Alexander of Alexandria (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/23/02)
Ambrose (the sinlessness of Mary, 8/29/02)
Ambrose (original sin, 9/3/02)
Apostolic Constitutions (papal infallibility, 7/6/02)
Apostolic Constitutions (moral requirements for bishops, 8/3/02)
Athanasius (the canon, 7/16/02)
Athanasius (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/22/02)
Athanasius (unity, 8/14/02)
Augustine (papal infallibility, 7/8/02)
Augustine (the papacy, 7/9/02)
Augustine (the papacy, 7/10/02)
Augustine (John 19:26-27, 7/14/02)
Augustine (John 16:13, 7/15/02)
Augustine (the canon, 7/18/02)
Augustine (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/27/02)
Augustine (sola scriptura, 8/6/02)
Augustine (sola scriptura, 8/23/02)
Augustine (the sinlessness of Mary, 8/30/02)
Augustine (John 6, 9/4/02)
Augustine (the eucharist, 9/10/02)
Augustine (the church, 9/25/02)
Basil (the papacy, 8/31/02)
Basil (John 6, 9/7/02)
Basil (the papacy, 9/8/02)
Basil (the perspicuity of scripture, 9/27/02)
Church of Smyrna (Purgatory, 8/27/02)
Clement of Alexandria (sola scriptura, 8/7/02)
Clement of Alexandria (John 6, 9/5/02)
Clement of Alexandria (the eucharist, 9/11/02)
Clement of Alexandria (veneration of images, 9/20/02)
Clement of Alexandria (the church, 9/24/02)
Clement of Rome (salvation, 8/9/02)
Clement of Rome (confession of sins, 8/10/02)
Clement of Rome (Purgatory, 8/25/02)
Council of Constantinople (unity, 8/16/02)
Cyprian (the papacy, 7/4/02)
Cyprian (the papacy, 7/5/02)
Cyprian (the eucharist, 9/9/02)
Cyril of Jerusalem (the canon, 7/19/02)
Cyril of Jerusalem (sola scriptura, 8/5/02)
Dionysius of Rome (the perspicuity of scripture, 9/30/02)
Epiphanius (veneration of images, 9/22/02)
The Epistle of Barnabas (tradition, 8/18/02)
Firmilian (unity, 8/15/02)
Hegesippus (the perpetual virginity of Mary, 8/20/02)
Hilary of Poitiers (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/30/02)
Hippolytus (sola scriptura, 8/4/02)
Hippolytus (unity, 8/11/02)
Irenaeus (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/24/02)
Irenaeus (the perpetual virginity of Mary, 8/21/02)
Irenaeus (Purgatory, 8/28/02)
Irenaeus (the eucharist, 9/12/02)
Jerome (the canon, 7/17/02)
Jerome (unity, 8/13/02)
Jerome (marriage, 8/19/02)
Jerome (apostolic succession, 9/19/02)
John Chrysostom (the sinlessness of Mary, 7/1/02)
John Chrysostom (the papacy, 7/3/02)
John Chrysostom (John 19:26-27, 7/13/02)
John Chrysostom (Romans 1:8, 7/21/02)
John Chrysostom (interpretation of scripture, 7/31/02)
John Chrysostom (Acts 8:30-31, 8/1/02)
John Chrysostom (the distribution of scripture, 8/2/02)
John Chrysostom (salvation, 9/13/02)
John Chrysostom (the perspicuity of scripture, 9/21/02)
John of Damascus (the canon, 7/20/02)
Justin Martyr (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/26/02)
Lactantius (prayer to the dead, 7/12/02)
Lactantius (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/25/02)
Lactantius (eschatology, 9/17/02)
Mathetes (salvation, 8/8/02)
Nepos (eschatology, 9/18/02)
Origen (prayer to the dead, 7/11/02)
Origen (unity, 8/12/02)
Papias (Purgatory, 8/24/02)
Papias (eschatology, 9/16/02)
Polycarp (Purgatory, 8/26/02)
Second Council of Constantinople (unity, 8/17/02)
Tatian (the recognition of scripture, 9/28/02)
Tatian (the afterlife, 9/29/02)
Tertullian (the papacy, 7/2/02)
Tertullian (papal infallibility, 7/7/02)
Tertullian (the perpetual virginity of Mary, 8/22/02)
Tertullian (infant baptism, 9/2/02)
Tertullian (John 6, 9/6/02)
Tertullian (salvation, 9/14/02)
Tertullian (eschatology, 9/15/02)
Theodoret (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/28/02)
Theodoret (the perspicuity of scripture, 7/29/02)
Theodoret (the papacy, 9/23/02)
Theodoret (tradition, 9/26/02)
Theophilus of Antioch (the eucharist, 9/1/02)
7/1/02
Compare the following claims of Pope Pius IX to what John Chrysostom wrote:
"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin -- a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God -- and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.... Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin....And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner -- this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine....this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as the Fathers discerned, was recorded in the Divine Scriptures" - Pope Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus)
"even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. 'For while He yet talked to the people,' it is said, 'one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, 'While He yet talked to the people;' as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?" - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)
"For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?' (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul" - John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
7/2/02
Roman Catholic scholar Yves Congar wrote:
"But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its experience. It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity....Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith." (Tradition and Traditions [San Diego, California: Basilica Press, 1966], pp. 398-399)
The apostles, as late as the Last Supper, didn't seem to view Matthew 16 as a reference to Peter being made a Pope (Luke 22:24). The earliest interpreters of Matthew 16 among the church fathers not only didn't advocate the papal interpretation, but even contradicted it. I've already cited Origen doing so. Another example is Tertullian, who denied that the keys of Matthew 16 are unique to Peter and the bishops of Rome:
"For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him." (Scorpiace, 10)
7/3/02
Are the keys of Matthew 16 exclusive to Peter and the bishops of Rome? John Chrysostom didn't think so:
"the son of thunder [the apostle John], the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven" (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 1:2)
7/4/02
Cyprian believed in a primacy of Peter, but explains that the primacy is chronological and symbolic, not jurisdictional:
"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." (On the Unity of the Church, 4)
7/5/02
Cyprian refers to all bishops as successors of Peter, and he refers to all of them possessing the keys and having the words of Matthew 16 applied to them:
"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." (Epistle 26:1)
7/6/02
The First Vatican Council and modern Roman Catholic apologists claim that Luke 22:32 refers to papal infallibility. The Apostolic Constitutions, however, not only doesn't advocate such an interpretation, but even applies the passage to all believers:
"For on this account the devil himself is very angry at the holy Church of God: he is removed to you, and has raised against you adversities, seditions, and reproaches, schisms, and heresies. For he had before subdued that people to himself, by their slaying of Christ. But you who have left his vanities he tempts in different ways, as he did the blessed Job. For indeed he opposed that great high priest Joshua the son of Josedek; and he oftentimes sought to sift us, that our faith might fail. But our Lord and Master, having brought him to trial, said unto him: 'The Lord rebuke thee, O devil; and the Lord, who hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee. Is not this plucked out of the fire as a brand?' And who said then to those that stood by the high priest, 'Take away his ragged garments from him;' and added, 'Behold, I have taken thine iniquities away from thee;' He will say now, as He said formerly of us when we were assembled together, 'I have prayed that your faith may not fail.'" (6:5)
7/7/02
Tertullian doesn't see papal infallibility in Luke 22:32. Instead, he suggests that the passage is similar to what's said of all believers in other passages. He suggests that the passage is referring to personal fellowship with God, not a power of infallibility:
"So he [Satan] asked in the case of the apostles likewise an opportunity to tempt them, having it only by special allowance, since the Lord in the Gospel says to Peter, 'Behold, Satan asked that he might sift you as grain; but I have prayed for you that your faith fail not;' that is, that the devil should not have power granted him sufficient to endanger his faith. Whence it is manifest that both things belong to God shaking of faith as well as the shielding of it, when both are sought from Him-the shaking by the devil, the shielding by the Son. And certainly, when the Son of God has faith's protection absolutely committed to Him, beseeching it of the Father, from whom He receives all power in heaven and on earth, how entirely out of the question is it that the devil should have the assailing of it in his own power! But in the prayer prescribed to us, when we say to our Father, 'Lead us not into temptation' (now what greater temptation is there than persecution?), we acknowledge that that comes to pass by His will whom we beseech to exempt us from it. For this is what follows, 'But deliver us from the wicked one,' that is, do not lead us into temptation by giving us up to the wicked one, for then are we delivered from the power of the devil, when we are not handed over to him to be tempted." (De Fuga in Persecutione, 2)
7/8/02
