the writings of the Early Church clearly do show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I stand by this belief and if you think I took a beating from you, that is in your own imagination.
As for the Tome of Damasus, Phillip Scaff in his Introductory notes clearly believes that the Tome that the Constantinople received from the West was from Pope Damasus. He is a Reformed Protestant and certainly would not make such a statement because he is sympathetic to the Papacy. I suggest you read his Introductory notes on the Council of Constantinopile.
As for the NT, Rome by 405 had defined the canon. It is interesting that regardless of what Church Father said here or there, and the ones who questioned the Deuterocanonicals were the Minority, the Canon defined by Rome or confirmed by Rome became the standard for ‘every Church in the West” So you have to ask yourself this question, leaving Pope Damasus aside and the Council of Rome in 382, given the regional councils at Hippo and Carthage [which asked for confirmation from Rome] and given Pope Innocent I Letter to Bishop Exsurpius in what is modern France, and given the Council of Carthage in 419 which directed that its canon be sent to Pope Boniface for confirmation, why is it that all those local Churches which had to some degree, different canons, all accept the same canon. In fact some of those in the East would actually accept longer canons of the OT than the Catholics [some Orthodox accept 9 of the Deuterocanonicals, I think 3 and 4 Maccabees]
What you actually mean is: The status of the apocrypha were not yet sorted. The Papists, when put to a corner, want us to think there was no scripture at all, just confusion and madness. Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and other early writers, have hundreds upon hundreds of quotations from the New Testament. Even before the end of the first century, all the Gospels were well known and gladly used. Even when Rome rejected Hebrews, and the Greeks began to look down at John's Revelation in Jerome's time, the church at large had a long history with these books long before the imbeciles set to work molesting these writings:
"This must be said to our people, that the epistle which is entitled "To the Hebrews" is accepted as the apostle Paul's not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times, although many judge it to be by Barnabas or by Clement. It is of no great moment who the author is, since it is the work of a churchman and receives recognition day by day in the public reading of the churches. If the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical scriptures, neither, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks accept John's Apocalypse. Yet we accept them both, not following the custom of the present time but the precedent of early writers, who generally make free use of testimonies from both works. And this they do, not as they are wont on occasion to quote from apocryphal writings, as indeed they use examples from pagan literature, but treating them as canonical and churchly works." (Jerome, Letter to Dardanus, prefect of Gaul (Ad Dardanum, no. 129 § 3). A.D. 414.)
Nothing you cite goes against primacy.
Notice what's missing: The "why". You're avoiding like crazy whether the Church Fathers agreed with Rome's doctrine of the Papacy. This is founded on Matt 16, with Peter being the "rock." If you do not have this, you have nothing. A "primacy" not of supremacy, but of honor, based on an alleged foundation of the church under both Peter and Paul, is a victory for me in every way.
Primacy was operational as early as Clement of Rome in the late 1st century [it was a mustard seed, to use the NT image, but it is there]. For if he had no primacy at all, the Church of Corinth would have told Clement to get lost.
There is nothing in Clement that supports your claims, and certainly even the writer of Clement would not have believed it. As the Roman Catholic theologian Klaus Schatz, promoting his "development of the papacy" theory, concedes:
"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy, page 3, top)
And he's not the only one (the above citation, and all that follows, is stolen from a previous post by Daniel1212. The following also touches on "lists" of Bishops and other matters brought up in your post):
Schatiz additionally states,
"Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
• Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:
"....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." — The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39
• Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
"Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...
Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century."
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,24
• The Catholic historian Paul writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”
"Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria."
• Roger Collins, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:
"So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process...Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true...
"It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes. (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).
Roman Catholic [if liberal and critical] Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of “Why i am a Catholic:”
"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." — WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81
• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
• Raymond Brown [being censored here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)
1)On what authority Did the Church of Rome and Pius act in excommunicating Marcion, who was the son of a Bishop in the Eastern Church, and may have been himself elevated to Bishop?
1) The authority to excommunicate is a Biblical one, and is a power every local church has, to remove evildoers from communion with the faithful (though it does not damn them).
2) The heretic in question originated his heresy in Rome.
3) You are claiming that Rome had an absolute authority to do as they pleased, single-handedly, which is historically denied. Rome, for example, had condemned Cyprian for teaching that apostates/converts who had been baptized in heterdox churches, needed to be re-baptized, which Augustine defends on the basis of a council having not determined the matter:
“There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,-to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book I)
4) Many opponents of decisions made by Rome have appealed to other Bishops or to Synods, which, if what you say is true, was in contradiction to the sole and absolute authority the church in Rome practiced here. But is not on contradiction if we consider the ancient view, that each church was its own master, with the Bishop beholden only to God, as we see in Ignatius’ quote, and here:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.” (Nicea, 6th canon)
5) ALL Apostolic Sees, in those days, have an authority to excommunicate:
“You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion, claiming the name of Christians” (Augustine, Letter 232)
So given Pius Bishop of Rome and the Marcion excommunication [144AD], that is evidence of some form of Papal Primacy well before the middle of the 2nd century.
This language of "some form" is damning, and I'm surprised you still aren't talking about this. If the "form" of the Papacy is not the Roman form that it boasts of today, or is some "developmental" form, then Roman Catholicism has been overthrown. Either Peter's so-called successors have always held the keys to the kingdom of God, or they don't. There is no middle ground.
St. Ignatius Letter to the Romans does not mention the Bishop of Rome at that time [Saint Alexander I 105 to 115AD] but it does state that the Church at Rome “Presides in Love” and “You have envied no one; Others you have taught”
His letter is a good argument for there not being any single Bishop in Rome at all at the time, as the other Papist I quoted suggest. Ignatius greets and greatly praises the Bishop of every city he wrote to, but when writing to Rome, did not even bother to say "hi". He also greets these other churches with great praise, similar to what the Romans received, and, as mentioned before, contradicts the supremacy of your church:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp, Ch. 0)
By the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor insisted, in a manner that others thought autocratic , that all churches should observe Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome..
Autocratic is putting it mildly. He excommunicated all those who celebrated Easter on the "wrong day", resulting in "sharp rebukes" by the churches.
"But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor." (Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Chapter XXIV.—The Disagreement in Asia.
The Roman Bishop has, in fact, been threatened with excommunication, resulting in interesting reversals:
"A controversy arose out of the writings known as Three Chapters – written by bishops Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters. At the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) the assembled bishops condemned and anathematized Three Chapters. After the council threatened to excommunicate him and remove him from office, Vigilius changed his mind – blaming the devil for misleading him.[103] Bossuet wrote "These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decress of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical."[104]
German theologian Karl Josef von Hefele notes that the council was called " …without the assent of the Pope"[105]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy
Now, what does that Primacy entail and how it has been exercised in the past and how it could be exercised in the future is I think an interesting theological question and one I think the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church will one day have to sit down and honestly address if there is to be a Full Communion between our 2 Apostolic and historic Churches.
Interesting, but such theological questions make me wonder why you are debating with me at all? I am terribly confused by your statements. Why is a Roman Catholic arguing for a generic "primacy" that has no jurisdiction over me? Unless there is double-talk going on, I am greatly pleased with these statements, as they free us from Romanism's claims entirely. Your arguments depicting Rome as having an unquestioned and unique authority to do as it pleases, such as in the matter of excommunication, are absolutely contradicted by these statements here. Either Rome can open and shut the kingdom of heaven, or it can't. You can't keep having it both ways.
So does the Pope micro manage ever area of the Church, if that is what is Universal jurisdiction, then the Popes today do not do that. Universal jurisdiction would only apply to ensuring orthodox doctrine is preserved. The Pope does not have the authority to tell the Eastern Church how to do their Liturgy. The Eastern Liturgies are as valid as the Roman Rite.
Is this the double-talk right here? Are you saying that Rome ought to have the authority to tell the Eastern Church how to do their THEOLOGY, but that you'll leave them their liturgy? "I'll tell you what to believe and to do with your life, but you can choose what clothes you want to wear?" The differences in Eastern theology with Rome are quite big. If you think that it's only the liturgy that's different, you're in for a surprise.
As for the Eucharist. Here we go again. The celebration of the Eucharist, is the representation, in an unbloody manner, of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
Huh? Where did this come from? I never talked about the Eucharist in general. While it is true to say that transubstantiation was not clearly defined in the Church Fathers, it is however, an “organic development” that is entirely consistent with the clear doctrine of the “real presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist which no Church Father ever denied.
