Anastasius (the papacy, 6/25/02)
Archelaus (the papacy, 6/21/02)
Arnobius (Hell, 6/6/02)
Athanasius (tradition, 6/16/02)
Augustine (authority, 5/19/02)
Basil (the sinlessness of Mary, 5/20/02)
Basil (tradition, 6/17/02)
Clement of Alexandria (original sin, 6/5/02)
Commodianus (eschatology, 6/27/02)
Council of Jerusalem (the papacy, 6/24/02)
Cyprian (the papacy, 5/18/02)
Dionysius of Alexandria (sola scriptura, 6/4/02)
Epiphanius (the papacy, 6/26/02)
The Epistle of Barnabas (eschatology, 6/28/02)
Firmilian (tradition, 6/14/02)
Gregory Nazianzen (infant baptism, 5/28/02)
Gregory of Nyssa (Satan, 6/7/02)
Hermas (tradition, 6/18/02)
Ignatius (the papacy, 5/23/02)
Ignatius (the papacy, 6/22/02)
Irenaeus (the papacy, 5/21/02)
Irenaeus (the millennium, 5/29/02)
Irenaeus (the atonement, 6/8/02)
Jerome (the papacy, 6/1/02)
Jerome (the papacy, 6/23/02)
John Chrysostom (the papacy, 5/27/02)
Justin Martyr (the millennium, 5/30/02)
Justin Martyr (the church, 6/2/02)
Justin Martyr (the eucharist, 6/30/02)
Lactantius (veneration of images, 6/13/02)
Melito of Sardis (the canon, 5/26/02)
Origen (the papacy, 5/25/02)
Origen (the papacy, 6/20/02)
Papias (tradition, 6/15/02)
Polycrates (the papacy, 5/24/02)
Roman Church (the canon, 6/19/02)
Rufinus (the canon, 6/3/02)
Socrates Scholasticus (clerical celibacy, 5/31/02)
Tertullian (the papacy, 5/22/02)
Tertullian (the sinlessness of Mary, 6/9/02)
Tertullian (veneration of images, 6/12/02)
Theodoret (the eucharist, 6/10/02)
Theodoret (sola scriptura, 6/11/02)
Theodoret (Mary, 6/29/02)
5/18/02
Around the middle of the third century, dozens of North African bishops gathered together in a council to support a doctrine that was opposed by the bishop of Rome, among other people. In that context, Cyprian denied that there's any Pope:
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)
5/19/02
"But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them" - Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:3)
5/20/02
Basil explains that the meaning of Luke 2:34-35 is clear. Mary sinned, and she needed to be restored after Jesus' resurrection, just as Peter was restored:
"About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation....By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, 'All ye shall be offended because of me.' Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man--to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. 'That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.' He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn." - Basil (Letter 260:6, 260:9)
5/21/02
Irenaeus said that the Roman church is the greatest church, and that all other churches must agree with the Roman church. Because of a papacy? No, but because of non-papal factors, such as the Roman church's location in the capital of the empire. Irenaeus viewed the Roman church as authoritative *not* because of any papacy, but because of practical factors such as the fact that Christians from around the world traveled to Rome, thereby making the Roman church representative of worldwide Christian consensus. Thus, the Roman primacy of Irenaeus was practical rather than jurisdictional. Since Rome is no longer the capital of a major empire, and many Roman bishops since Irenaeus' time have been unfaithful to apostolic teaching, Irenaeus' argument doesn't apply today as it did in the second century. Not only does Irenaeus give non-papal reasons for the Roman church's importance, but he also suggests that the apostles, not just Peter, appointed Linus as bishop of Rome *while Peter was still alive*. After mentioning the Roman church, Irenaeus goes on to say that Christians can also turn to the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus for sound doctrine. When's the last time you heard a Catholic appeal to the authority and infallibility of Smyrna or Ephesus? They only follow the portions of Irenaeus that seem to support Roman Catholicism, while rejecting the rest. For more about the meaning and significance of this passage in Irenaeus, see:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-61.htm#P7966_2192965
Here's Irenaeus explaining the non-papal reasons for the Roman church's importance:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate....But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics....There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)
5/22/02
Tertullian explains that the Roman church is one apostolic church among others, and he gives non-papal reasons for its significance:
"Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; and there too you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority of apostles themselves. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even our churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water of baptism, arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus maintained she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich, and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although not of our kind; they come from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show." (The Prescription Against Heretics, 36)
5/23/02
Like the apostle Paul, the church father Ignatius wrote a lot about church government without ever mentioning a papacy. He frequently writes about the authority of the local bishop, which he apparently considered the highest church office. Thus, in the introduction of his letter to Polycarp, he writes, "to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ". When he was on his way to Rome to be martyred, Ignatius wrote to several churches. He wanted those churches to care for his church in Antioch, which would be left without a bishop as a result of his execution. When the local bishop dies, the only bishop the church has is God:
"Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (Epistle to the Romans, shorter version, 9)
5/24/02
It isn't until the third century that we find the first claim of something like papal authority from a Roman bishop. Even though earlier disputes didn't involve a claim of papal authority, they're still relevant to the doctrine of the papacy. They tell us how other bishops viewed the bishop of Rome. One such dispute was over the celebration of Easter late in the second century. The Roman bishop Victor disagreed with some churches over an issue related to the celebration of Easter, and he wanted councils to be held in an attempt to reach a consensus. He threatened to break fellowship with the churches that didn't agree with him. Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz writes the following about this incident and another dispute in the third century:
"Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome's sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 11)
Polycrates, a bishop of Ephesus, was among those who disagreed with Victor. He wasn't convinced by Victor's arguments or by his threats. Polycrates, along with "a great multitude" of other bishops, wrote the following in response to Victor:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man.'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus." (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 5:24)
5/25/02
Origen wrote a lot about Christian doctrine, church government, the authority of scripture, church tradition, etc. He never mentioned a papacy. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno explains that "a plain recognition of Roman primacy or of a connection between Peter and the contemporary bishop of Rome seems remote from Origen's thoughts" (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 43). Origen was one of the earliest interpreters of Matthew 16. He contradicted the Roman Catholic interpretation:
"And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My church'? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' etc....And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was." (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)
5/26/06
Melito of Sardis lived in the second century. He was the first church father to list the Old Testament canon for us. He gave us a canon closer to that of evangelicalism than that of Roman Catholicism:
"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 4:26)
5/27/02
Catholics often misrepresent the church fathers by quoting what they said about Peter in one passage without quoting similar things they said about other apostles in other passages. Or they quote what a church father said about the bishop of Rome in one passage, but they don't quote similar comments made about another bishop in another passage. John Chrysostom is an example.