Augustine doesn't see Luke 22:32 as a reference to papal infallibility, but instead sees the faith and its being kept from failing as comparable to what other passages say about other believers:
"So then that we may pray, let us believe; and that this same faith whereby we pray fail not, let us pray. Faith pours out prayer, and the pouring out of prayer obtains the strengthening of faith. Faith, I say, pours out prayer, the pouring out of prayer obtains strengthening even for faith itself. For that faith might not fail in temptations, therefore did the Lord say, 'Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.' 'Watch,' He saith, 'and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.' What is to 'enter into temptation,' but to depart from faith? For so far temptation advances as faith gives way: and so far temptation gives way, as faith advances. For that you may know, Beloved, more plainly, that the Lord said, 'Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation,' as touching faith lest it should fail and perish; He said in the same place of the Gospel 'This night hath Satan desired to sift you as wheat, and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not.' He that defendeth prayeth, and shall not he pray who is in peril? For in the words of the Lord, 'when the Son of Man shall come, thinkest thou that He shall find faith on the earth?' He spoke of that faith, which is perfect. For it is scarce found on the earth. Lo! this Church of God is full: and who would come hither, if there were no faith? But who would not remove mountains, if there were full faith? Look at the very Apostles: they would not have left all they had, have trodden under foot this world's hope, and followed the Lord, if they had not had great faith; and yet if they had full faith, they would not have said to the Lord, 'Increase our faith.' See again, that man confessing both of himself (behold faith, yet not full faith), who when he had presented to the Lord his son to be cured of an evil spirit, and was asked whether he believed, answered and said, 'Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief.' 'Lord,' says he, 'I believe,' I believe; therefore there was faith. But 'help Thou mine unbelief,' therefore there was not full faith." (Sermon 65:1)
7/9/02
Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same:
"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
7/10/02
Augustine held the Roman church and its bishop in high regard, but he had a non-papal view of church government. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno comments:
"Elsewhere I have argued in detail Augustine's views of authority in the Church and that, in my opinion, the council [not the Pope] was the primary instrument for settling controversies....I believe that Augustine had great respect for the Roman church whose antiquity and apostolic origins made it outshine by far other churches in the West. But as with Cyprian, the African collegial and conciliar tradition was to be preferred most of the time." (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 79)
Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter, through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by eminence the sedes apostolica. But on the other hand, like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church, which Peter was only set to represent. With this view agrees the independent position of the North African church in the time of Augustine toward Rome, as we have already observed it in the case of the appeal of Apiarius, and as it appears in the Pelagian controversy, of which Augustine was the leader. This father, therefore, can at all events be cited only as a witness to the limited authority of the Roman chair. And it should also, in justice, be observed, that in his numerous writings he very rarely speaks of that authority at all, and then for the most part incidentally; showing that he attached far less importance to this matter than the Roman divines." (The Master Christian Library [Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998], History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 246)
As Augustine said:
"Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been established by the statutes of the universal Church?...[quoting Cyprian] For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein.' Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address [of Cyprian]." (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:2-4)
"Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed." (Letter 43:19)
7/11/02
There are hundreds of passages on prayer in the Bible, covering thousands of years of history. In all of that context, we're never encouraged to pray to the dead. To the contrary, scripture condemns any attempt to contact the physically deceased (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Isaiah 8:19, 19:3). Catholic apologists often cite examples of people praying to the dead in later centuries, but the Biblical evidence is against the practice, and some of the *earlier* church fathers contradicted the doctrine. For example:
"For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer. For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason. But, conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this knowledge, making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things, and that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and everything else which the writings of God's prophets and the apostles of Jesus entitle Him....And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers to God, seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer beetween God and them....Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus" - Origen (Against Celsus, 5:4-5, 5:11, 8:37)
7/12/02
"it is manifest that those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and violated every sacred law." - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 2:18)
7/13/02
Pope Leo XIII wrote:
"We are constrained to repeat to each and all of our beloved children in Christ those last words of His upon the Cross, left to us as a testament, 'Behold, thy Mother!' Greatly rewarded indeed shall We be, if Our exhortations succeed in making even one of the faithful hold nothing dearer than devotion to Mary; so that those words which St. John wrote about himself may be applied to each, 'the disciple took her to his own'" (Augustissimae Virginis Mariae)
John Chrysostom gives an interpretation of John 19:26-27 that's closer to the evangelical view than the Roman Catholic view. Instead of seeing the passage as a reference to Mary being the spiritual mother of all Christians, he says that, despite Mary's sins, Jesus honors His mother by having her cared for in her old age. Chrysostom compares this care for Mary to the care any child should show to any parent. He doesn't say anything about this passage being a reference to Mary taking care of all Christians. Rather, Mary is the one who needs to be cared for. Contrast sections 963-964 and 2679 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the following:
"But He on the Cross, committeth His mother to the disciple, teaching us even to our last breath to show every care for our parents. When indeed she unseasonably troubled Him, He said, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' (c. ii. 4.) And, 'Who is My mother?' (Matt. xii. 48.) But here He showeth much loving affection, and committeth her to the disciple whom He loved. Again John conceals himself, in modesty; for had he desired to boast, he would have also put in the cause for which he was loved, since probably it was some great and wonderful one. But wherefore doth He converse on nothing else with John, nor comfort him when desponding? Because it was no time for comforting by words; besides, it was no little thing for him to be honored with such honor, and to receive the reward of steadfastness. But do thou consider, I pray, how even on the cross He did everything without being troubled, speaking with the disciple concerning His mother, fulfilling prophecies, holding forth good hopes to the thief....And He, having committed His mother to John, said, 'Behold thy Son.' (Ver. 26.) O the honor! with what honor did He honor the disciple! when He Himself was now departing, He committed her to the disciple to take care of. For since it was likely that, being His mother, she would grieve, and require protection, He with reason entrusted her to the beloved. To him He saith, 'Behold thy mother.' (Ver. 27.) This He said, knitting them together in charity; which the disciple understanding, took her to his own home. 'But why made He no mention of any other woman, although another stood there?' To teach us to pay more than ordinary respect to our mothers. For as when parents oppose us on spiritual matters, we must not even own them, so when they do not hinder us, we ought to pay them all becoming respect, and to prefer them before others, because they begat us, because they bred us up, because they bare for us ten thousand terrible things." (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 85:2-3)
7/14/02
Augustine sees John 19:26-27 as a passage about faithfulness to parents and John caring for Mary, not a passage about Mary being the spiritual mother of all Christians in the sense Roman Catholics suggest:
"This, without a doubt, was the hour whereof Jesus, when about to turn the water into wine, had said to His mother, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.' This hour, therefore, He had foretold, which at that time had not yet arrived, when it should be His to acknowledge her at the point of death, and with reference to which He had been born as a mortal man. At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His human infirmity; but now, when in the midst of human sufferings, He commended with human affection the mother by whom He had become man. For then, He who had created Mary became known in His power; but now, that which Mary had brought forth was hanging on the cross. A passage, therefore, of a moral character is here inserted. The good Teacher does what He thereby reminds us ought to be done, and by His own example instructed His disciples that care for their parents ought to be a matter of concern to pious children: as if that tree to which the members of the dying One were affixed were the very chair of office from which the Master was imparting instruction. From this wholesome doctrine it was that the Apostle Paul had learned what he taughtt in turn, when he said, 'But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.' And what are so much home concerns to any one, as parents to children, or children to parents? Of this most wholesome precept, therefore, the very Master of the saints set the example from Himself, when, not as God for the hand-maid whom He had created and governed, but as a man for the mother, of whom He had been created, and whom He was now leaving behind, He provided in some measure another son in place of Himself. And why He did so, He indicates in the words that follow: for the evangelist says, 'And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own,' speaking of himself. In this way, indeed, he usually refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved: who certainly loved them all, but him beyond the others, and with a closer familiarity, so that He even made him lean upon His bosom at supper; in order, I believe, in this way to commend the more highly the divine excellence of this very gospel, which He was thereafter to preach through his instrumentality. But what was this 'his own,' unto which John took the mother of the Lord? For he was not outside the circle of those who said unto Him, 'Lo, we have left all, and followed Thee.' No, but on that same occasion he had also heard the words, Every one that hath forsaken these things for my sake, shall receive an hundred times as much in this world. That disciple, therefore, had an hundredfold more than he had cast away, whereunto to receive the mother of Him who had graciously bestowed it all. But it was in that society that the blessed John had received an hundredfold, where no one called anything his own, but they had all things in common; even as it is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. For the apostles were as if having nothing, and yet possessing all things How was it, then, that the disciple and servant received unto his own the mother of his Lord and Master, where no one called anything his own? Or, seeing we read a little further on in the same book, 'For as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of them, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need,' are we not to understand that such distribution was made to this disciple of what was needful, that there was also added to it the portion of the blessed Mary, as if she were his mother; and ought we not the rather so to take the words, 'From that hour the disciple took her unto his own,' that everything necessary for her was entrusted to his care? He received her, therefore, not unto his own lands, for he had none of his own; but to his own dutiful services, the discharge of which, by a special dispensation, was entrusted to himself." (Tractates on John, 119:1-3)
7/15/02
Roman Catholic apologists frequently cite John 16:13 as a reference to their denomination being infallible. But Augustine refers to the passage as a reference to *all* believers gaining knowledge:
"Accordingly, when He says, 'He will teach you all truth,' or 'will guide you into all truth,' I do not think the fulfillment is possible in any one's mind in this present life (for who is there, while living in this corruptible and soul-oppressing body, that can know all truth, when even the apostle says, 'We know in part'?), but because it is effected by the Holy Spirit, of whom we have now received the earnest, that we shall attain also to the actual fullness of knowledge: whereof iris said by the same apostle, 'But then face to face;' and, 'Now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known;' not as a thing which he knows fully in this life, but which, as a thing that would still be future on to the attainment of that perfection, the Lord promised us through the love of the Spirit, when He said, 'He will teach you all truth,' or 'will guide you unto all truth.'...For in such a way will the Holy Spirit teach you all truth, when He shall shed abroad that love ever more and more largely in your hearts." (Tractates on John, 96:4-5)
7/16/02
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New." (120)
Athanasius disagreed. He referred to a canon much closer to that of evangelicalism as the canon received by the tradition of the church:
"I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...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...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)
7/17/02
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm#P7993_2595461)
"we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, The Books of Samuel and Kings,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm#P7993_2595461)
7/18/02
The RCC includes the Vulgate version of 1 Esdras in its canon, not the Septuagint version. But Augustine seemed to include the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras in his canon, not the Vulgate version. This is indicated by his reference to a story about a discussion among three men, which is included in the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras, but not the Vulgate's:
"After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all." (The City of God, 18:36)
7/19/02
"For the process was no word-craft, nor contrivance of human devices: but the translation of the Divine Scriptures, spoken by the Holy Ghost, was of the Holy Ghost accomplished. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:34-35)
7/20/02
"Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There 90 are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark." - John of Damascus (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:17)
7/21/02
Catholic apologists sometimes cite Romans 1:8 as a reference to the Roman church's authority as a result of the papacy. But John Chrysostom explained that Paul's comment in that passage was the result of practical factors, such as the status of the city of Rome within the empire, not a papacy. Chrysostom says that Paul's comment about the Roman Christians is similar to his comment about the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 1:8. He goes on to mention numerous reasons for holding the Roman church in high regard, and a papacy isn't one of them. To the contrary, Chrysostom says that the *best* reason for holding Rome in high regard is that church's historical relationship with Paul, not any papacy:
"'That your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.' What then, had the whole world heard of the faith of the Romans? Yes, the whole, according to him. (Or, since that time, pasa ez ekeinou). And it is not a thing unlikely. For the city was not one of no note, but as being upon a sort of eminence it was on every account conspicuous. But consider, I pray, the power of the preaching, how in a short time by means of publicans and fishermen it took hold upon the very head of all cities, and Syrians became the teachers and guides of Romans. He attests then two excellencies in them, both that they believed, and that they believed with boldness, and that so great as that the fame of them reached into all the world. 'For your faith,' he says 'is spoken of throughout the whole world.' 'Your faith,' not your verbal disputations, nor your questionings, nor your syllogisms. And yet there were there many hindrances to the teaching. For having recently acquired the empire of the world they were elated, and lived in riches and luxury, and fishermen brought the preaching there, and they Jews and of the Jews, a nation hated and had in abomination among all men; and they were bidden to worship the Crucified, Who was brought up in Judea. And with the doctrine the teachers proclaimed also an austere life to men who were practised in softness, and were agitated about things present. And they that proclaimed it were poor and common men, of no family, and born of men of no family. But none of these things hindered the course of the word. So great was the power of the Crucified as to carry the word round everywhere. 'For it is spoken of,' he says, 'in all the world.' He says not, it is manifested, but, is spoken of, as if all men had them in their mouths. And indeed when he bears witness of this in the Thessalonians, he adds another thing also. For after saying, 'from you sounded out the word of God,' he adds, 'so that we need not to speak anything.' (1 Thess. i. 8.) For the disciples had come into the place of teachers, by their boldness of speech instructing all, and drawing them to themselves. For the preaching came not anywhere to a stand, but went over the whole world more rapidly than fire. But here there is only thus much--'it is spoken of.' He well says that 'it is spoken of,' showing that there was no need to add aught to what was said, or to take away. For a messenger's business is this, to convey from one to another only what is told him. For which cause also the priest is called a 'messenger' (Mal. ii. 7), because he speaks not his own words, but those of Him that sent him. And yet Peter had preached there. But he reckons what was his, to be his own as well. In such degree, as I said before, was he beyond measure clear of all grudging!...Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he [Paul] wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together." (Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, 2, v. 8; 32, v. 24)