This is quite silly, considering you took the time to depict Tertullian as a heretic in order to get out of his sayings. The problem isn't that it was not "defined," the problem for the Papists is that it was defined, and defined contrary to Roman Catholicism. Your "organic development" at the point is merely another way of saying that the current doctrine of transubstantiation is an invention, and not something passed down by the Apostles. You almost disarm me, since I have so many quotes to offer showing exactly how the Fathers contradict the modern church, but it's like you give up before we even begin by saying this stuff.
In closing, the evidence of the New Testament, the writings of the Early Church clearly do show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I stand by this belief and if you think I took a beating from you, that is in your own imagination.
Well that's easy to say, since the issue of the Real Presence is a strawman. Presbyterians and Lutherans believe in the Real Presence too. It's easy to claim you won't get a beating if you're avoiding the beating by fighting about something we agree on. On Transubstantiation and the reading of John 6, however, you will receive a beating.
As for the NT, Rome by 405 had defined the canon.
You're just repeating yourself. There's nothing here for me to worry about.
Ah. The Good Thief! But at least they are not forgeries, which Rome made use of to supply what Scripture or history did not.
Greetings:
I am well aware of the early Fathers quoting certain NT books, those same early Fathers also quote the Deuterocanonicals, and there are some NT books not quoted at all as there are some of the proto-canonical books not quoted at all. Just a quick summary, Clement of Rome cites MT, MK, and Luke, Acts, 1 Cor, 1 Peter, Titus and Hebrews along with Romans. Of the OT, he cites Wisdom, Num, Deut. The Didache cites Sirach, Tobit, and Wisdom from the OT along with Deut, Proverbs, Exodus. The Gospel of Mt is cited frequently along with 1 Peter, 2 John, 2 Thess, Revelation. Luke is also cited at least 1 time. Ignatius cites from very few OT books at all [Psalms is 1 he does site, he does cite from 8 or 9 NT books. Polycarp, who new the Apostle John sites from Tobit among the OT, not too many others, and cites 17 to 18 or so NT books.
Saint Irenaeaus who you cited cites from Wisdom and the portions of Daniel found in the LXX. Again, he cites from the Deuterocaonicals.
So if you are going to play the cite game, then all those early Fathers cited heavily from the Deuterocanonicals, and 2 of them, based on the scholarly consensus new 2 of the Apostles [CLement new Saint Paul; and Polycarp new Saint John]
No I am not avoiding anything. None of the Church Fathers rejected Rome and Primacy. The issue you are debating is how Matthew 16:18 related to the Primacy of Rome and how Rome may have used it in how it defined primacy or exercised said Primacy. That is the only debate about Matthew 16:18. As for Klaus, that is his view, maybe individual Christians if you asked them that question, they may have answered it in the way he speculates they would. We will never know, he obviously is a Catholic who wants to downplay Primacy, for what reason, perhaps like many post Vatican II Catholics, a weaker notion of Primacy, which many of the higher critic Catholic Scholars have been screaming about, will allow them to push the Catholic Church towards what the Church of England now looks like. There is nothing in those “Catholic” writers that you cite that is surprising. There are plenty of those guys around. Fr. Charles Curran did not like Humanae Vitae so he challenged Rome’s Primacy, Fr. Hans Kung challenged the notion of Primacy, ordination reserved only for me, along with Humae Vitae, and he was no longer considered a theologian in good standing [same with Curran]. Fr. Sullivan, who you cited, is also in the “theological camp” of Kung and Curran.
As for Single Bishops, at least one NT Church had a “single Leader” that would be James at Jerusalem. From the others it is pure speculation why there were not single leaders “overseers” although Saint Paul tells Titus to rebuke with all authority [Titus 2:15] and in 1 Timothy 5:20 he tells Timothy to Reprimand[rebuke] publicly who sin [the presbyters under Timothy’s leadership]. In other words, the notion of a single Bishop [Overseer] is in the NT in at least those 3 instances. As to why there is no evidence of a single Bishop at every NT Church, well as long as the Apostles were leaving, they would still be consulted, also culturally, perhaps in some areas a group of presbyters fit the local culture better and those who had groups of presbyters could always appeal back to an Apostle. As the Apostles died, the question that has to be asked is why did the basic model laid out by Saint Paul in the pastoral epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus become the dominate model so quickly. Even in the Letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Polycarp, we see what is likely a model that came from the Apostle John because those Churches [Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, see Revelation 2 and 3] all had single Bishops and Saint Ignatius writing from Antioch [also a NT Church] was the single Bishop.
So the model of a single Bishop and Overseer is indeed in the NT, it is just uneven as to where it becomes the norm. By the early 2nd Century, it is the norm in the entire Church. Now, the issue you are trying to make is when did “Rome have a single Bishop”. That is hard to tell from direct evidence. At least by 140AD when Saint Pius was Pope as indicated by the Muratorian Fragment, which states that that Shepherd of the Hermas is not read in the Roman Church’s Liturgy since it was written in recent times when Pius had the “Chair of the Church in Rome”. Further, that language implies that the notion of “Chair of the Church in Rome” was a common usage and that there has always been a person who held “said Chair”.
Yes, I know St. Ignatius does not address a Bishop in Rome, but rather the Church of Rome as presiding in Charity. That does not mean there was no Bishop in Rome. It just means Saint Ignatius wrote the letter that way, perhaps knowing that naming the Bishop of Rome would immediately put his life in jeopardy.
The entire early Church in the 2nd Century clearly saw the Letter of CLement as being written by him as the Leader of the Church of Rome. Critical scholars look at the text and say well, Clement does not write his name on it thus we can determine from the internal evidence that he was the single Bishop of Rome. But you can’t saw he was not either.
Raymond Brown is a loose Canon, whom you cited. Yes he was being censured in some regards. Again, I have the New Jerome Commentary which he was 1 of the 3 Editors [for the record, had he alone edited it, I would not have purchased it]. He was a higher critic type Biblical scholar and those guys, as Pope Benedict noted in his Jesus of Nazareth 3 Volume series have done some “good scholarship” but their approach in general is limited and in reality has not made major contributions to theology and our understanding better the person of Jesus Christ [I am summarizing the Emeritus Pope Benedict here].
Not to attack you personally but as for higher critic Catholic Scholars, I have less use for them than Protestant higher critical ones [it started in German Protestantism in the 19th century so it comes from the Protestant tradition] because they should know better and be guided to serve the Church and look at Creeds, earlier commentaries from the Great Theologians of the Church, COuncils and use their scholarship to compliment those other methods of reading scripture, not the modern critical perspective alone. Just to clarify, I have no problem with “critical scholarship” when it is connected to the broader Catholic Theological and Biblical Tradition. When it stands alone apart from it, well, you get Fr. Curran, Fr. Hans Kung, Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Francis Sullivan, Fr.Fleger of Chicago [although he has toned down a bit, good work by Cardinal George of Chicago]
As for the rebaptized of those who were baptized in heterodox Churches, whatever Cyprian and the Pope’s opinions were, it was Rome’s view that ultimately was the orthodox one and even Saint Augustine, when writing against the Donatists, made theological arguments that some sacraments are valid outside the visible Catholic Church. The Council of Nicea would define what Rome in essence taught ealier, there is one Baptism and if done using the Holy Trinity and water, even if done outside of the visible Church, the Church would not rebaptize.
As for Marcion, he was from the East and brought his heresy to Rome from the East. In fact, there are some who state that if Father, a Bishop in the East was so done with him that he kicked out the house due to his theology.
As for the statement about Rome and Orthodoxy. I have never said Rome can do as it pleases. I said Rome has a Primacy. That is the Doctrine. What can be debated and discussed is how can “said Primacy” be exercised in a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. This is not new. Pope John Paul II in Ut Unam Sint basically proposed this question to the Orthodox. Pope Benedict has said the same thing. How can Primacy of Rome [not negotiable] be “exercised in terms of ministry” with a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. that is the question. And note, I made no such claims as to how it would be exercised with you Protestants. That is long gone and will never happen.