Catholics often quote passages in which Chrysostom refers to Peter as the first of the apostles, the leader of the apostles, etc. But they don't quote Chrysostom referring to *other* apostles having primacy in *other* passages. For example:
"James was invested with the chief rule [in Acts 15], and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. 'And after that they had held their peace, James answered,' etc. (v. 13.) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part." (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 33)
In another passage, Chrysostom refers to Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, as the successor of Peter:
"At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here [Antioch] for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [Ignatius of Antioch] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor." (Homily on St. Ignatius, 4)
Is Chrysostom saying that James was a Pope, and that Ignatius was a Pope? No, and neither was he saying that Peter was a Pope when he referred to a primacy of Peter in other passages. What did Chrysostom have in mind, then?
I think his commentary on Galatians gives us the answer. In a single sentence, he both refers to Paul having equal rank with the rest of the apostles *and* refers to Peter as the leader of the disciples:
"He [Paul] calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcision and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with their Leader [Peter] not with the others, he shows that the dignity of each was the same." (Commentary on Galatians, 2, v. 8)
How can the apostles have equal rank while Peter is a leader at the same time? Apparently, John Chrysostom believed in a *non-jurisdictional* primacy of Peter. Similarly, the primacy of James and the primacy of Ignatius that Chrysostom referred to were probably non-jurisdictional. Chrysostom refers to *numerous* people having primacy, because he's referring to non-jurisdictional types of primacy.
Is this just my own speculation? No, Chrysostom refers to James and John having primacy with Peter:
"Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples" (Commentary on Galatians, 1, vv. 1-3)
And what type of primacy was this? Chrysostom explains:
"Wherefore doth He take with Him these only [Matthew 17:1]? Because these were superior to the rest. And Peter indeed showed his superiority by exceedingly loving Him; but John by being exceedingly loved of Him; and James again by his answer which he answered with his brother, saying, 'We are able to drink the cup'; nor yet by his answer only, but also by his works; both by the rest of them, and by fulfilling, what he said. For so earnest was he, and grievous to the Jews, that Herod himself supposed that he had bestowed herein a very great favor on the Jews, I mean in slaying him." (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 56:2)
In other words, Peter, James, and John had a primacy for various non-jurisdictional reasons, *not* because of some papal office. Chrysostom explains, near the beginning of his commentary on Galatians, that although Peter, James, and John had this primacy, Paul had equal authority. He wasn't in submission to any of them. In fact, Chrysostom tells us that one of Paul's reasons for writing the book of Galatians was to refute some of his opponents, who were falsely claiming that he had to obey Peter, James, and John. In other words, Chrysostom thinks that one of the reasons Paul wrote Galatians was to deny that Peter (and James and John) had papal authority. He explains:
"Since Paul then saw the whole Galatian people in a state of excitement, a flame kindled against their Church, and the edifice shaken and tottering to its fall, filled with the mixed feelings of just anger and despondency, (which he has expressed in the words, 'I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice,'--Gal. iv:20.) he writes the Epistle as an answer to these charges. This is his aim from the very commencement, for the underminers of his reputation had said, The others were disciples of Christ but this man of the 'Apostles.' Wherefore he begins thus, 'Paul, an Apostle not from men, neither through man.' For, these deceivers, as I was saying before, had said that this man was the last of all the Apostles and was taught by them, for Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ Himself; and that it was therefore fitting to obey them rather than this man; and that they forbad not circumcision nor the observance of the Law. By this and similar language and by depreciating Paul, and exalting the honor of the other Apostles, though not spoken for the sake of praising them, but of deceiving the Galatians, they induced them to adhere unseasonably to the Law. Hence the propriety of his commencement. As they disparaged his doctrine, saying it came from men, while that of Peter came from Christ, he immediately addresses himself to this point, declaring himself an apostle 'not from men, neither through man.' It was Ananias who baptized him, but it was not he who delivered him from the way of error and initiated him into the faith; but Christ Himself sent from on high that wondrous voice, whereby He inclosed him in his net. For Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, He called when walking by the seaside, (Matt. iv: 18.) but Paul after His ascension into heaven. (Acts. ix: 3, 4.) And just as these did not require a second call, but straightway left their nets and all that they had, and followed Him, so this man at his first vocation pressed vigorously forward, waging, as soon as he was baptized, an implacable war with the Jews. In this respect he chiefly excelled the other Apostles, as he says, 'I labored more abundantly than they all;' (I Cor. xv: 10.) at present, however, he makes no such claim, but is content to be placed on a level with them. Indeed his meat object was, not to establish any superiority for himself, but, to overthrow the foundation of their error. The not being 'from men' has reference to all alike for the Gospel's root and origin is divine, but the not being 'through man' is peculiar to the Apostles; for He called them not by men's agency, but by His own. But why does he not speak of his vocation rather than his apostolate, and say, 'Paul' called 'not by man?' Because here lay the whole question; for they said that the office of a teacher had been committed to him by men, namely by the Apostles, whom therefore it behooved him to obey. But that it was not entrusted to him by men, Luke declares in the words, 'As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul.' (Acts xiii: 2.)" (Commentary on Galatians, 1, vv. 1-3)
Similarly, when discussing Galatians 1:18, Chrysostom comments that Paul humbled himself before Peter and James, *as though* he was of lower authority, even though he actually wasn't (Commentary on Galatians, 1, v. 18). John Chrysostom didn't view Peter as a Pope.
It seems that Chrysostom believed in numerous types of primacy of numerous apostles in numerous contexts. But when addressing the issue of *jurisdiction*, he attributed equal authority to all of them. To quote what Chrysostom said about Peter and Roman bishops without also considering what he said about other apostles and other bishops may be effective in making Chrysostom *look* Roman Catholic. But it isn't an effective way to arrive at the truth.