7/22/02
Over the next several days, I'm going to be addressing the perspicuity of scripture. Roman Catholics often argue that scripture is unclear. We're told that we wouldn't know about doctrines like the deity of Christ, the two natures of Christ, the Trinity, etc. if the RCC hadn't taught us those doctrines at the Council of Nicaea and elsewhere. Robert Sungenis made such an argument in his debate on the papacy with James White and Robert Zins at Boston College in 1995. Phil Porvaznik, another Roman Catholic apologist, said the following in a debate with me:
"We don't know with certainty until the Church has made her definition. Same can be asked of Jesus: how do we know his divinity goes back to eternity, that he was equal in substance and nature with God the Father, and this continues once he became a man. After all, Jesus said while on earth 'the Father is greater than I' (John 14:28) and similar texts suggest the Son's subordination to the Father (1 Cor 11:3; 15:28). The Church ruled on this at the Council of Nicaea (and subsequent Councils) so now we can be sure about the deity of Christ and the orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity." (http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/pp7.htm)
Athanasius, who attended the Council of Nicaea, disagreed. He explained that Jesus' eternality and the teachings of Nicaea are *clearly* Biblical:
"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)
"And let them [the Arians] blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)
"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 doctrines 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)
"A Desire to learn and a yearning for heavenly things is suitable to a religious Emperor; for thus you will truly have 'your heart' also 'in the hand of God.' Since then your Piety desired to learn from us the faith of the Catholic Church, giving thanks for these things to the Lord, we counselled above all things to remind your Piety of the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea. For this certain set at nought, while plotting against us in many ways, because we would not comply with the Arian heresy, and they have become authors of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both 'known and read' from the Divine Scriptures." (Festal Letter 56:1)
"And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itsellf in inartificial and simple phrases." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)
7/23/02
"The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them [the Arians] no shame, nor did the consentient doctrine of our colleagues concerning Christ keep in check their audacity against Him." - Alexander of Alexandria (Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius, 1:10)
7/24/02
"A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in acquaintance with them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures....the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all" - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:27:1-2)
7/25/02
"For, being accustomed to sweet and polished speeches or poems, they despise the simple and common language of the sacred writings as mean. For they seek that which may soothe the senses. But whatever is pleasant to the ear effects persuasion, and while it delights fixes itself deeply within the breast. Is God, therefore, the contriver both of the mind, and of the voice, and of the tongue, unable to speak eloquently? Yea, rather, with the greatest foresight, He wished those things which are divine to be without adornment, that all might understand the things which He Himself spoke to all." - Lactantius (Divine Institutes, 6:21)
7/26/02
"Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to." - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 55)
7/27/02
"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
"For this reason, where they cannot interpret them [the scriptures] otherwise according to their own sentence, be it ever so clear and manifest, they answer that it is obscure and uncertain because wrong and perverse they dare not call it." - Augustine (Of the Work of Monks, 10)
7/28/02
Roman Catholic apologists often cite the doctrine of the two natures of Christ as an example of something that either isn't Biblical or is unclear in scripture. Supposedly, we need the authority of the RCC to tell us what to believe on the issue. Theodoret disagreed:
"Holy Scripture clearly teaches us both natures [of Christ]." (Letter 99)
7/29/02
Roman Catholic apologists often tell us that the Council of Nicaea went beyond what scripture teaches in its defense of Trinitarian doctrine. They tell us that we need more than scripture to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Theodoret disagreed:
"We shall therefore endeavor to persuade Arius to acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we shall adduce proofs of this position from Holy Scripture." (Dialogues, 2)
7/30/02
"For there have risen many who have given to the plain words of Holy Writ some arbitrary interpretation of their own, instead of its true and only sense, and this in defiance of the clear meaning of words. Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written; the guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text." - Hilary of Poitiers (On the Trinity, 2:3)
7/31/02
Roman Catholics tell us to look to the hierarchy of their denomination to interpret scripture for us. But John Chrysostom said that each individual should read scripture and interpret it for himself:
"Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rules for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things" (Homilies on Second Corinthians, 13, c. 7, v. 1)
8/1/02
Roman Catholics often cite Acts 8:30-31 as evidence that reading scripture by ourselves, without the RCC interpreting it for us, is dangerous. But John Chrysostom reached just the opposite conclusion. Though other people can help us understand scripture, we don't need their help. Chrysostom saw Acts 8:30-31 as an example of how we should read scripture for ourselves more often:
"But many in these times, even when they come to church, do not know what is read; whereas the eunuch, even in public (ep agoras) and riding in his chariot, applied himself to the reading of the Scriptures. Not so you: none takes the Bible in hand: nay, everything rather than the Bible. Say, what are the Scriptures for? For as much as in you lies, it is all undone. What is the Church for? Tie up the Bibles: perhaps the judgment would not be such, not such the punishment: if one were to bury them in dung, that he might not hear them, he would not so insult them as you do now. For say, what is the insult there? That the man has buried them. And what here? That we do not hear them. Say, when is a person most insulted - when he is silent, and one makes no answer, or, when he does speak and is unheeded? So that the insult is greater in the present case, when He does speak and thou wilt not hear: greater the contempt." (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 19)
Roman Catholics have their own way of not hearing scripture. They claim that they can't understand it by itself, that it must be interpreted for them by their denomination's hierarchy.
Chrysostom also observed something in the text that Roman Catholics often miss. The eunuch didn't know who Philip was. Chrysostom commented:
"Even then, the eunuch did not know him. Consequently this was done, that Philip might afterwards be a subject of wonder to him." (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 19)
To claim that the eunuch was looking for a religious authority to interpret scripture for him, when he didn't even know who Philip was, doesn't make sense. How would he have known that Philip was a religious authority? And how would Philip helping the eunuch understand the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 constitute an infallible scripture interpretation by Roman Catholic standards? The eunuch wanted help in understanding scripture, but he wasn't looking for some infallible ruling from the Roman Catholic denomination. Rather, he was willing to listen to the counsel of a stranger who offered him help.