The fact that the Patriarch of Constantinopile asked Pope Francis to meet him in Jerusalem to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras [spelling] meeting 50 years ago is a good sign. The fact that the Patriarch and Emeritus Pope Benedict a few years back recited the Nicene Creed together at Mass [using the Greek edition, for the record] is a good sign. What Pope Benedict was saying is that Rome will not impose the Latin version of the Creed, with the Filoque [which is orthodox doctrine] on the Greek Church when saying the Liturgy together as both understanding of how the Holy Spirit is sent are complimentary theologies, not opposed, they just reflect different ways of expressing the same doctrine.
I am really not interested in what protestants think about Primacy. I am not. I am more interested in how Catholic and Orthodox can find a solution to how Primacy can be exercised in a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church.
As for your arguments about middle ground or not. That is protestant internet polemics. Not interested in it at all. Peter was first among the Apostles, there are plenty of NT texts that clearly indicate this in addition to Mt 16:18. Rome as chief and had the 1st primacy in the early Church, even before Nicea named 3 in Canon 6 [and note the language, giving ALexandria and Antioch a primacy like Rome] but nowhere was Rome’s primacy ever really defined. even before Nicea, Rome was using a basic form of Primacy, although in one instance, perhaps used incorrectly in the case of Pope Victor. However, the Roman way of celebrating pascha/Easter would be the way that the Council of Nicea defined some 140 years later, for the record. So Pope Victor was somewhat arrogant in his use of Primacy. Primacy needs to be rooted in service and Love [per Jesus command to his Apostles] and as noted by Saint Ignatius of Antioch [Church of Rome presides in Love].
I will not argue about Transubstantiation because it will do not good. Here is a quote from an Eastern Orthodox Theologian and it is not a problem for the Catholic Church [for the record, an Eastern Orthodox Christian can take Communion in a Catholic Church]. Transubstantiation is clearly only a Latin Theological term. In this sense, Rome would not ever require the Orthodox to use that term to describe what happens during the Eucharistic prayer. So in this quote we See the Eastern Orthodox describing the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ:
“In the East, however, the culminating point of the prayer is not in the remembrance of Christ’s act but in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which immediately follows: “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts here spread forth, and make this bread to be the precious Body of Thy Christ... .” Thus, the central mystery of Christianity is seen as being performed by the prayer of the church and through an invocation of the Spirit. The nature of the mystery that occurs in the bread and wine is signified by the term metabole (”sacramental change”). The Western term transubstantiation occurs only in some confessions of faith after the 17th century.”
Now note, the “Western term” appears... Now, what this is describing is the Epiclesis [calling upon the Holy Spirit. If you read the links below under the label “epiclesis”, you will see the same notion of calling upon the Holy Spirit in all Catholic Liturgical prayers.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm
Where Catholic Theology differs from the Eastern Orthodox, only in degree, not substance, is that Catholic theology uses the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodoxy does not attempt to define it, but leaves it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Below are links to one of the chief Liturgies of the Orthodox Church, the first 1 is the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrystostem. The 2nd Link is a theological explanation from the Orthodox Church of America on the Eucharist. Nothing in it that I was a Catholic disagree with. The 3rd link is from the Orthodox Church of America regarding Holy Orders [Bishops/Priests/Deacons]. Again, nothing that I disagree with as a Catholic. The 4th link is an Orthodox explanation of the epiclesis, which I linked earlier in the context of the Roman Liturgy and Catholic Church. Link is one on the Eucharistic prayer. Nothing again that presents a problem for me as a Catholic. In fact, the Orthodox priest is saying the Eucharist ad orientalem, which is the classic posture in the Roman Rite before the change at Vatican II whereby the Priest faced the assembly vs. facing “allegorical East”. Personally, I like the ad orientalem posture at Liturgy and wish the Roman Rite would use it more often.
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-orders
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/epiklesis
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/eucharistic-canon-anaphora
The Catholic Liturgy is linked below, if you look at it, the basic structure of the Roman Liturgy is the same as the Orthodox Liturgy. Where the Eucharistic Rite is in the following link, the Eucharistic prayers that I linked earlier are what is said at that part of the Liturgy.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm#Introductory
I have read every Liturgical writing in the patristic period and all of them are in the basic structure and in fact, have specifically the same prayers, as the Roman Liturgy of today. The Didache, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome and Cyril of Jerusalem all have Liturgical writings. So proper worship is Liturgical, and for me Catholic Liturgy, which is centered on the Eucharist and a set order of prayers that conveys the “symbola” of faith [Creeds, etc] and the public reading of scriptures, all together is true worship. Orthodox have true worship and for that reason, the Catholic Church sees the Orthodox as having valid Eucharist.
I used the Orthodox here because there is no basis for protestant polemics against Rome. For if you are going to criticize us, then you need to criticize them. They have the same belief in the Eucharist as we Catholics. The only difference is they do not use the “Latin term transubstantiation” to try to define the change that take place during the “epiclesis”. If there is a criticism of Eastern Theology, it can be that they tend to not define too things and that is why, in my opinion, most if not all the major heresies of the early Church tended to start in the East. If there can be a criticism of Roman-Latin theology, is that we sometimes tend to over-define [that would be the criticism from the Greek tradition] because you will always have a hard time coming up with an appropriate word to describe something that is ultimately “Holy Mystery” [to use the Greek Orthodox terminology]. Nevertheless, regardless of the Latin usage of Transubstantiation, the Orthodox, without the use of that term, have the same doctrine of the Holy Eucharist as we Catholics. It in no way reflects Reformed, Lutheran or even Traditional Anglican views of it, which at times can be close to the Catholic and Orthodox view.
Now as I wrote to another poster in another thread [I will not bring that debate here, but it is related to the Eucharist], among the Protestants, the Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed all are closer to historic worship than the rest of Protestants. All of you retain some degree of Liturgy with Eucharist, Creed, Scripture. Protestantism beyond those 3 and what they call worship is only partially worship. All it really involves in Teaching a sermon and songs. That is partially worship but not Liturgy. Now, those who go to those types of Protestant churches I am sure are going in good faith, but the early Church was a Church that viewed Liturgy as the most important action of the Church, the worship of God a the public Liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist.
So while I think it is clear “that you and I will Never totally agree”, I do acknowledge that you do have a stronger belief in the Eucharist and Sacramental Presence of Christ in the Eucharist than found in the majority of Protestantism which is basically Pentecostal and non-confessional reformed.
With that said, ok, you disagree with Catholics and our doctrine of the Eucharist [you also disagree with the Eastern Orthodox]. Things like Killing Christ again or re-sacrificing Christ and cannibalism, etc, is excessive rhetoric that makes this place a zoo at times. So if you disagree, ok, you disagree, but many of your cohort are over the top [maybe not you]
I think any honest reading of the NT Gospels and Saint Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians will see a strong foundation for Eucharistic Doctrine. A reading of the early Church Fathers will only reinforce that an indicates how men who new the Apostles viewed the Liturgy [i.e. Clement of Rome most likely new Saint Paul], Saint Polycarp was a disciple of Saint John, and Igantius of Antioch was a pupil of Polycarp, etc. and thus the Eucharist. The Liturgy and Eucharist are continually written about throughout the Patristic period and the Canons of all the Councils have in their canons teachings about the Eucharist and other sacraments.
So the Catholic position on the Eucharist is well founded as is the Orthodox. For protestants who have a view of real presence of the Eucharist that is not quite 100% the Catholic view or even the Orthodox view [I believe theirs is 100% consistent with ours], yet still hold to sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist [as many Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed actually do], I have no problem with you guys stating something to the effect that I think the Catholic view of the Eucharist has a basis in the NT and Church Fathers [we also see a sacramental or real presence], I just think that Catholic theologians of the 2nd millennium in trying to define what happens during the “epiclesis” was not something that needed to happen because any term you use [in this case Transubstantiation] would never be adequate enough to fully define it. That is a fair criticism and one that I think the Orthodox actually hold to. They just leave it as a Holy Mystery, don’t define what happens in the epiclesis, but again, they end up in the same place as we Catholics do in terms how they understand the Real Presence of Christ, it is under the forms of bread and wine, his true Body and Blood.