5/28/02
The status of infant baptism in the patristic age was in some ways similar to its status today. It was practiced by the majority of professing Christians, but it wasn't practiced universally. And there were disagreements over the purpose and mode of it. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff, though he argues for the apostolicity of the practice, nevertheless acknowledges:
"Constantine sat among the fathers at the great Council of Nicaea, and gave legal effect to its decrees, and yet put off his baptism to his deathbed. The cases of Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustin, who had mothers of exemplary piety, and yet were not baptized before early manhood, show sufficiently that considerable freedom prevailed in this respect even in the Nicene and post-Nicene ages." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm, section 73)
Compare this freedom to what the RCC teaches on this subject:
"The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth....All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism....With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1250, 1261, 1283)
In other words, the RCC accuses people who delay baptism of children of depriving them of "priceless grace", neglecting an "urgent" situation, and risking the possibility that the child won't be saved if he dies. According to the RCC, the salvation of unbaptized children is questionable, and can be altered after death through prayer.
Compare the RCC's claims on this subject to what the church father Gregory Nazianzen taught:
"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated. A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness. But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers." (Orations, 40:28)
5/29/02
Historically, the RCC has been amillennial, and has condemned the premillennial view of eschatology. But the popular view among the earliest church fathers was premillennialism. Protestant historian Richard Kyle explains the significance and early history of the doctrine:
"Millennialism falls into three main groups - pre-, post-, and amillennialism. These positions differ as to when Christ will return. But their differences go well beyond the timing of Christ's return. They touch upon attitudes toward life, the way in which Scripture is interpreted, the number of resurrections, and the nature of the millennium itself....The rejection of apocalyptic [pre]millennialism [by later church fathers] must be seen in its proper context. Constantine had been converted to Christianity in 312, thus ending the persecution of Christians. The hope for the imminent return of Christ remained strong as long as Christians were a persecuted minority. But when Christianity became the official religion in the Roman Empire during the fourth century, these [pre]millennial aspirations either declined or took new forms....In 431 the Council of Ephesus condemned as superstition the belief in a literal millennium." (The Last Days are Here Again [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998], pp. 20, 38-39)
Notice that this issue has significant implications for how we view the world, what we expect to happen in the future, how we interpret scripture, etc. So, when the earliest church fathers contradict the RCC on this issue, the contradiction can't be dismissed as insignificant. Such disagreements among the church fathers, and their departing from apostolic teaching, is plausible within the evangelical view of church history. But if the church fathers were Roman Catholics passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession, how do you explain such widespread error, disagreement, and contradiction?
A Catholic Answers tract tells us:
"As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been 'amillennial' (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called 'millenarianism' (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism 'cannot safely be taught,' though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue." (http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp)
The church father Irenaeus was a premillennialist. He argued that premillennialism is the orthodox Christian view of eschatology, and he criticized those who are too allegorical in their interpretation of prophecy:
"If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize prophecies of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions in question. For example: 'When the cities' of the Gentiles 'shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate.' 'For, behold,' says Isaiah, 'the day of the LORD cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it.' And again he says, 'Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God.' And when these things are done, he says, 'God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth.' 'And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves.' For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in the times of which resurrection the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and with respect to those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one." (Against Heresies, 5:35:1)
5/30/02
"I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 80)
5/31/02
"In the East, indeed, all clergymen, and even the bishops themselves, abstain from their wives: but this they do of their own accord, and not by the necessity of any law; for there have been among them many bishops, who have had children by their lawful wives, during their episcopate." - Socrates Scholasticus (Ecclesiastical History, 5:22)
6/1/02
A few days ago, I documented John Chrysostom referring to numerous apostles having numerous types of primacy. I also documented him denying that Peter had papal authority. Chrysostom did believe in a primacy of Peter, but he also referred to other people having primacies, and none of the primacies were papal.
Jerome, like John Chrysostom, is often quoted out of context in order to make him appear to have believed in a papacy. You can understand how people would be misled into concluding that Jerome believed in a papacy when they read something like the following, from a letter Jerome wrote to the Roman bishop Damasus:
"Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold...As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!...If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all....But may the faith of Rome never come to such a pass! May the devout hearts of your people never be infected with such unholy doctrines! Let us be satisfied to speak of one substance and of three subsisting persons--perfect, equal, coeternal. Let us keep to one hypostasis, if such be your pleasure, and say nothing of three." (Letter 15:1-2, 15:4)
Jerome *seems* to be referring to a papacy, doesn't he? No, it's more likely that he believed in an honorary primacy of Rome, not a jurisdictional primacy. Jerome held a high view of the Roman church for various reasons, one reason being that he was baptized in Rome. The *context* of his other writings is contrary to a papal reading of the letter from which I've quoted above. As we'll see, Jerome said elsewhere that other churches are independent of the Roman church, and he accused the Roman bishop *after* Damasus of supporting heresy. However high Jerome's view of the Roman church was at the time of Damasus in the 370s, his view would be much lower later on, under the Roman bishop Siricius. Thus, though Jerome writes to Damasus about the unpolluted faith of the Roman church, he would later write to a friend about how the waters of the Roman church had been polluted by heresy under Damasus' successor. Jerome's estimation of the Roman church seemed to vary with each bishop who held the episcopate. Whatever primacy of Rome he believed in, it was more practical than papal.
Before I document these things, I want to quote the Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno regarding Jerome's writing style:
"When dealing with Jerome, a further factor that must be kept in mind is his rhetoric. His style is typical of the age, yes, but it is more exaggerated than usual, even for the fourth-fifth centuries. Indeed, some modern authors have claimed that Jerome should be considered among the great satirists of Latin literature....He wrote two letters to Pope Damasus asking for guidance, letters framed in the most fawning terms....In the context of the time, these are rather wild words but they are illustrative of Jerome's manner of writing. It has been said that among Jerome's chief characteristics were an inability to stay out of controversy and a grovelling manner in the presence of authority." (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], pp. 84-85)
Of course, when church fathers use such language to address non-Roman bishops or to address government officials, for example, Catholic apologists don't quote it. But when such language is addressed to a bishop of Rome, they quote it as evidence that the writer believed in a papacy.
As I said earlier, Jerome wrote to Damasus early in his life, in the 370s. Let me quote what he wrote in two other letters, one of them over 30 years later after he had experienced the episcopate of another Roman bishop, Siricius.
