Ambrose (the atonement, 11/3/02)
Ambrose (salvation, 11/15/02)
Apostolic Constitutions (the canon, 11/27/02)
Apostolic Constitutions (the canon, 12/2/02)
Arnobius (veneration of images, 12/23/02)
Athanasius (discerning the canon, 10/8/02)
Athanasius (the faithfulness of Rome, 11/11/02)
Athenagoras (discerning the canon, 10/10/02)
Athenagoras (veneration of images, 12/25/02)
Athenagoras (marriage, 12/27/02)
Augustine (discerning the canon, 10/9/02)
Augustine (the phrase "man of God", 11/1/02)
Augustine (the atonement, 11/5/02)
Augustine (infant salvation, 11/30/02)
Augustine (infant salvation, 12/1/02)
Augustine (Psalm 132, 12/12/02)
Augustine (Psalm 45, 12/13/02)
Augustine (the perspicuity of scripture, 12/20/02)
Augustine (interpretation of scripture, 12/21/02)
Augustine (when life begins, 12/30/02)
Basil (marriage, 12/28/02)
Clement of Alexandria (the sinlessness of Mary, 10/2/02)
Clement of Alexandria (discerning the canon, 10/24/02)
Clement of Alexandria (tradition, 10/28/02)
Clement of Alexandria (salvation, 11/6/02)
Clement of Alexandria (salvation, 11/14/02)
Cyprian (authority, 10/22/02)
Cyprian (eschatology, 11/25/02)
Cyprian (infant communion, 11/29/02)
The Didache (the resurrection of the dead, 10/6/02)
The Didache (authority, 10/21/02)
Ephraim (the sinlessness of Mary, 12/11/02)
The Epistle of Barnabas (the canon, 12/4/02)
Eusebius (the canon, 12/7/02)
Gaius (the canon, 11/26/02)
Gregory Nazianzen (authority, 10/20/02)
Gregory Nazianzen (the phrase "man of God", 11/2/02)
Gregory of Nyssa (the perspicuity of scripture, 11/20/02)
Hermas (marriage, 12/29/02)
Hilary of Poitiers (the perspicuity of scripture, 12/22/02)
Hippolytus (the ark of the covenant as typology, 10/5/02)
Hippolytus (eschatology, 10/12/02)
Hippolytus (Purgatory, 10/15/02)
Hippolytus (Revelation 12, 12/9/02)
Ignatius (authority, 10/17/02)
Irenaeus (the ark of the covenant as typology, 10/4/02)
Irenaeus (authority, 10/18/02)
Irenaeus (the canon, 10/30/02)
Irenaeus (the atonement, 11/4/02)
Irenaeus (John 2:4, 12/16/02)
Jerome (unity, 11/8/02)
Jerome (the faithfulness of Rome, 11/10/02)
Jerome (the sinlessness of Mary, 12/17/02)
John Cassian (the perspicuity of scripture, 11/18/02)
John Chrysostom (the phrase "man of God", 10/31/02)
John Chrysostom (the papacy, 11/7/02)
John Chrysostom (unity, 11/9/02)
John Chrysostom (the status of Mary, 12/15/02)
John Chrysostom (Matthew 20:23, 12/18/02)
John of Damascus (tradition, 10/25/02)
John of Damascus (the canon, 10/26/02)
Julius Africanus (the perspicuity of scripture, 11/23/02)
Julius Africanus (discerning the canon, 11/24/02)
Justin Martyr (Purgatory, 10/14/02)
Justin Martyr (infant baptism, 12/19/02)
Lactantius (Purgatory, 10/16/02)
Lactantius (killing, 12/26/02)
Leo I (the sinlessness of Mary, 10/1/02)
Melito of Sardis (discerning the canon, 10/7/02)
Methodius (eschatology, 10/13/02)
Methodius (Revelation 12, 12/8/02)
Origen (Mary as mediator, 10/3/02)
Origen (the perspicuity of scripture, 10/27/02)
Origen (the canon, 10/29/02)
Origen (the soul, 11/28/02)
Origen (salvation, 12/3/02)
Origen (veneration of images, 12/24/02)
Paphnutius (clerical celibacy, 11/22/02)
Polycarp (church discipline, 10/23/02)
Polycarp (salvation, 11/17/02)
Roman Church (penance, 11/21/02)
Socrates Scholasticus (salvation, 11/16/02)
Sozomen (the faithfulness of Rome, 11/12/02)
Tertullian (authority, 10/19/02)
Tertullian (confession of sins, 11/13/02)
Tertullian (the canon, 12/5/02)
Tertullian (Luke 11:28, 12/14/02)
Tertullian (overpopulation, 12/31/02)
Theophilus of Antioch (the perspicuity of scripture, 11/19/02)
Victorinus (eschatology, 10/11/02)
Victorinus (the canon, 12/6/02)
Victorinus (Revelation 12, 12/10/02)
10/1/02
Leo I, a Roman bishop of the fifth century, taught that sin is transmitted by means of sexual intercourse, thus suggesting that Mary was conceived in original sin:
"And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one [Mary] received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred." (Sermon 22:3)
Elsewhere, Leo refers to Jesus being the *only* one conceived without sin. He even refers to Christ's stock, a reference to Mary, being corrupt:
"For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock." (Sermon 24:3)
And elsewhere:
"And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, 'Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?'" (Sermon 28:3)
The unclean seed would include Mary. And he refers to there being *one* from Adam who is sinless.
Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll comments that Leo viewed sin as being communicated by means of sexual intercourse (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 217). The Protestant historian Philip Schaff lists Leo I among seven Roman bishops who rejected Mary's sinlessness (The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123).
10/2/02
Clement of Alexandria doesn't seem to have viewed Mary as sinless. He refers to Christ as the only sinless person:
"Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God. He is to us a spotless image; to Him we are to try with all our might to assimilate our souls. He is wholly free from human passions; wherefore also He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless. As far, however, as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible. For nothing is so urgent in the first place as deliverance from passions and disorders, and then the checking of our liability to fall into sins that have become habitual. It is best, therefore, not to sin at all in any way, which we assert to be the prerogative of God alone...But He welcomes the repentance of the sinner-loving repentance-which follows sins. For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all." (The Instructor, 1:2, 3:12)
10/3/02
Roman Catholicism refers to Mary as a mediator between mankind and Christ, one to whom we should commit *all* our petitions to God:
"Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: 'The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love.'...Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. 'In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.' 'This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation....Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.'...Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her...And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender 'the hour of our death' wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise....Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope....Because of Mary's singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit, the Church loves to pray in communion with the Virgin Mary, to magnify with her the great things the Lord has done for her, and to entrust supplications and praises to her." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 501, 968-969, 2677, 2679, 2682)
Origen, however, seems to see Jesus as the only mediator of this type. He refers to us committing our prayers to Jesus first, not first to Mary, who then gives them to Jesus:
"Accordingly, we worship with all our power the one God, and His only Son, the Word and the Image of God, by prayers and supplications; and we offer our petitions to the God of the universe through His only-begotten Son. To the Son we first present them, and beseech Him, as 'the propitiation for our sins,' and our High Priest, to offer our desires, and sacrifices, and prayers, to the Most High. Our faith, therefore, is directed to God through His Son, who strengthens it in us" (Against Celsus, 8:13)
10/4/02
Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is a type of Mary. They then use that typological speculation as an argument for doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But Irenaeus saw something else in the ark:
"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)
10/5/02
Hippolytus also saw Jesus rather than Mary in the ark. He mentions Mary as he's describing Jesus as the ark, so it can't be argued that he wasn't thinking of Mary at the time:
"At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, born of the Virgin, who was the 'ark overlaid with pure gold,' with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the 'ark' made manifest....the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body" (On Daniel, 2:6)
10/6/02
The RCC teaches that all of the dead will be raised at the same time:
"The resurrection of all the dead, 'of both the just and the unjust,' will precede the Last Judgment. This will be 'the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1038)
But The Didache, one of the earliest patristic documents, refers to multiple stages in the resurrection, probably because of a premillennial eschatology:
"And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: 'The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.' Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven." (16)
10/7/02
Roman Catholic apologists often tell us that we need an infallible ruling from their denomination's hierarchy in order to know the canon of scripture. Supposedly, we can't have much confidence in our canon if it isn't supported by the alleged infallibility of the Roman Catholic denomination.
The church fathers disagreed. They arrived at their canon through personal examination of the evidence, and they held other people accountable for obeying what's taught in that canon. They referred to those books having the highest of authority. Instead of thinking that they needed to wait for an ex cathedra ruling of the bishop of Rome, or wait for a ruling such as that given by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, the church fathers relied on the sort of personal judgment that modern Roman Catholic apologists condemn.