Finally, with respect to John Chapter 6, I linked Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Patristic Commentary on the Gospels which Cardinal Newman translated into English. The commentary is an excellent one. In no way does that commentary, a summary of all the Patristic commentaries on John 6, reject the Eucharistic presence of Christ or treat it as a mere symbol. In fact, there is one quote by Saint Augustine in their that connects this passage to Faith and works of Love as being connected.
http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/John
Again, with respect to Fathers of the Church, if 1 Father says it, I read it, but if the Church does not define that 1 Fathers theology as authoritative, then it is 1 Father. Now that 1 Father’s theology can be acceptable as a way to understand a doctrine, but not the only way. If 2, 3 or 4, Fathers say the same thing, then it has more weight, If 10 or more, etc, more weight. Now if the Pope or a Council defines anything from a Father’s theological writings as an orthodox way of explaining a Doctrine, then that has higher authority with me than anything else.
Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.No idea what precisely is meant by "spiritually present," or whether they would consider this the same as "real presence."
I'm not sure what game you, in fact, are playing, as this has nothing to do with what I said. You suggested that the New Testament was somehow up in the air. If you concede that the early church were highly familiar with the books of the New Testament, then they knew what the scripture was, regardless of the status of the apocrypha.
By the way, why did you rob Ignatius of his relationship with John the Apostle? Is it because he said that the head of the Bishop is God?
No I am not avoiding anything. None of the Church Fathers rejected Rome and Primacy. The issue you are debating is how Matthew 16:18 related to the Primacy of Rome and how Rome may have used it in how it defined primacy or exercised said Primacy. That is the only debate about Matthew 16:18.
This is like saying: "You've only wiped out my army, taken me captive, and have tortured me for the past 24 hours. You have not won the war."
Ignoring your, well, ignoring of the evidence presented (I've gotten used to it), a failure to uphold Matthew 16:18 means the death of Catholicism. It is the foundation of Rome's theological assertions of power, without which their claims are merely political in nature.
If all you want to do is debate politics with me on why I should follow Rome, then start a thread in a political section of the forum. The religion forum is for proper theology.
As for Klaus, that is his view, maybe individual Christians if you asked them that question, they may have answered it in the way he speculates they would. We will never know, he obviously is a Catholic who wants to downplay Primacy,
I like how you pick and choose people to quote from and then treat it like all we have to do is demean them to avoid the substance of their writing. Now I know what to do when you quote Kelly and other random people at me in the future. I can just play your game and get out of commenting on the issue entirely.
It just means Saint Ignatius wrote the letter that way, perhaps knowing that naming the Bishop of Rome would immediately put his life in jeopardy.
I've heard Papists say this before, but it's always struck me as very absurd. It would mean that Ignatius had no problem identifying people and praising them in great detail in all the other churches, as if he didn't care if they were kidnapped and murdered, but couldn't even mask a compliment to his "head," the Pope!
As for the rebaptized of those who were baptized in heterodox Churches, whatever Cyprian and the Pope’s opinions were, it was Rome’s view that ultimately was the orthodox one and even Saint Augustine, when writing against the Donatists, made theological arguments that some sacraments are valid outside the visible Catholic Church. The Council of Nicea would define what Rome in essence taught ealier,
IOW, Rome was not authoritative in the matter, only the church council had the ultimate say so, exactly as Augustine said.
As for the statement about Rome and Orthodoxy. I have never said Rome can do as it pleases.
This statement literally makes huge sections of your previous post completely useless. If Rome cannot do "all that it pleases" in terms of setting doctrine or excommunication, then all your talk about Popes acting "autocratically" or excommunicating people is just all laid to waste.
That is the Doctrine.
Not according to you. Matt 16:18 doesn't matter, remember?
How can Primacy of Rome [not negotiable] be “exercised in terms of ministry” with a restored Catholic and Orthodox Church. that is the question. And note, I made no such claims as to how it would be exercised with you Protestants. That is long gone and will never happen.
So HERE is the true rub, eh? So all this talk that sounded like the Roman definition of Primacy was negotiable was just a sham? And all we've been talking about is what color lipstick to put on the pig? But remember how you started on all this to begin with: The differing definitions of Peter the "rock" and the alleged primacy of Rome found in the church Fathers. Despite all the various assertions you've made throughout your post (and it is too tedious to point at them all), you've not really dealt with anything yet. I consider this my win then by forfeiture of my opponent. Standing outside the ring talking at me doesn't make you the winner!
What Pope Benedict was saying is that Rome will not impose the Latin version of the Creed, with the Filoque [which is orthodox doctrine] on the Greek Church when saying the Liturgy together as both understanding of how the Holy Spirit is sent are complimentary theologies, not opposed, they just reflect different ways of expressing the same doctrine.
Perhaps that is what your Pope believes, but it is a very deceptive statement fogging Eastern-Western differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_%E2%80%93_Roman_Catholic_theological_differences#Extant_disputes_as_seen_by_Orthodox_theologians
The differences aren't cosmetic. They are very fundamental.
I am really not interested in what protestants think about Primacy. I am not.
Taking your ball and going home? About time!
As for your arguments about middle ground or not. That is protestant internet polemics. Not interested in it at all. Peter was first among the Apostles, there are plenty of NT texts that clearly indicate this in addition to Mt 16:18. Rome as chief and had the 1st primacy in the early Church, even before Nicea named 3 in Canon 6 [and note the language, giving ALexandria and Antioch a primacy like Rome] but nowhere was Rome’s primacy ever really defined. even before Nicea, Rome was using a basic form of Primacy, although in one instance, perhaps used incorrectly in the case of Pope Victor.
So now you want to talk about Matt 16:18 again? Can you please go and address the Church Fathers on this issue? By the way, note your logic: You confess that Rome as "Chief" was never "defined." (To be more accurate, it is better to say that it was defined, just not defined as you would like it.) And you even declare that "primacy" was misused, right after using the same example as evidence of primacy! (You just changed your tune since Victor didn't get his way.) Do you not realize how self-destructive your own constant assertions are?
As for Easter. In your first paragraph you told me that Polycarp knew John. You do realize that it was Polycarp who opposed a previous Roman Bishop on the issue, did NOT change his position, and declared his celebration of Easter to be in line with the Apostles?
Why did the Pope abandon the tradition that was handed from John to Polycarp?
"For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html
I will not argue about Transubstantiation because it will do not good.
You have to: You are claiming (as will be seen) that the view of the early church on the Eucharist is the same as the modern one. That simply isn't true.
I used the Orthodox here because there is no basis for protestant polemics against Rome. For if you are going to criticize us, then you need to criticize them.
Who says I don't? But on Popery, they are quite correct.
In fact, there is one quote by Saint Augustine in their that connects this passage to Faith and works of Love as being connected.
Is that all? Shows how sloppy Aquinas was then. To begin, Calvin's suprasubstantiation is, in fact, entirely stolen from Augustine. This view upholds the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, maintaining that the body of Christ is His body, and the cup is His blood, while denying transubstantiation and the necessity of partaking in the eucharist to receive "saving" grace. Observe:
Augustine - Against Transubstantiation
From Augustine’s commentary on the verses in John 6 which are traditionally Rome’s proof texts for the necessity of oral consumption of Christ — The body and blood of Christ consumed through faith without eating or drinking. Believe, saith Augustine, and thou hast eaten already.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
The fact that Christ may be consumed by faith, even without the eating of the bread and wine, is fatal to Roman Catholicism’s teachings on transubstantiation.
Compare with Father John Bartunek, LC., whose interpretation requires the actual use of “teeth and stomach”:
“This was the perfect opportunity for Christ to say, “Wait a minute, what I really meant was that my body and blood will just be symbolized by bread and wine. Of course I didn’t mean that bread and wine really would become my body and blood. Don’t be foolish!” The strange thing is he doesn’t say that. He does not water down his claim, as if eating his flesh were just a metaphor for believing in his doctrine; on the contrary, he reiterates the importance of really eating his flesh and drinking his blood.”
http://rcspiritualdirection.com/blog/2012/08/15/258-eating-right-jn-652-59#ixzz2pZMDVk3c
Augustine, writing on his “rule for interpreting commands,” calls the eating of Christ to be figurative, since otherwise it compels us to do something that is unlawful.
“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, He who loves his life shall lose it, we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, Let him lose his life— that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, help not a sinner. Understand, therefore, that sinner is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 16)
When the Eucharist is offered, it is ourselves who we receive. (Are we transubstantiated into the bread?) A spiritual lesson is to be received from it, which is the purpose of the sacrament.