In a letter he wrote in memory of a deceased friend named Marcella, Jerome recounted how Marcella had fought heresy in Rome. He's referring to the spreading influence of the writings of Origen, promoted by another church father, Rufinus. He comments that the Origenistic heresies had influenced many in Rome, including the bishop of Rome. He refers elsewhere to the Roman bishop Siricius giving support to Rufinus (Against Rufinus, 3:21). What follows is what Jerome wrote about the faith of the Roman church becoming polluted with heresy. Jerome says that his deceased friend Marcella, *not* the bishop of Rome, was the one who defeated the heresy:
"While Marcella was thus serving the Lord in holy tranquillity, there arose in these provinces a tornado of heresy which threw everything into confusion; indeed so great was the fury into which it lashed itself that it spared neither itself nor anything that was good. And as if it were too little to have disturbed everything here, it introduced a ship freighted with blasphemies into the port of Rome itself. The dish soon found itself a cover; and the muddy feet of heretics fouled the clear waters of the faith of Rome. No wonder that in the streets and in the market places a soothsayer can strike fools on the back or, Catching up his cudgel, shatter the teeth of such as carp at him; when such venomous and filthy teaching as this has found at Rome dupes whom it can lead astray. Next came the scandalous version of Origen's book On First Principles, and that 'fortunate' disciple who would have been indeed fortunate had he never fallen in with such a master. Next followed the confutation set forth by my supporters, which destroyed the case of the Pharisees and threw them into confusion. It was then that the holy Marcella, who had long held back lest she should be thought to act from party motives, threw herself into the breach. Conscious that the faith of Rome--once praised by an apostle--was now in danger, and that this new heresy was drawing to itself not only priests and monks but also many of the laity besides imposing on the bishop who fancied others as guileless as he was himself, she publicly withstood its teachers choosing to please God rather than men. In the gospel the Saviour commends the unjust steward because, although he defrauded his master, he acted wisely for his own interests. The heretics in this instance pursued the same course; for, seeing how great a matter a little fire had kindled, and that the flames applied by them to the foundations had by this time reached the housetops, and that the deception practised on many could no longer be hid, they asked for and obtained letters of commendation from the church, so that it might appear that till the day of their departure they had continued in full communion with it. Shortly afterwards the distinguished Anastasius succeeded to the pontificate; but he was soon taken away, for it was not fitting that the head of the world should be struck off [the city of Rome being attacked by barbarians] during the episcopate of one so great. He was removed, no doubt, that he might not seek to turn away by his prayers the sentence of God passed once for all. For the words of the Lord to Jeremiah concerning Israel applied equally to Rome: 'pray not for this people for their good. When they fast I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt-offering and oblation, I will not accept them; but I will consume them by the sword and by the famine and by the pestilence.' You will say, what has this to do with the praises of Marcella? I reply, She it was who originated the condemnation of the heretics. She it was who furnished witnesses first taught by them and then carried away by their heretical teaching. She it was who showed how large a number they had deceived and who brought up against them the impious books On First Principles, books which were passing from hand to hand after being 'improved' by the hand of the scorpion. She it was lastly who called on the heretics in letter after letter to appear in their own defence. They did not indeed venture to come, for they were so conscience-stricken that they let the case go against them by default rather than face their accusers and be convicted by them. This glorious victory originated with Marcella, she was the source and cause of this great blessing." (Letter 127:9-10)
Thus, when Jerome wrote to Damasus about the Roman church being unpolluted with heresy, he must have been referring to something temporal that could change, not some sort of Divinely protected infallibility. Even in his letter to Damasus, the one I quoted, he says that he wishes that the Roman church *may* remain free from heresy. So, it seems that, even in *that* letter, he foresaw the possibility of error in the Roman church's faith. When Alaric the Visigoth attacked Rome after the death of Damasus, Jerome saw the attack as the judgment of God on Rome for its acceptance of heresy.
In another letter, Jerome refers to churches around the world being independent of the Roman church:
"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. But you will say, how comes it then that at Rome a presbyter is only ordained on the recommendation of a deacon? To which I reply as follows. Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception which has given rise to arrogance and pride?" - Jerome (Letter 146:1-2)
The First Vatican Council, under the absolute monarchy of Pope Pius IX, said that the capital outweighs the world. Jerome said that the world outweighs its capital.
6/2/02
Catholic apologists often claim that nobody in the early centuries of Christianity referred to the church as a spiritual entity consisting only of believers. The truth is that, although *other* definitions were advocated as well, the idea of a spiritual entity consisting only of believers was one of the definitions. For example:
"Moreover, that the word of God speaks to those who believe in Him as being one soul, and one synagogue, and one church, as to a daughter; that it thus addresses the church which has sprung from His name and partakes of His name (for we are all called Christians), is distinctly proclaimed in like manner in the following words, which teach us also to forget our old ancestral customs, when they speak thus: 'Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear; forget thy people and the house of thy father, and the King shall desire thy beauty: because He is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.'" - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 63)
6/3/02
"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine." - Rufinus (A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, 38)
6/4/02
"Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures." - Dionysius of Alexandria (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 7:24)
6/5/02
The church father Clement of Alexandria doesn't seem to have believed in original sin. The Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly cites the following passage as an example:
"The righteous Job says: 'Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there;' not naked of possessions, for that were a trivial and common thing; but, as a just man, he departs naked of evil and sin, and of the unsightly shape which follows those who have led bad lives. For this was what was said, 'Unless ye be converted, and become as children,' pure in flesh, holy in soul by abstinence from evil deeds; showing that He would have us to be such as also He generated us from our mother" (The Stromata, 4:25)
6/6/02
Arnobius seems to have believed in annihilationism:
"For although the gentle and kindly disposed man thought it inhuman cruelty to condemn souls to death, he yet not unreasonably supposed that they are cast into rivers blazing with masses of flame, and loathsome from their foul abysses. For they are cast in, and being annihilated, pass away vainly in everlasting destruction. For theirs is an intermediate state, as has been learned from Christ's teaching; and they are such that they may on the one hand perish if they have not known God, and on the other be delivered from death if they have given heed to His threats and proffered favours. And to make manifest what is unknown, this is man's real death, this which leaves nothing behind. For that which is seen by the eyes is only a separation of soul from body, not the last end--annihilation: this, I say, is man's real death" (Against the Heathen, 2:14)
6/7/02
Gregory of Nyssa tells us that Satan will be saved:
"A certain deception was indeed practised upon the Evil one, by concealing the Divine nature within the human; but for the latter, as himself a deceiver, it was only a just recompense that he should be deceived himself: the great adversary must himself at last find that what has been done is just and salutary, when he also shall experience the benefit of the Incarnation. He, as well as humanity, will be purged." (The Great Catechism, 26)
6/8/02
Irenaeus refers to Jesus living to be over 40 years old, and he bases a false view of the atonement on that error:
"They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. In speaking thus, they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: 'Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,' when He came to receive baptism); and, according to these men, He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the validity of the statement....But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,' they answered Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?' Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, 'Thou art not yet forty years old.' For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?' He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year" (Against Heresies, 2:22:5-6)
6/9/02
Catholic apologists often quote a church father referring to Mary as a second Eve, then suggest that such a concept involves the sinlessness of Mary. But Mary can be paralleled with Eve without Mary being sinless. The church father Tertullian gives us an example. He refers to Mary as a sinner and a second Eve in the same document. He writes the following in response to people who deny that Jesus had an earthly family, then he comments on Mary being a second Eve:
"First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside [Matthew 12:46-50], if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,--who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them....But there is some ground for thinking that Christ's answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. 'The Lord's brethren had not yet believed in Him.' So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion's time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother's adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, 'What are mother and brothers to me?' And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one's parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave Others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour--even because they listened to the word (of God)--He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours--for God's work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother's 'womb and paps,' but designating those as more 'blessed who hear the word of God.'...For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil's word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil's word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin's womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother." (On the Flesh of Christ, 7, 17)
6/10/02
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)
6/11/02
"I shall yield to scripture alone." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 1)
6/12/02
There were disagreements among the church fathers regarding the use of images and their veneration. Among the earlier church fathers, for example, we sometimes find condemnations not only of venerating images, but even of possessing them. Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott wrote:
"Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36)." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 320)
Tertullian wrote:
"For how could he [Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration] have known Moses and Elias, except by being in the Spirit? People could not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade." (Against Marcion, 4:22)
On another occasion:
"We know that the names of the dead are nothing, as are their images; but we know well enough, too, who, when images are set up, under these names carry on their wicked work, and exult in the homage rendered to them, and pretend to be divine--none other than spirits accursed, than devils." (De Spectaculis, 10)
And on another occasion:
"In a word, if we refuse our homage to statues and frigid images, the very counterpart of their dead originals, with which hawks, and mice, and spiders are so well acquainted, does it not merit praise instead of penalty, that we have rejected what we have come to see is error?" (The Apology, 12)
6/13/02
"But, they say, we do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated. You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and wood, and stone, rather than to the place where you believe them to be?...Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth." - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 2:2, 2:19)
6/14/02
Today and in some of the upcoming segments, I want to address the issue of tradition. There are some questions that Catholics generally fail to ask when addressing the concept of tradition within the writings of the church fathers. For example:
- Was the church father consistent? He may have advocated sola scriptura at one point, but have been inconsistent elsewhere. We know that Augustine, for example, admitted to some of his own inconsistencies on some issues. To assume that a church father couldn't have been inconsistent would be unreasonable. Since Catholics often claim that sola scriptura was never advocated before the second millennium, at least by people they consider orthodox, a church father advocating sola scriptura would refute that claim, even if the church father was inconsistent on the issue.
- Is the tradition viewed as something just as authoritative as scripture or as a subordinate authority? For example, evangelicals refer to the authority of the Council of Nicaea, the Westminster Confession, parents, government officials, etc. without considering those entities just as authoritative as scripture. If a church father says in one passage that scripture alone is the ultimate standard for the Christian, while he says in another passage that all Christians must agree with the Council of Nicaea, does the second passage deny sola scriptura? No, since you can view the Council of Nicaea as a subordinate authority, as something that accurately reflects Biblical teaching, without rejecting sola scriptura. Evangelicals often refer to their church's "statement of faith", its "doctrinal standard", etc., and they may read something like the Apostles' Creed during their church services, without thereby opposing sola scriptura. With some church fathers, the tradition they refer to is scripture itself. We ought to ask whether the tradition is something other than scripture and whether it's equal in authority with the Bible or a subordinate authority.
- If a church father referred to non-Biblical traditions, whether as equal to scripture or as a subordinate authority, did he define that tradition the same way Roman Catholics define the term? If Irenaeus, for example, refers to an apostolic tradition of premillennialism and an apostolic tradition of Jesus living to be over 40 years old, both of which are examples I've already documented in this series, then his concept of tradition wasn't Roman Catholic.
Catholics frequently fail to ask questions such as these. I'll be giving some examples today and in future installments in this series.
The church father Firmilian referred to traditions that had been passed down from the apostles. Was he a Roman Catholic, then? No, since his traditions contradicted those of Roman Catholicism. He not only opposed some of the traditions of the Roman church of his day, but he even opposed those traditions when the Roman church and its bishop were "pretending the authority of the apostles". In other words, contrary to the popular Catholic claim that the church fathers disagreed with the RCC only when the RCC *permitted* them to, Firmilian is an example of a church father disagreeing with the Roman church even when the Roman church claimed the highest of authority. Firmilian wrote the following against the Roman bishop Stephen, who seems to have claimed something like papal authority:
"they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...But with respect to the refutation of custom which they [the Roman church] seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?...And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles....But indeed you [Stephen] are worse than all heretics....Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all...But as far as he [Stephen] is concerned, let us leave him...And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian 'a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.' And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear." (Cyprian's Letter 74:6, 74:19, 74:23-24, 74:26)
Firmilian believed in tradition, but it wasn't Roman Catholic tradition.
6/15/02
Papias, a church father of the late first and early second centuries, tells us how he attained his traditions:
"For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." (Fragments, 1)
Is Papias referring to the ex cathedra rulings of the bishop of Rome? The Roman Catholic magisterium? The Roman Catholic concept of tradition? No. Let me quote what Papias said just before what I've quoted above:
"But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,-what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say." (Fragments, 1)
The tradition Papias believed in wasn't Roman Catholic tradition. He didn't define tradition as a series of infallible papal decrees, council rulings, etc. issued by a worldwide denomination centered in Rome and led by a Pope. Rather, Papias defined tradition as a body of past apostolic teachings that he or anybody else could attain by means of ordinary investigation. Instead of looking to a bishop of Rome or an ecumenical council, Papias relied upon his own examination of historical evidence. Papias lived during the time of the apostles, he may have personally known at least one of them, and some of his contemporaries had known the apostles. It's understandable that he would look for evidence of apostolic teaching outside of scripture. We today, however, are living under different circumstances.