8/2/02
The RCC has an inconsistent record regarding the distribution and reading of the scriptures. Sometimes, the RCC has encouraged both. Other times, the RCC has opposed both to some degree. For example:
"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them." (Council of Trent, Rules on Prohibited Books, 4, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html)
John Chrysostom disagreed. He wanted people to read and hear scripture as often as possible and to possess copies of the Bible. He included unbelievers, even young children. For example:
"this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 32:3)
"It is a great thing, this reading of the Scriptures!...For it is not possible, I say not possible, ever to exhaust the mind of the Scriptures. It is a well which has no bottom....How many persons, do you suppose, have spoken upon the Gospels? And yet all have spoken in a way which was new and fresh. For the more one dwells on them, the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light." (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 19)
"And so ye also, if ye be willing to apply to the reading of him [Paul] with a ready mind, will need no other aid. For the word of Christ is true which saith, 'Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.' (Matt. vii. 7.)...For from this it is that our countless evils have arisen - from ignorance of the Scriptures; from this it is that the plague of heresies has broken out; from this that there are negligent lives; from this labors without advantage. For as men deprived of this daylight would not walk aright, so they that look not to the gleaming of the Holy Scriptures must needs be frequently and constantly sinning, in that they are walking the worst darkness." (Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, The Argument)
"Do you wish your son to be obedient? From the very first 'Bring him up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord.' Never deem it an unnecessary thing that he should be a diligent hearer of the divine Scriptures. For there the first thing he hears will be this, 'Honor thy father and thy mother'; so that this makes for thee. Never say, this is the business of monks. Am I making a monk of him? No. There is no need he should become a monk. Why be so afraid of a thing so replete with so much advantage? Make him a Christian. For it is of all things necessary for laymen to be acquainted with the lessons derived from this source; but especially for children....Let us make them from the earliest age apply themselves to the reading of the Scriptures. Alas, that so constantly as I repeat this, I am looked upon as trifling! Still, I shall not cease to do my duty." (Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians, 21, v. 4)
8/3/02
"Deprived of the support of empire, the papacy became the possession of the great Roman families, a ticket to local dominance for which men were prepared to rape, murder and steal. A third of the popes elected between 872 and 1012 died in suspicious circumstances - John VIII (872-82) bludgeoned to death by his own entourage, Stephen VI (896-7) strangled, Leo V (903) murdered by his successor Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28) suffocated, Stephen VIII (939-42) horribly mutilated, a fate shared by the Greek antipope John XVI (997-8) who, unfortunately for him, did not die from the removal of his eyes, nose, lips, tongue and hands. Most of these men were manoeuvred into power by a succession of powerful families - the Theophylacts, the Crescentii, the Tusculani. John X, one of the few popes of this period to make a stand against aristocratic domination, was deposed and then murdered in the Castel Sant' Angelo by the Theophylacts, who had appointed him in the first place....Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside. The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility, and election to the chair of Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter." - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 82-83, 87
"If any bishop obtains that dignity by money, or even a presbyter or deacon, let him and the person that ordained him be deprived; and let him be entirely cut off from communion...If any bishop makes use of the rulers of this world, and by their means obtains to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended, and all that communicate with him." - Apostolic Constitutions (8:47:30-31)
8/4/02
Roman Catholics tell us that scripture is insufficient, and they often refer to scripture being unclear. We're often told that Trinitarian doctrine, for example, either is unbiblical or is unclear in scripture. But Hippolytus, a church father of the second and third centuries, who lived in Rome, disagreed. In the process of refuting anti-Trinitarian heresies, he advocated sola scriptura and explained that scripture itself (not scripture *and* an infallible interpreter) is sufficient to refute these heresies:
"Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died....But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner....the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth...The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated....The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning....For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it....if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word....Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one....What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
8/5/02
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
8/6/02
"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)
8/7/02
"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
8/8/02
Mathetes wrote the following about the substitutionary nature of Christ's righteousness. Notice the reference to Christ's righteousness *covering* our sins, which is like the dunghill analogy Roman Catholics often criticize Martin Luther for:
"As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!" (The Epistle to Diognetus, 9)
8/9/02
Clement, a first century Roman bishop, wrote that we're saved through faith, apart from works. He excludes all works, even "works that we have done in holiness of heart" (First Clement, 32). Just after excluding works from the gospel, he goes on to encourage Christians to do those works he had just excluded. Thus, it can't be argued that he was only excluding bad works, graceless works, faithless works, etc. He was excluding all works, including good works:
"And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness." (32-33)
For a Roman bishop to advocate salvation through faith alone has devastating implications for Roman Catholicism. Thus, Roman Catholics have put forward various arguments in an attempt to prove that Clement didn't advocate the doctrine.
For example, it's sometimes argued that Clement was only excluding works we do in our own strength, not works God empowers us to do. But notice the closing words in the quote above. Clement encourages people to do works "with all our strength". In the previous chapter, he had excluded from the gospel works "done in holiness of heart", which can only be good works. Therefore, this popular argument used to reconcile Clement with Roman Catholicism fails.
Often, Catholics will ignore what Clement said in chapters 32-33 and quote what he said elsewhere. But that doesn't explain chapters 32-33. And what they quote from other parts of the letter doesn't necessarily contradict what Clement wrote in chapters 32-33. For example, Catholics often cite the following:
"justified by our deeds, and not by our words" (30)
That *sounds* like a rejection of sola fide, until you read the context. Here are the same words, but with the surrounding context included:
"Let us clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, temperate, keeping ourselves far from all whispering and evil speaking, justified by our deeds, and not by our words. For he saith, He who saith many things shall, in return, hear many things. Doth he that is eloquent think himself to be just? -- doth he that is born of woman and liveth but for a short time think himself to be blessed? Be not abundant in speech. Let our praise be in God, and not for ourselves, for God hateth the self-praisers. Let the testimony of right actions be given us from others, even as it was given to our fathers who were just. Audacity, self-will, and boldness belong to them who are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness, to them that are blessed of God." (30)
Clement is addressing justification in the sense of *vindication*, such as we see in Luke 7:35, not in the sense of attaining eternal life. He says, "Let the testimony of right actions be given us from others", which is a reference to vindication, not a reference to the attaining of eternal life. Roman Catholics often single out the phrase "justified by our deeds", but the context doesn't support the meaning they pour into that phrase.
Some Catholics cite the following:
"Through faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved" (12)
But, again, we should read the context. Clement is addressing salvation in the sense of safety from the Israeli invasion, not the attaining of eternal life. Clement goes on to quote Rahab saying to the Israeli spies, "save me and the house of my father" (12). Clement then quotes the spies saying, "When, therefore, thou hast perceived that we are coming, thou shalt gather together all thy household under thy roof, and they shall be saved" (12). The salvation in question is physical, not spiritual. Rahab wasn't asking the spies to give her eternal life.
Clement does say some things that suggest that he may have held to something closer to the Methodist view of salvation than the Calvinist view. For example:
"For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, the confidence and hope of the elect, he who observeth in humility with earnest obedience, and repining not, the ordinances and commands given by God, he shall be reckoned and counted in the number of them that are saved by Jesus Christ" (58)
Clement could be referring to the possibility of loss of salvation. Or he could be referring to the fact that saving faith produces a life of good works, which is a concept that the Protestant reformers taught (http://www.christiantruth.com/reformers.html). Even if we assume that Clement rejected eternal security, his view of salvation was still contradictory to that of Roman Catholicism. He said nothing of baptismal regeneration, but instead referred to us being saved the same way people were saved prior to the institution of baptism. Clement believed that peeople are saved today the way they always have been, through faith and apart from works, including good works. Thus, the earliest church father, who was a Roman bishop, agreed with the Reformation doctrine of salvation through faith alone.
8/10/02
The Council of Trent falsely taught:
"If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema." (session 14, "Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance", canon 6)
The truth is that private confession to a priest arose after the time of the apostles. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"At the close of the twelfth century a complete change was made in the doctrine of penance. The theory of the early Church, elaborated by Tertullian and other Church fathers, was that penance is efficient to remove sins committed after baptism, and that it consisted in certain penitential exercises such as prayers and alms. The first elements added by the medieval system were that confession to the priest and absolution by the priest are necessary conditions for pardon. Peter the Lombard did not make mediation of the priest a requirement, but declared that confession to God was sufficient. In his time [twelfth century], he says, there was no agreement on three aspects of penance: first, whether contrition for sin was not all that was necessary for its remission; second, whether confession to the priest was essential; and third, whether confession to a layman was insufficient. The opinions handed down from the Fathers, he asserts, were diverse, if not antagonistic." (The Master Christian Library [Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998], History of the Christian Church, Vol. 5, pp. 573-574)
Clement of Rome, the earliest church father and a Roman bishop, doesn't seem to have believed in the necessity of private confession to a priest. He wrote:
"The Lord of all things, brethren, is in need of naught; neither requireth he anything of any one, except to confess unto him. For the elect David saith, I will confess unto the Lord, and that shall please him more than a young calf that putteth forth horns and hoofs. Let the poor behold and rejoice thereat. And again he saith, Offer unto the Lord the sacrifice of praise: pay thy vows unto the Most High. And call upon me in the day of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. For the sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit." (First Clement, 52)
8/11/02
Over the next several days, I want to address the subject of unity. Roman Catholic apologists sometimes make inaccurate claims about the degree of unity that existed in the early centuries of church history. Supposedly, the large majority of professing Christians were members of one worldwide denomination centered in Rome and led by a Pope. Roman Catholics often criticize doctrinal disputes and disagreements over the interpretation of scripture among Protestants, and they suggest that we return to the unity of early Christianity. But, as I've already documented in this series, the church fathers repeatedly asserted the governmental independence of the churches. There were widespread disputes over scripture interpretation, doctrine, church discipline, and other matters. Over the next several days, I'll be giving some examples.