“How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood? The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you.” (Augustine, Sermon 272)
Take special note for Augustine’s definition of what a sacrament actually is. Let’s continue. Same theme, different sermon:
“I haven’t forgotten my promise. I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)
(The Catholics will often quote the first part of this sermon, but will not attempt to discuss the lesson of it.)
In fact, throughout this sermon, sacraments are tools to impart spiritual lessons. For example, the sacrament of the Holy Spirit (oil), but it is not actually the Holy Spirit:
“Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.” (Same as above)
Another, the sacrament of the kiss of peace:
“After that comes Peace be with you; a great sacrament, the kiss of peace. So kiss in such a way as really meaning that you love. Don’t be Judas; Judas the traitor kissed Christ with his mouth, while setting a trap for him in his heart. But perhaps somebody has unfriendly feelings toward you, and you are unable to win him round, to show him he’s wrong; you’re obliged to tolerate him. Don’t pay him back evil for evil in your heart. He hates; just you love, and you can kiss him without anxiety.” (Same as above)
The Eucharist, which symbolizes both the entire church and Christ, “not really consumed.” The Eucharist signifies an invisible reality, and is not that reality. Christians should take the spiritual lesson of unity from the Lord’s supper. Also from sermon 227.
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
To believe in Christ is to eat the living bread. This cannot be so if transubstantiation is true.
“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
The body of Christ not held by any believer, even in the sacrament. Christ is held in the heart, and not in the hand. This cannot be so if transubstantation is true.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)
Christ must be understood spiritually, not carnally.
“It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98)
These things cannot be so if transubstantiation is the historical Christian interpretation.
More:
In another place, he tells us that it is weakness to interpret the sign as being what it signifies:
“To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.” (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 9)
In still another place, he calls referring to the Eucharist as the “body and blood of Christ” as only a “certain manner” of speaking, the act itself obviously being non-literal, but spiritual only:
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.” (Augustine, Letters 98)
From Bromlow's exposition on Westminster:
"This paragraph, in order to be properly understood, must be read in the context in which it was written. This article is simultaneously and intermittently avoiding two fallacies: first (the Zwinglian), ignoring Christ’s real, bodily, supernatural presence in the Lord’s Supper; and second (the Lutheran), confusing the manner in which his body and its benefits are communicated to us in the Lord’s Supper. This article then affirms completely that Christ is really, bodily present in the Lord’s Supper and that when we receive it worthily, we truly feed on his physical, glorified body and blood. It also affirms that the manner in which the body and blood of Christ and its benefits are communicated to us is not through some physical means as the Lutherans claim (that in the elements, that which is symbolized is actually contained: the universally present, but localized, invisible body of Christ) but through the powerful ministry of the Holy Spirit."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2024925/posts
Greetings:
For me, post #266 is my last post on the subject,with respect to the Catholic and Orthodox position [based on their on writings, not my explanations only].
As for the various Confessional Protestant understandings of the Eucharist, I gave it my best shot as to How I understand it but I am not going to try to define what Traditional Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed, either Calvinst or Zwinglian theology says on the Eucharist. Too many people here try to define other peoples theology whithout ever reading what those Churches teach. I am somewhat familiar what confessional Protestantism teaches [much in it is true and orthodox, i.e. all of you affirm the same Nicene and Apostles Creed that we Catholics do, perhaps with a few slight different interpretations of a few phrases]
Now, with respect to the Eucharist, if you want to explain the confessional protestant theology of the Eucharist in a non-polemical post, I will read it and see which one I think is the closest to the Catholic and Orthodox theology and therefore which one is closest to “what I believe” to be the most orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.
My general belief and understanding [which might not be correct] has in the past been that that the Lutheran position and the position held by some of the more catholic-Anglicans [the ones influenced by the Oxford movement] is the closest to the Catholic position with the Reformed-Calvinist probably the next one that I believe does express a notion of sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Now, my basic reading of Zwinglian theology is that it reflects no concept of sacramental theology at all and at that point you are moving purely to a notion of “ordinance” view found in most Baptist circles, those that label themselves non-denominational and Pentecostal. Again, I am not saying I have it correct with respect to the “Protestant(s) theology on the Eucharist”, I am only expressing my understanding of the various theologies.
The article you cite from Bromlow I assume is a Reformed-Calvinist exposition on the Eucharist given its connection to the Westminister Confession and is a well written concise summary. It sort of confirms what I thought, the Reformed view of the Eucharist is more sacramental than the Zwinglian view which is no “presence”. I most admit, I have a little more difficulty parsing out the Calvinist-Reformed view vs. the Lutheran view, although my gut feeling is that Luther’s view is somewhat closer to the Catholic view.
That’s a mouthful, but remember that for a devout RC, Scripture,tradition, and history can only support Rome, or at the least cannot be allowed to contradict her. Scripture is not the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God as it is abundantly evidenced (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial) to be.
The veracity of RC teaching does not rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, but for the RC Rome is the supreme authority, and their assurance of Truth is based upon the premise of her assured veracity.
For as often said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
It is under the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, which in spirit extends beyond infallible statements, that Scripture Tradition and history are servants which are compelled to support her, and it is held that no evidence can be seen as contrary to the claims of Rome.
Thus pope Leo P XIII asserts:
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.
Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
This is consistent with recourse of Manning in the classic quote:
The doctrines of the Church then are as unmixed as the light ; and undiminished in all the perfections of truth, which like Jesus ‘ is yesterday and to-day, and the same for ever...’
And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive...
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation pp. 227-228.
And even the EOs find fault with Rome due to her attempts to justify her claims:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of “doctrinal development.”
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an “original deposit” of faith, a “seed,” which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.
All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of “papal infallibility” and “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
You're getting it!!!
As I said earlier, I not going back into the Eucharistic discussion in detail. I have a long post on that before. I did not see this post until after. I read your post on the Westminster confession and thought that was your last post. Your first quote??? you went way over the top here, I will speak more on the context later.
You wrote
“I’m not sure what game you, in fact, are playing, as this has nothing to do with what I said. You suggested that the New Testament was somehow up in the air. If you concede that the early church were highly familiar with the books of the New Testament, then they knew what the scripture was, regardless of the status of the apocrypha.
By the way, why did you rob Ignatius of his relationship with John the Apostle? Is it because he said that the head of the Bishop is God?”
You are really making claims that I did not say. I never said the Early Fathers were not familiar with NT writings, I just said from the time of Saint Clement of Rome to the end of the 2nd Century, the time of Saint Irenaeus, not every Church Father cited every NT writing, best I can tell and based on the scriptural cross-references in Fr. Jurgens Volume 1 of The Faith of the Early Fathers, not all of the books were cited in the 2nd century. For example, Saint Hippoltyus of Rome seems to be the first to clearly site James in the early 3rd century and Saint Clement of Alexandria cites 22 of the 27 books, but not 2 and 3 John, Philemon and James, although it seems to be the first to site 2 Peter in the early 3rd [though some question that, maybe he alludes to it]. Even at the time of Saint Irenaeus [180AD], who cites maybe 20-22 of the 27 NT books, he also cites Clement of Rome and the Shepherd of the Hermas as authoritative. Now he is the 1st to clearly state that there are only 4 orthodox Gospels [again best I can tell].
The earliest list of NT books was put together by the Church of Rome [Muratorian Fragment] and it lists 22 of the 27 books in the NT canon.
Terullian in “Against Marcion” [written around 210AD] during his transition phase to the heretical Montanist sect. I only cite him because he also lists a Canon which would be normative for what the Catholic Churches in North Africa recognized at that time, although while this is his semi-Montanist phase, it is the best source on Marcion, who was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144AD.
Origen it seems is the 1st to cite all 27 NT books, although he does cast doubt on several books as to canonicity, in particular, 2 and 3 John and 2 Pater. He cites James pretty directly [the Faith and Works passage] but concedes that it is not universally accepted. Like Saint Ireneaus, he also cites 1 Clement, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas as inspired [whereas as the Muratorian Fragment in Rome, 180AD rejects it as being inspired.