As we read the Fragments of Papias, we find him repeatedly advocating traditions that Roman Catholics reject, such as premillennialism. Roman Catholics often quote the church fathers referring to tradition, but they don't explain that the concept of tradition was defined in different ways by different church fathers, including ways that are contradictory to the Roman Catholic view.
6/16/02
Athanasius wrote:
"These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these." (Festal Letter 39:6)
What is he referring to? The Pope's ex cathedra rulings on matters of faith and morals? A collection of oral traditions? Doctrines like the Assumption of Mary, indulgences, and numbering the sacraments at seven?
No, Athanasius made the comments quoted above just after listing a canon of scripture. And his canon contradicts that of Roman Catholicism. He refers to "the Church" and "the Fathers" agreeing with his non-Roman-Catholic canon, and he agrees with evangelicals about looking to the Jews for the Old Testament:
"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews" (Festal Letter 39:4)
Catholics often quote Athanasius referring to "the Church", "the Fathers", the authority of the Council of Nicaea, etc., but they don't explain that Athanasius often defines those terms differently than Roman Catholics do. And, as Athanasius explains repeatedly, he considered these other sources of authority to be subordinate to scripture.
Athanasius wrote:
"what need is there of Councils, when the Nicest is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith?" (De Synodis, 6)
If we were to read Athanasius the way Roman Catholics suggest we do, we would conclude that Athanasius is contradicting sola scriptura in this passage. After all, he appeals to a non-Biblical source, the Council of Nicaea, and he refers to it as sufficient. But, shortly after the comment above, Athanasius explains:
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis, 6)
Athanasius explains that scripture is sufficient "above all things", and that the Council of Nicaea is a subordinate authority that reflects Biblical teaching. Athanasius is advocating sola scriptura. Since passages such as this one from Athanasius contradict Roman Catholicism, the general Catholic response to such passages is to quote something Athanasius said elsewhere. They'll quote Athanasius referring to "the Church", "the Fathers", etc., saying that we shouldn't depart from the teachings always held by the church, etc. Evangelicals would agree that the church and our predecessors have authority. We would agree that we shouldn't reject a teaching that has always been held by Christians. But, like Athanasius, we view those other sources of authority as subordinate authorities, below the "above all things" sufficiency of scripture. And we agree with Athanasius that a doctrine shouldn't be rejected if it was always held by Christians. But since doctrines like the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and the RCC's Old Testament canon *haven't* always been held by Christians, we're not disagreeing with the principle of Athanasius by rejecting such doctrines. If a doctrine was *always* held by the Christian church, it would have to have been held by the apostles. And we agree that all apostolic teaching is true. Thus, it was wrong for the Arians to oppose the deity of Christ, a doctrine always held by the Christian church. When evangelicals respond to a group such as the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, they often cite church fathers, councils, Protestant reformers, scholars in the Biblical languages, and other non-Biblical sources. They aren't thereby rejecting sola scriptura.
Athanasius writes elsewhere:
"The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,-while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,-still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,-the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable." (Against the Heathen, 1:1)
A common Catholic interpretation of such a passage is to *combine* what Athanasius said about scripture with what he said about teachers, as though Athanasius is referring to the Roman Catholic concept of scripture and tradition as a combined rule of faith. But Athanasius could also be referring to fallible teachers who are the means by which the infallible scriptures have been communicated, much like we today would refer to pastors, theologians, etc. Which interpretation is more likely?
Since Athanasius says that scripture is "sufficient to declare the truth", it would be unlikely that he would go on to say that scripture is insufficient. And when he mentions teachers, he refers to teachers in general, not a Pope or a group of bishops speaking infallibly, so he doesn't seem to have had something of equal authority with scripture in mind.
We know that Athanasius contradicted Roman Catholic tradition, such as with regard to the Old Testament canon. We also know that he advocated sola scriptura. Even if Roman Catholics want to argue that Athanasius contradicted sola scriptura in *other* passages, it can't be denied that he sometimes advocated the concept and that the tradition he believed in wasn't Roman Catholic.
6/17/02
In a Catholic Answers article on tradition, we read the following:
"The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of [apostolic] succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp)
The article goes on to quote some church fathers, such as the following from Basil, without any further explanation:
"'Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term' (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375])." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp)
What is Basil referring to? Judging by the claims of the RCC and the arguments of this Catholic Answers article, you might think Basil was referring to things like papal infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, and privately confessing all sins to a priest. But, instead, here's what Basil writes *just after* what Catholic Answers quoted:
"For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents." (The Holy Spirit, 27:66)
Basil refers to relatively minor practices, some of which Roman Catholics don't follow. He explains that these things are silent and secret mysteries, hidden traditions. Though the Catholic Answers article cites 2 Timothy 2:2, these traditions of Basil are not the *public* apostolic teachings Paul refers to in that passage.
We know, from what Basil said elsewhere, that not only were his practices sometimes different from those of Roman Catholicism, but so were his doctrines. Earlier in this series, I documented the example of Basil saying that Luke 2:35 is a reference to Mary sinning. Of that scripture interpretation, Basil says, "About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation." (Letter 260:6) Catholic Answers tells us that the church fathers were "scrupulous" in guarding the traditions of the apostles. Should we conclude, then, that Basil's non-Roman-Catholic traditions are apostolic?
Despite what Basil says in the passage quoted by Catholic Answers, he advocates sola scriptura elsewhere. For example:
"Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right." (Letter 283)
See also the citations of other passages in footnote 563 at:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/footnote/fn18.htm#P1858_483474
Regardless of whether one argues that Basil advocated sola scriptura consistently, inconsistently, or not at all, the fact remains that he contradicted the Roman Catholic view of tradition.
6/18/02
Sometimes the traditions of the early Roman churches contradict the traditions of Roman Catholicism. For example, regarding the forgiveness of post-conversion sins:
"Hermas reveals a great deal about attitudes in the church of Rome at the beginning of the second century...Hermas's idea, however - that God has allowed his people, the church, just one historical opportunity for repentance - does not seem to have been representative of the normal view." (Williston Walker, Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, and Robert T. Handy, A History of the Christian Church [New York, New York: Scribner, 1985], pp. 111-112)
In fact, Roman bishops living several decades later would take a different view than that of Hermas, and they were criticized for it by those, like Hippolytus (also a Roman), who still held a view similar to that of Hermas. Regarding limitations on the repentance of believers, Hermas writes:
"For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints; but to the heathen, repentance will be possible even to the last day." (The Shepherd, 1:2:2)
Thus, we see that Roman Catholicism isn't even consistent with the traditions of the *Roman* churches of the past.