I'll begin with Hippolytus, who lived in Rome and is considered a Saint by Roman Catholicism. He accused Zephyrinus and Callistus, Roman bishops of the late second and early third centuries, of being Modalists. Modalism is an anti-Trinitarian heresy. Modern scholars disagree with each other about the accuracy of Hippolytus' charges against these Roman bishops. But I'm addressing the subject of unity, and what Hippolytus wrote is relevant to unity, *regardless* of the accuracy of his charges.
In The Refutation of All Heresies (9:2), Hippolytus calls the Roman bishop Zephyrinus "an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man". Concerning the influence heretical teachers in Rome had on these two Roman bishops, Hippolytus writes the following. This is what one Roman Catholic Saint had to say about two other Roman Catholic Saints. This is the sort of unity Roman Catholic apologists frequently tell us that we should return to:
"But Zephyrinus himself, being in process of time enticed away, hurried headlong into the same opinions; and he had Callistus as his adviser, and a fellow-champion of these wicked tenets. But the life of this Callistus, and the heresy invented by him, I shall after a little explain. The school of these heretics during the succession of such bishops, continued to acquire strength and augmentation, from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail. Never at any time, however, have we been guilty of collusion with them; but we have frequently offered them opposition, and have refuted them, and have forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth. And they, abashed and constrained by the truth, have confessed their errors for a short period, but after a little, wallow once again in the same mire." (The Refutation of All Heresies, 9:2)
8/12/02
Celsus, a second century critic of Christianity, said:
"Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning....being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects." (cited in Origen's Against Celsus, 3:10, 3:12)
Apparently, this critic of Christianity didn't see the sort of unity Roman Catholics claim for early church history. Origen disagreed with what Celsus said about there being unity at the beginning:
"from the beginning there were differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning of the books held to be divine...from the very beginning, when, as Celsus imagines, believers were few in number, there were certain doctrines interpreted in different ways" (Against Celsus, 3:11)
Origen also said that the later disputes among professing Christians were understandable, since the matters in dispute were important:
"In reply to which, we say that heresies of different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the principle involved was not important and beneficial to human life. For since the science of medicine is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess to employ medicine. And, again, since philosophy makes a profession of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing things with a view to the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach what is advantageous to our race, and since the investigation of these matters is attended with great differences of opinion, innumerable heresies have consequently sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than others. Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies, in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those of the prophets. So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of veneration to men, not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus supposes, but to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary pursuits, there necessarily originated heresies,--not at all, however, as the result of faction and strife, but through the earnest desire of many literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity. The consequence of which was, that, taking in different acceptations those discourses which were believed by all to be divine, there arose heresies, which received their names from those individuals who admired, indeed, the origin of Christianity, but who were led, in some way or other, by certain plausible reasons, to discordant views. And yet no one would act rationally in avoiding medicine because of its heresies; nor would he who aimed at that which is seemly entertain a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its many heresies as a pretext for his antipathy. And so neither are the sacred books of Moses and the prophets to be condemned on account of the heresies in Judaism. Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the same way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these, Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he says, 'For there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.'" (Against Celsus, 3:12-13)
8/13/02
"The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own." - Jerome (Letter 16:2)
8/14/02
Is Christian unity primarily organizational, or is it primarily spiritual? Roman Catholics often attempt to minimize the disagreements among members of their denomination, while maximizing the organizational disunity among evangelicals, even when those evangelicals largely agree on matters of truth. The church father Athanasius didn't agree with the priorities of modern Roman Catholic apologists. He wrote the following around the middle of the fourth century, when Arian heretics held the positions of leadership in most of the churches, including the Roman church. The Arians were holding church councils in support of their heresy, councils attended by hundreds of bishops. Athanasius wrote:
"I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there....But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, 'Thou art the Son of the Living God,' Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, 'Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee,' but 'My Father Who is in heaven,' and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should seem to speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment by means of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. What profit then is the Place to them? For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, and with madly making the Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a house of judicial business for themselves to whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this and worse than this is what we have heard, most beloved, from those who are come from thence. However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and gain no advantage by the church alone. For the truth of things is judged" (Festal Letter 29)
8/15/02
When liberal, moderate, and conservative Roman Catholics disagree with each other on various issues, yet they all belong to the same denomination, how significant is such unity? The church father Firmilian didn't think much of it:
"For even as the Lord who dwells in us is one and the same, He everywhere joins and couples His own people in the bond of unity, whence their sound has gone out into the whole earth, who are sent by the Lord swiftly running in the spirit of unity; as, on the other hand, it is of no advantage that some are very near and joined together bodily, if in spirit and mind they differ, since souls cannot at all be united which divide themselves from God's unity." (Cyprian's Letter 74:3)
8/16/02
Early church history gives us numerous examples of councils that were accepted in one region of the world, but rejected in another (the seventh council of Carthage, the council of Sardica, etc.). One bishop would condemn another, one council would contradict another, etc. We see this even with ecumenical councils. The Roman Catholic historian Eamon Duffy gives us an example:
"But, in addition to its doctrinal work, the Council of Constantinople issued a series of disciplinary canons, which went straight to the heart of Roman claims to primacy over the whole Church. The Council decreed that appeals in the cases of bishops should be heard within the bishop's own province - a direct rebuttal of Rome's claim to be the final court of appeal in all such cases. It went on to stipulate that 'the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the pre-eminence in honour after the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople is New Rome'. This last canon was totally unacceptable to Rome for two reasons. In the first place it capitualted to the imperial claim to control of the Church, since Constantinople had nothing but the secular status of the city to justify giving it this religious precedence. Worse, however, the wording implied that the primacy of Rome itself was derived not from its apostolic pedigree as the Church of Peter and Paul, but from the fact that it had once been the capital of empire. Damasus [bishop of Rome] and his successors refused to accept the canons" (Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997], pp. 25-26)
8/17/02
The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz gives us another example of an ecumenical council contradicting the doctrine of the papacy and reflecting disunity among the professing Christians of the day:
"The 'three chapters' affair had to do with the emperor Justinian's attempt to achieve union with the Monophysites by arranging for the condemnation after the fact of three theologians (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa), or rather their writings. All of them had belonged to the Antiochene wing. Justinian thought he would not be able to cleanse the Council of Chalcedon from the Monophysites' charge that it had been a 'Nestorian' synod as long as these three theologians, each of them a thorn in tthe side of the Monophysites, were recognized as orthodox. Of course, he had to win over the pope to this way of thinking. Pope Vigilius (537-555), who had very little backbone in conflict situations, first gave way and condemned the three chapters in his Iudicatum of 548. Faced with a storm of protest in the West, where the pope was accused of betraying Chalcedon, he made an about-face and retracted his condemnation (Constitutum, 553). The emperor in turn called a council at Constantinople (the Second Council of Constantinople, 553) made up only of opponents of the three chapters. It not only condemned those three chapters but even excommunicated the pope. This was a unique case of an ecumenical council setting itself clearly against the pope and yet not suffering the fate of Ephesus II. Instead, over time it was accepted and even recognized as valid by the pope. The council got around the papal opposition by referring to Matthew 18:20 ('Where two or three are gathered in my name. . .'): no individual [including the Pope] could therefore forestall the decision of the universal Church. This kind of argument was invalid, of course, because the pope was not alone; the entire West was behind him, and yet it was not represented at thhe council. Broken in spirit, Vigilius capitulated after the end of the council and assented to its condemnation of the three chapters. The result was a schism in the West, where the pope was accused of having surrendered Chalcedon. A North African synod of bishops excommunicated the pope, and the ecclesial provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with Rome. (Milan returned to communion only after fifty years; for Aquileia the breach lasted one hundred and fifty years, until 700). The bishops of Gaul also raised objections. The Spanish Church did not separate from Rome, but throughout the early Middle Ages it refused to recognize this council." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 52-53)
8/18/02
The church fathers didn't define tradition the way Roman Catholicism defines it. In past segments of this series, I've given examples, such as Papias and Athanasius. Catholic apologists often quote a church father referring to "tradition", what's been "passed down", what "the church" teaches, etc., and they suggest that the church father therefore was a Roman Catholic. But when we examine how the church fathers *defined* such phrases, we find them differing from and even contradicting Roman Catholicism, in addition to contradicting each other. Some of the church fathers define "tradition" as something subordinate to scripture. Others, no matter what they thought of the *role* of their tradition, didn't define its *content* the way Roman Catholicism does. In some cases, such as Irenaeus' tradition about the age of Jesus, nobody or almost nobody alive today would agree with the tradition. The Epistle of Barnabas gives us another example in that category. How many Roman Catholics agree with these "mysteries":
"Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practiced that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For the Scripture saith, 'And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household.' What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted - Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have the initials of the name of Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace of our redemption by the letter T, he says also, 'Three Hundred.' He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy." (9)
8/19/02
Roman Catholics reject what a church father said, no matter how *good* his arguments, if he disagrees with what the RCC teaches. But they often accept anything that church father said that agrees with Roman Catholicism, no matter how *bad* his arguments. For example, some church fathers advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary, but used bad arguments to justify it. Even a Roman Catholic scholar like Michael O'Carroll will refer to some of the church fathers being "confused" (p. 133) and "clumsy" (p. 162) at times in their beliefs about Mary (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988]). Usually, Catholics fail to show much discernment in their citations of these church fathers.