So all I am saying is that there is no universal acceptance of the NT in the 2nd century, and that is still the case in the 3rd century, and if you read Eusebius, he states there is still some questions about Hebrews and Revelation. In addition, there were some books cited as canonical scriptures by the Fathers, that would not be put into the Canon. So my cite statement, if you are going to do a cite analysis in the 2nd century has to recognize that the Deuterocanonicals were frequently cited along with NT books along with books like the Didache, The Letter of Clement of Rome and the Shepherd of the Hermas.
The biblical canon was in a development stage until the second half of the 4th century. That is the only point that made. As for Saint Ignatius of Antioch, not somebody I ignore, one of my favorites, Eucharistic theology is evident, the clear teaching on 1 Bishop leading City-Church, the Letter to the Church at Rome which presides in Charity. I just did not cite him in the context of quoting the Deuterocanonicals because he did not. In fact, best I can tell, he only quoted from about 8 NT books and only Isiah from the OT seems to be quoted.
As for Mt 16:18, the statement that it is a fatal blow to Catholicism!!!! Really. The primacy of the Church of Rome and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome are related. The Primacy of the Church of Rome also actually rests on the fact that Both Saint Peter and Paul were martyred there. I am not going to post the mountain of Patristic evidence that states this [I will post a good bit], but all of them talk about the Church of Rome in connection to both Peter and Paul. The Catholic Church has an important feast day in June called the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul [together]. There is some evidence that the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul goes back to around 260AD but there is not a doubt by the 4th century, the Church of Rome was celebrating the Marytrdom of Saints Peter and Paul on the same day.
For example,St. Augustine wrote in Sermon 295 “Both apostles share the same feast day, for these two were one; and even though they suffered on different days, they were as one. Peter went first, and Paul followed. And so we celebrate this day made holy for us by the apostles’ blood. Let us embrace what they believed, their life, their labors, their sufferings, their preaching, and their confession of faith.”
As early as 1 Clement, there is an appeal to both Peter and Paul [Clement likely new Saint Paul {Phil 4:3} and was ordained by Peter, as later Fathers cite]. Saint Ignatius of Antioch states “Not as Peter and Paul” Do I command you [105-107AD]
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, Bishop of Rome around 166AD [most of this letter is extant in Eusebius work]
“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time”
A Roman Priest named Caius, around 198AD also recounts Peter and Pauls Martyrdom in Rome during Nero’s Time [the Letter or most of it is extant n Eusebius History] and in that letter he speaks of the “Trophies of the Apostles, i.e. where they are buried” and states you will find those who found/built this Church [Rome].
Saint Irenaeus writing around 180-189AD
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (same cite as above).
Tertullian writes [citing him only for another witness from a different part of the Church [N. Africa] writes in Against Marcion [207-212AD]
“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood”
Eusebius writes around 300-305AD:
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42).
Later in his Church History [325AD], he writes
“When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1)
Peter of Alexandria in his Canonical Letter writes:
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius, who wrote a good work, with shortcomings [per Fr. Jurgens in Faith of the Early Fathers] to develop a Latin Theology, writes:
“When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5) [Per Fr. Jurgens work, dated Inter A.D. 316-320]).
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Interesting, while Saint Cyril does not cite Mt.16:18 directly, he clearly is alluding to it here. Still, the point is the connection of Peter and Paul in Rome. So the Primacy of the Church of Rome is in fact, via Liturgical Tradition [The Solemnity of Saint Peter and Paul is Liturgically celebrated as 1 Feast day in the Church of Rome] and has been way before the 16th century and subsequent debates about Matthew 16:18.
So independent of Sacred Scripture, there is Sacred Tradition as expressed by the Church Fathers that connect both Peter and Paul to the building of the Church of Rome and Liturgically, the Church in Rome had a feast of these 2 Apostles together. In addition, Saint Peter’s Basilica is one of the Papal Churches, yes, but Saint Paul’s Outside the Walls is another Papal Basilica and both of these Churches were built way, way, way, back
Saint Clement of Alexandria around 200AD speaks of Saint Peter as preeminent without using Mt 16:18 [He actually uses 3 other passages] now this only speaking of Saint Peter, and not directly his successors, but others, namely Saint Irenaeus, about 10 to 15 years earlier, talk about succession. Saint Clement of Rome clearly talks about it at the end of the 1st.
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5)
Saint Cyprian of Carthage writes in a Letter to Pope Cornelius something interesting:
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).”
The letter above is written even after the famous passage a few years before where he actually wrote about Mt 16:18
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Now He did write another version of that with respect to Mt 16:18 but he never denied Peter and Rome’s primacy. Notice though he also cited John 21:17 which is also a Petrine passage along with Luke 22:31-32. But his letter per se to the Pope was never recanted.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in another writing states
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).”
Saint Optatus, a Bishop from North Africa writes:
“In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Saint Opatus is not someone cited much in protestant circles as I am not sure he was translated by the Anglican divines like Lightfoot or the Lutheran Harnack [I am not sure]. He is translated by Fr. Jurgens and New Advent has a detailed article about him [see link below]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11262b.htm
It is interesting that the earlier doctrine of Pope Stephen, which Saint Cyprian argued about, would in fact be the doctrine that the Catholic Church would define. So in the end the orthodoxy of the earlier Pope Stephen would be what would be the standard.
Saint Ambrose of Milan writes:
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [seems to be alluding to Matt. 16:18] (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
So the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Bishop of Rome are joint. They are not independent and they do not rely on Mt. 16:18. And this notion of win. Really? I am not trying to win anything nor I am loosing anything. Nothing you can say is going to impact my view of the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Pope similar to the discussion on the Eucharist. If you choose to characterize this as winning and loosing, well, that is you, not me. For the record, I used “game in an earlier post” in a strictly allegorical sense, not in the sense that this is a football game, etc. Just for the record.
Now as for what the previous 2 Popes believe, Pope John Paul II did issue and encyclical Ut Unam Sint which was a call to the Orthodox to enter into Dialogue about how the Ministry of the Bishop of Rome could be exercised in terms of Primacy. Pope Benedict has said the same thing.
Now Rome can’t do what it pleases on everything, even Popes are bound by Canon Law. So the Pope can’t say the Nicene and Apostles Creed are not valid, the Pope is bound by Doctrine, so he can’t do what he pleases in that regards. He has to say Mass the same way every other priest and Bishop does. He can’t make up his own Liturgy. So in that context, yes, he can’t do what he pleases. However, he can, if a question faith and morals is so urgent, he can excommunicate someone if that person does not recant. The Pope by himself can all a Council. No other Bishop can do so. For a Council of the Catholic Church to be valid, the Pope has to recognize it, etc. So try to understand Catholic Doctrine from Catholic Doctrine, not some internet theologian who thinks they know, but they don’t know.
Pope Victor and the issue of Easter was not a matter of Doctrine, it was a matter of Liturgical Tradition. So in this regards, the Pope, who was following the Roman Tradition that most likely had come from Peter and Paul, and the Eastern Bishops were following a tradition that came down from The Apostle John. There was no doctrine at state here, it was only which date should Easter be celebrated on. Nevertheless, the COuncil of Nicea would adopt the Roman Tradition and ensure that Easter would be celebrated always on Sunday. So, given the question, a Council was a better way to handle this than threatening to excommunicate orthodox Catholics for a different Liturgical tradition. So, this is not a form of Primacy rooted in Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s “Presides in Charity” or to use a later expression from Pope Gregory the Great, the Bishop of Rome should always be the Servant of the Servants of God when exercising his ministry as Pope. So no conflicts here at all.
As for the Eucharist, even without the term “Transubstantiation”, the Doctrine of the Eucharist would be unchanged and exactly the same in the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is a word to convey that after the epicisles, it is theologically wrong to call Bread and Wine “bread and win” it is now the Body and Blood of Christ. So like I said, Not going to go into a long debate over that term again. Have already been through it in an earlier post and I stand by that post.
Nobody in the early Church had a view that it was only a mere symbol. And Saint Augustine did not write against what you are saying he wrote against. He defined a sacrament as a visible sign of an invisible reality. So if you understand the definition of a sacrament, the sign conveys what is being signified. When Augustine speaks of latent Mystery here, he is talking about something that is real not figurative. I have read those same Augustine passages and don’t read them the way you do. For the record, the Lutherans read them and they don’t come to the position that we Catholics have, or you Reformed or the Anglicans, yet all claim to be reading Saint Augustine’s statements on the Eucharist
Now the 'church' is trying to make folks believe that IT can change wine and bread into Christ's 'body and blood'.