6/19/02
The church father and historian Eusebius gives us another example of the inconsistencies of the traditions of the churches in Rome:
"Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." (Church History, 3:3:5)
6/20/02
Roman Catholics often quote church fathers referring to some sort of primacy of Peter, sending letters of appeal to the bishop of Rome, etc., and they suggest that such quotes are evidence of patristic support for the doctrine of the papacy. They can't do this as much with the earlier church fathers as they do with the later church fathers, since, as the Protestant historian Terence Smith explains:
"there is an astonishing lack of reference to Peter among ecclesiastical authors of the first half of the second century. He is barely mentioned in the Apostolic Fathers, nor by Justin and the other Apologists" (cited in Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 15)
But Peter does become more prominent in the writings of the later church fathers. For example, Catholic Answers quotes Clement of Alexandria as follows:
"'[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. 19:27; Mark 10:28]' (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200])." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp)
Clement of Alexandria doesn't refer to Peter having universal jurisdiction. He doesn't refer to Peter having successors who are exclusively Roman bishops. In all of his many writings on Christian doctrine and practice, Clement never refers to a papal office. But since he refers to *some* type of primacy of Peter, Catholic Answers quotes him in support of the doctrine of the papacy.
In past segments of this series, I've documented how Catholics misrepresent other church fathers in a similar way. They quote John Chrysostom, for example, referring to a primacy of Peter. But they don't quote Chrysostom explaining that the primacy is non-jurisdictional, and they don't quote him saying that other people have other types of primacy. They don't quote John Chrysostom referring to Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, as the successor of Peter.
Another example is Origen. As I documented earlier in this series, Origen referred to Matthew 16:18-19 being applicable to *all* Christians. He said, repeatedly, that all Christians are rocks upon whom the church is built and that all Christians possess the keys of the kingdom. Thus, Peter can be said to have a chronological or symbolic primacy, but not a jurisdictional primacy. But Catholic Answers, through misleading quotation, cites Origen in support of a papacy:
"'[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens' (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248])." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp)
"'Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?' [Matt. 14:31]' (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248])." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp)
Over the next several days, I want to give examples of how people other than Peter and churches other than the Roman church could be portrayed as having papal authority, *if* we were to quote the church fathers the way Catholic apologists do. I'm not arguing that these other people and these other churches did have universal jurisdiction. I'm saying that *if* Roman Catholics were consistent in their interpretation of the church fathers, they would have to see papal implications in these passages I'm going to cite.
I'll begin with Origen. He tells us about the universal jurisdiction of Pope Paul:
"I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ." (Against Celsus, 1:63)
Can you imagine what Roman Catholics would make of such a comment by Origen if the name of Paul was replaced with the name of Peter? But since Origen mentions Paul instead, most Catholics probably haven't ever heard of this passage before, nor would they think it has papal implications.
6/21/02
Archelaus refers to the apostle Paul's papal primacy, explaining that Paul is the ruler, the architect, and the best master-builder of the churches:
"He gave proof of His presence with us forthwith, and did most abundantly impart Himself to Paul, whose testimony we also believe when he says, 'Unto me only is this grace given.' For this is he who formerly was a persecutor of the Church of God, but who afterwards appeared openly before all men as a faithful minister of the Paraclete; by whose instrumentality His singular clemency was made known to all men, in such wise that even to us who some time were without hope the largess of His gifts has come. For which of us could have hoped that Paul, the persecutor and enemy of the Church, would prove its defender and guardian? Yea, and not that alone, but that he would become also its ruler, the founder and architect of the churches?...From the loving desire for the Saviour we have been called Christians, as the whole world itself attests, and as the apostles also plainly declare. Yea, further, that best master-builder of His, Paul himself, has laid our foundation, that is, the foundation of the Church and has put us in trust of the law, ordaining ministers, and presbyters, and bishops in the same, and describing in the places severally assigned to that purpose, in what manner and with what character the ministers of God ought to conduct themselves, of what repute the presbyters ought to be possessed, and how they should be constituted, and what manner of persons those also ought to be who desire the office of bishop." (Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, 34, 51)
6/22/02
Ignatius refers to the primacy of the Ephesian church. Notice his use of terms like "most", "beg", "inferior", etc. Such terminology *could* be interpreted as references to a jurisdictional primacy of the Ephesian church and its bishop. If Roman Catholics are going to read papal implications into such terminology when it's applied to the Roman church, then we can also read papal implications into such terminology when it's applied to some other church:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory...trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome...As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and blessed in all things, I beg that he may continue longer, both for your honour and that of your bishop....May I always have joy of you, if indeed I be worthy of it. It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you...I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person....For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop-I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature-how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity!...I am far inferior to you, and require to be sanctified by your Church of Ephesus, so renowned throughout the world....Ye, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, in whom also I exult that I have been thought worthy, by means of this Epistle, to converse and rejoice with you...may I arise through your prayers, of which I entreat I may always be a partaker, that I may be found in the lot of the Christians of Ephesus, who have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ....Ye are the persons through whom those pass that are cut off for the sake of God...when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith." (Epistle to the Ephesians, introduction, 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-13)
6/23/02
Roman Catholics often quote somebody writing to the bishop of Rome or the church of Rome for help on some occasion, or they quote the bishop of Rome or the church of Rome advising, exhorting, or rebuking another bishop or another church. Supposedly, such things are evidence of a Roman papacy. What if we were to apply the same reasoning to other bishops and other churches?