Roman Catholic apologists often quote Jerome advocating the perpetual virginity of Mary, even though his arguments are largely rejected by modern scholarship, even some of the foremost Roman Catholic scholars in the world. Would the Catholics who quote Jerome's bad arguments about the perpetual virginity of Mary agree with his claims about marriage in the same document:
"And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained, 'Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth'; and 'Cursed is the barren woman that beareth not seed in Israel,' they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, 'The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none': cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him....Do you think there is no difference between one who spends her time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her husband's approach, make up her countenance, walk with mincing gait, and feign a shew of endearment? The virgin's aim is to appear less comely; she will wrong herself so as to hide her natural attractions. The married woman has the paint laid on before her mirror, and, to the insult of her Maker, strives to acquire something more than her natural beauty. Then come the prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watching for her word and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, the preparation to meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company of cooks, girded for the onslaught and attacking the meat: there you may hear the hum of a multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is delivered that the husband and his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house. 'She has to see to everything. Is the sofa smooth? Is the pavement swept? Are the flowers in the cups? Is dinner ready?' Tell me, pray, where amid all this is there room for the thought of God? Are these happy homes? Where there is the beating of drums, the noise and clatter of pipe and lute, the clanging of cymbals, can any fear of God be found? The parasite is snubbed and feels proud of the honour. Enter next the half-naked victims of the passions, a mark for every lustful eye. The unhappy wife must either take pleasure in them, and perish, or be displeased, and provoke her husband. Hence arises discord, the seed-plot of divorce. Or suppose you find me a house where these things are unknown, which is a rara avis indeed! yet even there the very management of the household, the education of the children, the wants of the husband, the correction of the servants, cannot fail to call away the mind from the thought of God. 'It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women': so the Scripture says, and afterwards Abraham received the command, 'In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice.' She who is not subject to the anxiety and pain of child-bearing and having passed the change of life has ceased to perform the functions of a woman, is freed from the curse of God: nor is her desire to her husband, but on the contrary her husband becomes subject to her, and the voice of the Lord commands him, 'In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice.' Thus they begin to have time for prayer. For so long as the debt of marriage is paid, earnest prayer is neglected. I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity....'Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!' The reason why the wood grows up is that it may be cut down. The field is sown that it may be reaped. The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil....It is only one addition to the general rule which is made by those who follow the Lamb, and who have not defiled their garments, for they have continued in their virgin state." (The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius, 22-23)
8/20/02
Contrary to what Roman Catholics often suggest, there were many people in the early centuries of Christianity who rejected the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).
The New Testament evidence is against the perpetual virginity doctrine. Luke, for example, was familiar with Greek words he could have used to express the doctrine, and he used that terminology repeatedly, but not with regard to Mary and her children. Instead of using the Greek term for "only-born" (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38), he used the term "first-born" (Luke 2:7) to refer to Jesus. He uses the word "supposedly" to describe Jesus' relationship with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but doesn't use any such terminology to describe Jesus' relationship with His brothers and sisters. He understood the difference between a "relative" and a "brother", even distinguishing between the two within a single sentence (Luke 21:16), but he repeatedly chooses the term "brother" to describe Jesus' siblings.
The church father Hegesippus apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a "cousin of the Lord" (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for "brother" and "cousin". He chose "brother", and added the words "according to the flesh", to describe Jesus' sibling named Jude.
8/21/02
Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn't remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
"To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus seems to associate "come together" with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.
8/22/02
Tertullian apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus' brothers were "really" his brothers, his "blood-relationship" (Against Marcion, 4:19). Elsewhere, Tertullian comments:
"Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting 'more than a prophet,' - him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ. For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that body? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband." (On Monogamy, 8)
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to *replace* the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine.
8/23/02
"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)
8/24/02
The doctrine of Purgatory is absent from and contradicted by scripture. David's last actions on earth were to break a promise and arrange for somebody to be murdered (1 Kings 2:1-10). But he knew he would be in Heaven the moment the next life began (Psalm 17:15). Paul knew he was imperfect (Philippians 3:12), but said he would go to be with the Lord if he died at that time (Philippians 1:23). Scripture repeatedly refers to all believers being at peace, having joy, going to be with the Lord, etc. whenever this life ends (Psalm 49:15, 73:24-25, Isaiah 57:1-2, Daniel 12:13, Matthew 25:34, Luke 16:22, Luke 23:42-43, John 14:2-3, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, Revelation 7:14-17). Purgatory is never mentioned, but instead is repeatedly contradicted by references to every believer going to Heaven.