Good luck with that!
This is straight out revisionism, and it isn't even supported by your church. Read your catechism. Rome places no special charism or a piece of a charism of primacy on Paul. The foundation of Primacy is on Rome's interpretation of Matt 16:18 and the supposed transmission of the keys to the Bishop of Rome alone:
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
This is important, for the obvious reason that many of the Church Fathers reject Rome's interpretation, or else regard all the Apostolic Sees as equal with many successors of Peter. A primacy founded on Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome destroys Romanism, and is exactly the argument made by the Eastern Orthodox when showing the differences between history and Rome's later claims. Your nonsense about those two being celebrated, as if Rome today is celebrating their Universal Headship based on those two Apostles, is horribly deceptive. If that were the case, the Eastern Orthodox would be in full communion with you, as Rome has abandoned its claims of alone possessing the keys of heaven. If Rome does indeed place Primacy on a combined Peter and Paul duo, please provide the reference from the catechism or other official church documents.
As mentioned before, Rome's primacy in later ages was based on "honor" built on Peter and Paul. This is exactly my and the EO's boast, not yours, as it destroys Rome's claims completely. Rome's version of Primacy is not of honor, nor on Peter and Paul, but on the keys and the absolute power they imagine from it.
From another source besides the catechism, mark the decree by the first Vatican Council:
"Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord. [PROMISED] It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42] , that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it... And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold... To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema." (Decrees of the First Vatican Council)
Compare the sections in bold to the Church Fathers:
"For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV
Note carefully in Augustine. Peter represents the church, and the foundation, the Rock, is Christ. This closely resembles the actual Greek of the text itself, which distinguishes "petra", the pebble, coming from the "rock", the boulder, that is Christ.
Another:
"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance."(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine Book I. Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.)
Cyprian -- The keys given to the Church
"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith" (Cyprian Epistle XXVI Cyprian to the Lapsed)
On the equality of the Bishops:
"And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole." (On the Unity of the Catholic Church - 5)
Chrysostom -- The Keys given to the Apostle John:
"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now" (Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.1)
Ambrose -- Peter has the primacy of confession, not honor, a primacy of belief, not rank:
"He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).)
Christ the foundation of the church:
"The foundation of justice therefore is faith, for the hearts of the just dwell on faith, and the just man that accuses himself builds justice on faith, for his justice becomes plain when he confesses the truth. So the Lord saith through Isaiah: “Behold, I lay a stone for a foundation in Sion.” This means Christ as the foundation of the Church. For Christ is the object of faith to all; but the Church is as it were the outward form of justice, she is the common right of all. For all in common she prays, for all in common she works, in the temptations of all she is tried. So he who denies himself is indeed a just man, is indeed worthy of Christ. For this reason Paul has made Christ to be the foundation, so that we may build upon Him the works of justice, whilst faith is the foundation. In our works, then, if they are evil, there appears unrighteousness; if they are good, justice (Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy, Chapter 29.142).
Christ is the rock:
"Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him" (Ambrose, Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).
Next, on a different approach, note the emphasis by Theodoret and the Council of Chalcedon on Rome's glory as the capital city, not on being the inheritors of Peter's keys. Thus Rome's primacy of honor was based on it being the capital city, and a site of martyrdom, and not on Peter's sole successor:
"But on your city the great Provider has bestowed an abundance of good gifts. She is the largest, the most splendid, the most illustrious of the world, and overflows with the multitude of her inhabitants. Besides all this, she has achieved her present sovereignty, and has given her name to her subjects. She is moreover specially adorned by her faith, in due testimony whereof the divine Apostle exclaims “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. And if even after receiving the seeds of the message of salvation her boughs were straightway heavy with these admirable fruits, what words can fitly praise the piety now practised in her? In her keeping too are the tombs that give light to the souls of the faithful, those of our common fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul This thrice blessed and divine pair arose in the region of sunrise, and spread their rays in all directions. Now from the region of sunset, where they willingly welcomed the setting of this life, they illuminate the world. They have rendered your see most glorious; this is the crown and completionof your good things; but in these days their God has adorned their throne." TheodoretLetter CXIII. To Leo, Bishop of Rome
"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, - Canon XXVIII The Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Council of Chalcedon.
This emphasis on Peter and Paul and Rome's glory as the capital directly contradicts Rome's claims. Rome does not teach that it is the head over all the church because its hell-bound citizens murdered Peter and Paul once (and now murder them again in new and more wicked ways), and that it was once the capital of the empire. Rome argues it is the head of the church, more than just in a sense of honor, because of the Roman Bishop being the sole successor of Peter.
Next, on top of the examples already given from Gregory and Theodoret on there being many successors of Peter:
Gaudentius -- Against Rome's Supremacy
Gaudentius calls Ambrose, the Archbishop of Milan, a successor of Peter:
"I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and ‘from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;’ and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, ‘Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom (Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).
So all I am saying is that there is no universal acceptance of the NT in the 2nd century,
This also is a misleading assertion. You imply that the entire NT had no universal acceptance, when, really, there were only a few books not cited universally by all the fathers, the same that Luther is often attacked for questioning. The Gospels were sorted as early as Papias before the end of the first century, and all of the epistles of Paul and the majority of the books were well established. And, recall, this is your response to sola scriptura. The aim can only be to imply that there was no scripture for anyone to settle with, despite their sayings.
.The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42).
Remember I'm the one who quoted this originally, so lets go back to my question: Why does Rome get the keys when Antioch was founded first? Did you think I would forget?
Saint Clement of Alexandria around 200AD speaks of Saint Peter as preeminent without using Mt 16:18 [He actually uses 3 other passages] now this only speaking of Saint Peter, and not directly his successors, but others, namely Saint Irenaeus, about 10 to 15 years earlier, talk about succession.
Peter may be called the "first", and Augustine even defines this in a literal temporal sense (he came first, Paul last) though certainly not superior to any:
"As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ investeth them with the same power." (Chrysostom, Homily LXXXVI On the Gospel of John John xx. 10, 11)
"One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples."(Third epistle to Nestorius, including the twelve anathemas Written by Cyril of Alexandria Approved by the Council of Ephesus, AD 431.)
The question isn't "Did some Fathers view Peter as Chief?" The question is: Does Rome really have a Primacy of Jurisdiction as Ruler of the whole flock? The answer is no. On top of the examples and evidence already given, yet another:
"During the controversies surrounding Pelagius' heresies a council in Mileve (in Numidia) found against Pelagianism. They then wrote to the pope seeking his help. They gave him much praise
"We write this from the council of Numidia, imitating our colleagues of the church and province of Carthage, who we understand have written on this matter to the apostolic see, which your blessedness adorns."[182]
Catholic apologists may make the most of such praise. However in the context of history one must also note that this praise was conditional. The next pope Zosimus did not out-rightly condemn the heresy Pelagianism and was himself condemned by the rest of the church for back-pedalling.[183]
Thus the same church (in Africa) could lavish praise upon the church in Rome but could equally condemn them, depending on the teachings Rome upheld.
Zosimus eventually reconfirmed the decision of Innocent, Pelagius went to the churches in Palestine where a synod was called to hear his case.[184] Augustine says that the churches in Palestine were deceived by Pelagius. What is important though is that even after two popes had condemned him Pelagius could still seek judgment by another region's synod. Evidentially the Palestinian churches did not see the condemnation of the church in Rome and the church in Africa as binding.
It would take an ecumenical council to bring the churches to agreement on this matter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#cite_ref-143
This is the only view history can accept.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage writes in a Letter to Pope Cornelius something interesting:
This quote is tricky because it gives a misleading view of his writing when not taken in context of the entirety of his work, some of which was presented above. While he interpreted Peter as the rock in Matt 16:18, he regards every Bishop as his successor. Cyprian's argument is that men must be united with their local church. Cyprian himself believed he was in the Seat of Peter and the source of "sacerdotal unity" in Africa. Though he held that Rome had a primacy of "honor," he did not believe Rome was superior:
From Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno:
"Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).
Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3). It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).