For example, what about Jerome's correspondence with Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria? We might read papal implications into what Theophilus wrote to Jerome, when he said:
"I feel no doubt but that you will approve my resolution and will exult in the church's victory. For we have cut down with the prophet's sickle certain wicked fanatics...It is our desire, if possible, to guard in our days not only the Catholic faith and the rules of the church, but the people committed to our charge, and to give a quietus to all strange doctrines." (Jerome's Letter 87)
We could also read papal implications into some letters Jerome wrote to Theophilus. For example:
"You coax as a father, you teach as a master, you enjoin as a bishop. You come to me not with a rod and severity but in a spirit of kindness, gentleness, and meekness....Hear me, I beg you with patience and do not take truthfulness for flattery. Is any man reluctant to communicate with you? Does any turn his face away when you hold out your hand? Does any at the holy banquet offer you the kiss of Judas? At your approach the monks instead of trembling rejoice. They race to meet you and leaving their dens in the desert are fain to master you by their humility. What compels them to come forth? Is it not their love for you? What draws together the scattered dwellers in the desert? Is it not the esteem in which they hold you? A parent ought to love his children; and not only a parent but a bishop ought to be loved by his children....Why do they use the name of your holiness to terrorize us, when your letter--strange contrast to their harsh and menacing words--breathes only peace and meekness? For that the letter which Isidore the presbyter has brought for me from you does make for peace and harmony I know by this, that these insincere professors of a wish for peace have refused to deliver it to me." (Letter 82:1, 82:3, 82:8)
"Jerome to the most blessed pope Theophilus. The letter of your holiness has given me a twofold pleasure, partly because it has had for its bearers those reverend and estimable men, the bishop Agatho and the deacon Athanasius, and partly because it has shewn your zeal for the faith against a most wicked heresy. The voice of your holiness has rung throughout the world, and to the joy of all Christ's churches the poisonous suggestions of the devil have been silenced. The old serpent hisses no longer, but, writhing and disembowelled, lurks in dark caverns unable to bear the shining of the sun. I have already, before the writing of your letter, sent missives to the West pointing out to those of my own language some of the quibbles employed by the heretics. I hold it due to the special providence of God that you should have written to the pope Anastasius [bishop of Rome] at the same time as myself, and should thus without knowing it have been the means of confirming my testimony. Now that you have directly urged me to do so, I shall shew myself more zealous than ever to recall from their error simple souls both near and far. Nor shall I hesitate, if needful, to incur odium with some, for we ought to please God rather than men: although indeed they have been much more forward to defend their heresy than I and others have been to attack it. At the same time I beg that if you have any synodical decrees bearing upon the subject you will forward them to me, that, strengthened with the authority of so great a prelate, I may open my mouth for Christ with more freedom and confidence. The presbyter Vincent has arrived from Rome two days ago and humbly salutes you. He tells me again and again that Rome and almost the whole of Italy owe their deliverance after Christ to your letters. Shew diligence therefore, most loving and most blessed pope, and whenever opportunity offers write to the bishops of the West not to hesitate-in your own words -to cut down with a sharp sickle the sprouts of evil." (Letter 88)
Notice that Jerome refers to the whole world looking to Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, to defeat heresy. Jerome mentions the Roman church looking to the bishop of Alexandria for help. Clearly, the bishop of Alexandria was the ruler of all Christians on earth.
6/24/02
A council held in Jerusalem wrote the following to Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, thus giving us more evidence that the bishop of Alexandria is a Pope:
"We have done all that you wished...We anathematize those who hold such doctrines [as you have condemned], and also those of Apollinaris, and shall not receive anyone whom you excommunicate." (Jerome's Letter 93)
6/25/02
Anastasius, the bishop of Rome, refers to Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, as "shepherd", "the careful watchman", and "the shipmaster". He refers to how Pope Theophilus "watches over" the church:
"It is felt right that a shepherd should bestow great care and watchfulness upon his flock. In like manner too from his lofty tower the careful watchman keeps a lookout day and night on behalf of the city. So also in the hour of tempest when the sea is dangerous the shipmaster suffers keen anxiety lest the gale and the violence of the waves shall dash his vessel upon the rocks. It is with similar feelings that the reverend and honourable Theophilus our brother and fellow-bishop, ceases not to watch over the things that make for salvation, that God's people in the different churches may not by reading Origen run into awful blasphemies." (Jerome's Letter 95:1)
Can there be much doubt that the bishop of Alexandria is the infallible Vicar of Christ on earth, with jurisdictional primacy over all Christians?
6/26/02
Epiphanius writes the following to Jerome regarding Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria. Notice that Theophilus' letter is referred to as being sent to "all Catholics". Notice, also, that the Origenistic heresy is referred as being uprooted *everywhere* once it's uprooted in Alexandria. And notice that Epiphanius compares the leadership of Theophilus to that of Moses.
"The general epistle written to all Catholics [by Theophilus] belongs particularly to you [Jerome]; for you, having a zeal for the faith against all heresies, particularly oppose the disciples of Origen and of Apollinaris whose poisoned roots and deeply planted impiety almighty God has dragged forth into our midst, that having been unearthed at Alexandria they might wither throughout the world. For know, my beloved son, that Amalek has been destroyed root and branch and that the trophy of the cross has been set up on the hill of Rephidim. For as when the hands of Moses were held up on high Israel prevailed, so the Lord has strengthened His servant Theophilus to plant His standard against Origen on the altar of the church of Alexandria; that in him might be fulfilled the words: 'Write this for a memorial, for I will utterly put out Origen's heresy from under heaven together with that Amalek himself.' And that I may not appear to be repeating the same things over and over and thus to be making my letter tedious, I send you the actual missive written to me that you may know what Theophilus has said to me, and what a great blessing the Lord has granted to my last days in approving the principles which I have always proclaimed by the testimony of so great a prelate." (Jerome's Letter 91)
6/27/02
Commodianus is another church father who disagreed with the eschatology of Roman Catholicism:
"From heaven will descend the city in the first resurrection; this is what we may tell of such a celestial fabric. We shall arise again to Him, who have been devoted to Him. And they shall be incorruptible, even already living without death. And neither will there be any grief nor any groaning in that city. They shall come also who overcame cruel martydom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years." (Writings, 44)
6/28/02
"The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation thus: 'And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.' Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, 'He finished in six days.' This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, 'Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years.' Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. 'And He rested on the seventh day.' This meaneth: when His Son, coming again, shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day." - The Epistle of Barnabas (15)
6/29/02
Theodoret doesn't seem to have agreed with the Roman Catholic view of Mary. While defending the two natures of Christ, one of the illustrations he uses is the contrast between Jesus honoring Mary as His earthly mother on the one hand, while rebuking her as her Lord on the other hand, an apparent reference to either Luke 2:49 or John 2:4:
"If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten-the Lord Christ-the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth; at another He rebukes her as her Lord." (Dialogues, 2)
6/30/02
Justin Martyr explains that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, only in the sense of offering prayers and thanksgiving:
"Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.' Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place." (Dialogue with Trypho, 117)