*Some* elements of the later Roman Catholic doctrine can be seen in *some* church fathers, but the concept of Purgatory is contradicted by the earliest patristic evidence. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"These views of the middle state in connection with prayers for the dead show a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, which afterwards came to prevail in the West through the great weight of St. Augustin and Pope Gregory I. But there is, after all, a considerable difference. The ante-Nicene idea of the middle state of the pious excludes, or at all events ignores, the idea of penal suffering, which is an essential part of the Catholic conception of purgatory. It represents the condition of the pious as one of comparative happiness, inferior only to the perfect happiness after the resurrection. Whatever and wherever Paradise may be, it belongs to the heavenly world; while purgatory is supposed to be a middle region between heaven and hell, and to border rather on the latter. The sepulchral inscriptions in the catacombs have a prevailingly cheerful tone, and represent the departed souls as being 'in peace' and 'living in Christ,' or 'in God.' The same view is substantially preserved in the Oriental church, which holds that the souls of the departed believers may be aided by the prayers of the living, but are nevertheless 'in light and rest, with a foretaste of eternal happiness.' Yet alongside with this prevailing belief, there are traces of the purgatorial idea of suffering the temporal consequences of sin, and a painful struggle after holiness. Origen, following in the path of Plato, used the term 'purgatorial fire,' by which the remaining stains of the soul shall be burned away; but he understood it figuratively, and connected it with the consuming fire at the final judgment, while Augustin and Gregory I. transferred it to the middle state. The common people and most of the fathers understood it of a material fire; but this is not a matter of faith, and there are Roman divines who confine the purgatorial sufferings to the mind and the conscience. A material fire would be very harmless without a material body. A still nearer approach to the Roman purgatory was made by Tertullian and Cyprian, who taught that a special satisfaction and penance was required for sins committed after baptism, and that the last farthing must be paid (Matt. 5:20) before the soul can be released from prison and enter into heaven." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch12.htm, section 156)
Papias, a church father of the late first and early second centuries, explains that *all* Christians go to Heaven at the end of this life, although they advance through different stages of Heaven. Notice Papias' use of phrases like "everywhere" and "those who are saved", which suggests that he's referring to all Christians, not just some. He discusses the spiritual growth of believers in the afterlife, but says nothing of any Purgatory. He cites John 14:2, which is a passage about all believers, not just some. Papias doesn't seem to have had any concept of Purgatory.
"As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendor of the city; for everywhere the Savior will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundredfold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, 'In my Father's house are many mansions:' for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, 'For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.' For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. 'But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.'" (Fragments, 5)
8/25/02
Clement of Rome always refers to deceased Christians being in Heaven. He repeatedly mentions the concept, with no reference to Purgatory. The RCC believes that *some* Christians don't have to go to Purgatory, but how could Clement of Rome and other church fathers know that a person was able to avoid Purgatory? Since they wouldn't have had such knowledge, the most likely explanation for their referring to deceased Christians being in Heaven seems to be that they had no concept of Purgatory. Clement writes:
"Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him....Thus was he [Paul] removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.... To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with steadfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward....Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure from this world; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them....All the generations from Adam even to this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ." (First Clement, 5-6, 44, 50)
8/26/02
Polycarp refers to over a dozen deceased Christians, and he comments that all of them are in Heaven:
"I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen set before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. This do in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are now in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead." (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 9)
A Catholic might respond by arguing that all of these people had completed their sanctification by the end of this life, and therefore they didn't need to go to Purgatory, whereas other people *would* need to go there. But, as I explained with regard to Clement of Rome, how could Polycarp possibly know that all of these people had completed their sanctification? We know that people like the prophet Daniel and the apostle Paul lived highly righteous, highly commendable lives, yet even *they* needed to seek forgiveness for their sins (Daniel 9:20) and knew they were still imperfect (Philippians 3:12). Besides, just from common observation, it seems implausible to suggest that anybody would be perfectly sanctified in this life. All of us stumble in many ways (James 3:2). It's implausible to suggest that *every* person Polycarp referred to was perfectly sanctified, and that Polycarp somehow knew about it. How could he possibly know? The more likely explanation for these church fathers *always* referring to deceased Christians being in Heaven is that they had no concept of Purgatory. If somebody lived a life that suggested he was a Christian, it was assumed that he would go to Heaven at the end of this life.
8/27/02
After Polycarp's death, the church of Smyrna wrote an account of the events surrounding his martyrdom. The document refers too Polycarp, the apostles, and "the righteous" being in Heaven:
"For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he [Polycarp] now, with the apostles and all the righteous in heaven, rejoicingly glorifies God" (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 19)
8/28/02
Irenaeus didn't believe in the doctrine of Purgatory. We know that Jesus went to Paradise on the day of His crucifixion (Luke 23:43), and Irenaeus refers to all believers going to the same place until the time of resurrection. He also identifies this place as the place where Paul went in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Irenaeus refers to all believers going to Paradise, which he distinguishes from Heaven, until the time of the resurrection. As I explained with regard to Papias, Paradise is just another *region* of what evangelicals refer to as "Heaven". Irenaeus' terminology is different from that of evangelicals, but his definitions are basically the same, as is proven by his references to Jesus going to this place and his reference to 2 Corinthians 12. Roman Catholicism tells us to pray that deceased Christians can be taken out of a place of suffering prior to the resurrection. Irenaeus, on the other hand, refers to all deceased Christians being in Paradise, not a place of suffering, until the resurrection:
"Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation of all things, as a prelude to immortality....For as the Lord 'went away in the midst of the shadow of death,' where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up into heaven, it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. 'For no disciple is above the Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master.' As our Master, therefore, did not at once depart, taking flight to heaven, but awaited the time of His resurrection prescribed by the Father, which had been also shown forth through Jonas, and rising again after three days was taken up to heaven; so ought we also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy of this privilege." (Against Heresies, 5:5:1, 5:31:2)
8/29/02
Ambrose believed that original sin was communicated by means of sexual intercourse. Thus, Jesus avoided original sin by being born of a virgin. Mary, however, would have original sin:
"He was man in the flesh, according to His human nature, that He might be recognized, but in power was above man, that He might not be recognized, so He has our flesh, but has not the failings of this flesh. For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female, but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted, but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement. For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David: 'For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.'" (On Repentance, 1:3:12-13)
And if any Catholic wants to argue that Ambrose's phrases "every man" and "all" are referring to all people *except* Mary, Ambrose tells us elsewhere that being immaculately conceived is unique to Christ:
"For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty." (cited in Augustine, On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47)
8/30/02
Augustine is often misrepresented as having believed in the sinlessness of Mary. The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains:
"he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine's rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects 'by the grace of rebirth'." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)
Augustine wrote the following about Christ being the *only* post-Adamic human conceived without original sin. He approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. Notice that one of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can't be argued that they didn't have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose's view is the view held by the universal church of his day, a view supported by "the catholic faith":
"And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: 'I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,--so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.' Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: 'We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Hence it is that Paul's flesh is 'a body of death;' even as he says himself, 'Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' Christ's flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which byy dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.' The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: 'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.' Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: 'It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin's womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.' These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that 'we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.' What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)
"The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church." - Philip Schaff (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm, section 81)
8/31/02
In the late fourth century, there was a dispute over who was the legitimate bishop of Antioch. Some people, including the Roman church and its bishop, supported Paulinus. Others supported Meletius. The second ecumenical council, the First Council of Constantinople, was presided over by Meletius, and the council itself was opposed by Rome for a while. The church father Basil, who supported Meletius in opposition to Rome, wrote the following about a letter the bishop of Rome wrote in support of Paulinus, the opponent of Meletius. Ask yourself whether a modern Roman Catholic would respond to a letter from the bishop of Rome this way:
"I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns, assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this. They [the Westerns, including the Roman church and its bishop] are totally ignorant of what is going on here...I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men [the letter from the bishop of Rome]. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints." (Letter 214:2)
9/1/02
The second century church father Theophilus apparently disagreed with the Roman Catholic view of the eucharist. He denies that Christians eat human flesh. He makes no exemption for the flesh of Christ. Would a Roman Catholic make such a comment without any clarification? Instead of explaining that Christians eat only Christ's flesh, not anybody else's, Theophilus denies that they eat any human flesh. If he was trying to correct a misunderstanding about *whose* flesh was being eaten, you would think he would focus on that subject. Instead, he just denies that human flesh is being eaten at all:
"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)
9/2/02
"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 h