Saint Optatus, a Bishop from North Africa writes:
Optatus was likely a heretic of the Pelagian type, along with other problems:
"The only error that can be observed in the books of Optatus is, that he maintains that those, who had been baptized with John's baptism, before the institution of Christ's baptism, were not rebaptized. (Acts xix. 1 — 5.) We may add to this, what he says respecting the baptism of heretics, perhaps also what he proposes about the power of freewill, to which he seems to give the power of willing and beginning a good action, and also of advancing in the way of salvation without the help of the grace of Christ, but these errors are light and pardonable! One may also reprehend in his book the way in which he explains many passages of Holy Scripture, by giving them a sense very remote from that which they naturally have, and by applying them to those things with which they have no affinity. This fault, which would be tolerable in a preacher, seems not to be pardonable in an author, who writes a treatise on controversy, wherein all proofs should be solid and convincing... The text of Optatus is corrupted in many places." (Dupin's Eccles. History of the 4th Century of Christianity, Qtd. in A Sketch of the Romish Controversy by G. Finch)
Now Rome can’t do what it pleases on everything, even Popes are bound by Canon Law. So the Pope can’t say the Nicene and Apostles Creed are not valid, the Pope is bound by Doctrine, so he can’t do what he pleases in that regards.
A red herring. We are talking about whether Rome has autocratic power to excommunicate or establish doctrine, both of which are repudiated by the Church Fathers and Councils.
So the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Bishop of Rome are joint. They are not independent and they do not rely on Mt. 16:18.
A foolish statement: Without Matt 16:18, as already explained, Rome's version of primacy does not exist.
Pope Victor and the issue of Easter was not a matter of Doctrine, it was a matter of Liturgical Tradition. So in this regards, the Pope, who was following the Roman Tradition that most likely had come from Peter and Paul,
Polycarp and Eusebius presents it as the tradition of the Apostles, if you bother to read the quote, and therefore of Peter and Paul also, though Polycarp could have only known John. It is therefore false to claim that the Pope was merely presenting the differing tradition of Peter and Paul. The next Pope held it as a matter worthy of excommunication, and did so throwing off all the East. Obviously, it was a question of morals to him. Thus, a tradition of the Apostles was opposed by two Roman Bishops, the second of which broke communion with those who opposed him.
The Pope by himself can all a Council. No other Bishop can do so. For a Council of the Catholic Church to be valid, the Pope has to recognize it, etc.
Such a claim, in light of everything I have presented, is fatal. But your memory is very short.
As for the Eucharist, even without the term “Transubstantiation”, the Doctrine of the Eucharist would be unchanged and exactly the same in the Catholic Church... Nobody in the early Church had a view that it was only a mere symbol.
These are strawmen. Whether you use the name "transubstantiation," or any other term, the Romish view is ruled out. The statement that "nobody in the early Church had a view that.... a mere symbol" is simply foolish. I was not advocating Augustine having a Zwinglian view of the sacraments. I was demonstrating how Augustine held Calvin's view. Or, rather, Calvin stole Augustine's. (Calvin borrowed so much from Augustine that, often times, I hear Augustine's voice everywhere in the Institutes, and Calvin quotes him over 500 times.)
Greetings:
I know what the Catechism says about the Bishop of Rome’s primacy and thus his successor. But the Bishop of Rome’s primacy is connected to the Church of Rome. And again, the CCC you quote relates to Saint Peter and the successor Bishop of Rome.
Paragraphs 832-835 also talk about the Church of Rome and states particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome and it cites Ireneaus of Ignatius of Antioch’s writings.
The paragraphs 880 to 896 discuss the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and how primacy is exercised. Mt. 16:18 is not the only Petrine text. John 21:15-17. Luke 22:26-27 which is setting up the Christ’s statement regarding Peter that Christ would pray for him and that he would strengthen the Brothers. This passage is often read on the feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul at the Liturgy.
The Primacy of the Church of Rome and Bishop of Rome and how they are related are explained in the CCC 830-838 and 857 to 896. Nothing fatal. As for the feast in Rome celebrating Saint Peter and Paul together, that would be a “Tradition” in Liturgy that expresses that reality. History proves that, no need to cite it as a text as it is a Liturgical Celebration each June. No revisionism at all. This is a feast day well established in the Catholic Church going back to the 4th century.
And Greetings, nothing in those Text of Saint Augustine negates the Primacy of the Church of Rome and Peter as Leader and first among the Apostles. They really don’t.
As for the quote from Vatican I and Saint Augustine.
“Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord. [PROMISED] It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42] , that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it... And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold... To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.” (Decrees of the First Vatican Council)
Compare the sections in bold to the Church Fathers:
“For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV
Note carefully in Augustine. Peter represents the church, and the foundation, the Rock, is Christ. This closely resembles the actual Greek of the text itself, which distinguishes “petra”, the pebble, coming from the “rock”, the boulder, that is Christ.
There is nothing in it that contradicts Primacy of Peter, despite what Scaff comments say.
Another:
“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine Book I. Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.)
And this passage is actually connecting to binding and loosing and talks about actually the “sacrament of Confession-Reconciliation” and that sins through that Sacrament in the Church actually are forgiven by God. Nothing fatal, in fact 1000% orthodox Catholic. The power of binding and loosing [Mt 18:17-18] was indeed given to all Apostles and thus all Apostles had authority, nobody is denying that, this is where Apostolic Succession is based on. All the Apostles had authority and all the next generation of Bishops who were disciples of said Apostles had valid Apostolic succession. These texts are not saying what you want them to say.
Ambrose — Peter has the primacy of confession, not honor, a primacy of belief, not rank:
“He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).)
And he does not contradict anything. Ambrose was a firm believer in the Primacy of Rome. In fact, when you read the letter, it clearly states that the Church would prevail vs. all heresies. Again, it does not refute what you are saying.
Ohh Good ole Canon 28 of Chalcedon:
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, - Canon XXVIII The Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Council of Chalcedon.
This is pure political because there was no Apostle that worked and built up the Church in Constantinople. In fact, even to this day, Orthodox Ecclesiology is still having problems among the particular Orthodox Churches for if Constantinople was today viewed as being 2nd behind Rome, then Moscow’s Patriarch would not take shots at the Patriarch. The Church of Alexandria and Antioch have more solid primacies than any other Church. Now, Rome has worked with the Patriarch of Constantinople to try and heal the schism, again, starting with Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagos, Pope John Paul 2 and Ut Unam Sint and Pope Benedict and now Francis have met with the Patriarch. Some of the other Orthodox have criticized him, well, mostly the Russian Orthodox.
As for Pope Victor, that was not a moral issue, that was a Liturgical issue. There were 2 traditions that seem to have happened, just as there were two traditions that developed on when to celebrate Christmas, the East on 6 January, the West 25 December, etc. And no it is not obvious it was a question of Morals. It was an unwise attempt to stress Liturgical Uniformity on a Date to celebrate Easter. That is all it is because that is all it was.
These are strawmen. Whether you use the name “transubstantiation,” or any other term, the Romish view is ruled out. The statement that “nobody in the early Church had a view that.... a mere symbol” is simply foolish. I was not advocating Augustine having a Zwinglian view of the sacraments. I was demonstrating how Augustine held Calvin’s view. Or, rather, Calvin stole Augustine’s. (Calvin borrowed so much from Augustine that, often times, I hear Augustine’s voice everywhere in the Institutes, and Calvin quotes him over 500 times.)
No your arguments wrong. Even without the Catholic term transubstantiation, the Eastern Orthodox, who get their tradition and Liturgical doctrine and Eucharistic doctrine from the Greek Fathers, they have the same belief. So Calvin is the one who may have read Augustine, as did Luther and as did Zwingli, but they misread it
What is the difference between the Calvinist and the Catholic/Aristotelian: Carnal vs Accident; Spiritual and Substance?
Greetings:
Not trying to bump and earlier thread but back when we were discussing the issue of Primacy, I made mention that there is the Primacy of the Church of Rome [connected to both Saints Peter and Paul] and the special role given to Peter by Christ. Pope Francis, when greeting the Delegation from Constantinople, invokes the connection of both Saints Peter and Paul to the Church of Rome. The feast day honoring Peter and Paul as the foundation for Rome’s preeminence among the Churches [to use Saint Ireneaus’s 2nd century terminology] is June 28th [today].
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.