Melito of Sardis, for example, who rejected the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon, tells us how he arrived at that canon:
"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 4:26:13-14)
Apparently, neither Melito nor the person he's writing to thought that the means of arriving at a reliable canon was an infallible ruling from a worldwide denomination led by a Pope. Instead, Melito relies on his own examination of evidence, and he refers to his conclusions as reliable.
10/8/02
Athanasius, who rejected the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon, agreed with evangelicals that the canon of the Old Testament is to be derived from the Jews. He didn't have any concept of waiting for an infallible ruling from the RCC:
"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews" (Festal Letter 39:4)
But, since he didn't have an ex cathedra ruling from the bishop of Rome on the subject, Athanasius probably didn't have much confidence in his conclusions, right? No, instead, he refers to how he's "fully persuaded" (39:3). He refers to his canon as "handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray" (39:3). It sounds like he was confident in his conclusions *without* any allegedly infallible ruling from the Roman Catholic denomination. Athanasius didn't agree with the canonical arguments of today's Roman Catholic apologists.
10/9/02
Augustine's canon wasn't the same as Roman Catholicism's, but it was close. However, the means by which he arrived at that canon is contrary to the means advocated by modern Roman Catholics:
"The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,-those of them, at least, that are called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal." (On Christian Doctrine, 2:8)
Augustine says nothing of an infallible ruling of a worldwide denomination led by a Pope. Rather, he refers to a general consensus of evidence from multiple churches.
10/10/02
Athenagoras, without any infallible ruling from the RCC, recognizes books as Divinely inspired scripture, and he derives doctrine from those books. He refers to the books themselves, without any infallible ruling from the RCC, being "fitting grounds" for defending the doctrines of Christianity:
"If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our arguments-for I think that you also, with your great zeal for knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute-player breathes into a flute;-what, then, do these men say? 'The Lord is our God; no other can be compared with Him.' And again: 'I am God, the first and the last, and besides Me there is no God.' In like manner: 'Before Me there was no other God, and after Me there shall be none; I am God, and there is none besides Me.' And as to His greatness: 'Heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet: what house will ye build for Me, or what is the place of My rest?' But I leave it to you, when you meet with the books themselves, to examine carefully the prophecies contained in them, that you may on fitting grounds defend us from the abuse cast upon us." (A Plea for the Christians, 9)
10/11/02
Victorinus didn't agree with the eschatology of the RCC:
"And in Matthew we read, that it is written Isaiah also and the rest of his colleagues broke the Sabbath -that that true and just Sabbath should be observed in the seventh millenary of years....Wherefore, as I have narrated, that true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ with His elect shall reign." (On the Creation of the World)
10/12/02
"From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be....'Now it was the sixth hour,' [John 19:14] he says, intimating by that, one-half of the day. But a day with the Lord is 1000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years. For it was not meet that He should appear earlier, for the burden of the law still endured, nor yet when the sixth day was fulfilled (for the baptism is changed), but on the fifth and half, in order that in the remaining half time the gospel might be preached to the whole world, and that when the sixth day was completed He might end the present life." - Hippolytus (On Daniel, 2:6)
10/13/02
Methodius disagreed with the RCC's eschatology:
"For I also, taking my journey, and going forth from the Egypt of this life, came first to the resurrection, which is the true Feast of the Tabernacles, and there having set up my tabernacle, adorned with the fruits of virtue, on the first day of the resurrection, which is the day of judgment, celebrate with Christ the millennium of rest, which is called the seventh day, even the true Sabbath. Then again from thence I, a follower of Jesus, 'who hath entered into the heavens,' as they also, after the rest of the Feast of Tabernacles, came into the laud of promise, come into the heavens, not continuing to remain in tabernacles-that is, my body not remaining as it was before, but, after the space of a thousand years, changed from a human and corruptible form into angelic size and beauty, where at last we virgins, when the festival of the resurrection is consummated, shall pass froth the wonderful place of the tabernacle to greater and better things, ascending into the very house of God above the heavens, as, says the Psalmist, 'in the voice of praise and thanksgiving, among such as keep holy day.'" (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 9:5)
10/14/02
Justin Martyr contradicted the doctrine of Purgatory, not only by referring to the redeemed going to a better place, but also by mentioning only two regions of the afterlife, not three. He seems to have no concept of people going to a third place, then being transferred to Heaven sometime before the judgment:
"The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment." (Dialogue with Trypho, 5)
10/15/02
Hippolytus contradicted the doctrine of Purgatory. He begins by referring to a place of darkness in the afterlife, but he explains later that only the unsaved remain in the place of darkness, whereas the saved go to a place of light that's similar to Heaven:
"But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. Hades is a place in the created system, rude, a locality beneath the earth, in which the light of the world does not shine; and as the sun does not shine in this locality, there must necessarily be perpetual darkness there. This locality has been destined to be as it were a guard-house for souls, at which the angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one's deeds the temporary punishments for different characters. And in this locality there is a certain place set apart by itself, a lake of unquenchable fire, into which we suppose no one has ever yet been cast; for it is prepared against the day determined by God, in which one sentence of righteous judgment shall be justly applied to all. And the unrighteous, and those who believed not God, who have honoured as God the vain works of the hands of men, idols fashioned by themselves, shall be sentenced to this endless punishment. But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and unfading kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous. For to this locality there is one descent, at the gate whereof we believe an archangel is stationed with a host. And when those who are conducted by the angels appointed unto the souls have passed through this gate, they do not proceed on one and the same way; but the righteous, being conducted in the light toward the right, and being hymned by the angels stationed at the place, are brought to a locality full of light. And there the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham's bosom. But the unrighteous are dragged toward the left by angels who are ministers of punishment, and they go of their own accord no longer, but are dragged by force as prisoners. And the angels appointed over them send them along, reproaching them and threatening them with an eye of terror, forcing them down into the lower parts. And when they are brought there, those appointed to that service drag them on to the confines or hell. And those who are so near hear incessantly the agitation, and feel the hot smoke. And when that vision is so near, as they see the terrible and excessively glowing spectacle of the fire, they shudder in horror at the expectation of the future judgment, as if they were already feeling the power of their punishment. And again, where they see the place of the fathers and the righteous, they are also punished there. For a deep and vast abyss is set there in the midst, so that neither can any of the righteous in sympathy think to pass it, nor any of the unrighteous dare to cross it. Thus far, then, on the subject of Hades, in which the souls of all are detained until the time which God has determined; and then He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves." (Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe, 1-2)
10/16/02
Lactantius refers to something similar to Purgatory, but places it in the future, not the present, at the time of judgment:
"But when He shall have judged the righteous, He will also try them with fire. Then they whose sins shall exceed either in weight or in number, shall be scorched by the fire and burnt: but they whom full justice and maturity of virtue has imbued will not perceive that fire; for they have something of God in themselves which repels and rejects the violence of the flame. So great is the force of innocence, that the flame shrinks from it without doing harm; which has received from God this power, that it burns the wicked, and is under the command of the righteous. Nor, however, let any one imagine that souls are immediately judged after death. For all are detained in one and a common place of confinement, until the arrival of the time in which the great Judge shall make an investigation of their deserts. Then they whose piety shall have been approved of will receive the reward of immortality; but they whose sins and crimes shall have been brought to light will not rise again, but will be hidden in the same darkness with the wicked, being destined to certain punishment." (The Divine Institutes, 7:21)
10/17/02
Roman Catholics often accuse evangelicals of being rebellious, being disobedient to godly authorities. Passages of scripture like Jude 11 are cited, and are applied to Protestantism. Often, Catholics quote passages from the writings of the church fathers such as the following from Ignatius:
"It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 6)
"For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ" (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, 2)
Passages such as these ones from Ignatius are often cited in opposition to the Reformation, in opposition to the use of personal judgment, as evidence that we should submit to bishops who claim apostolic succession, etc. But Catholics aren't consistent on this issue. The same Catholic who will cite Hebrews 13:17, Jude 11, or one of these passages from Ignatius, for example, will reject the teachings of Eastern Orthodox bishops who claim apostolic succession. And he'll reject the teachings of Roman Catholic bishops if he thinks they're being unfaithful to the teachings of the Pope. He'll even reject many papal teachings that he thinks are fallible. Yet, when he disagrees with an evangelical about something, he'll quote somebody like Ignatius saying that we should submit to church leaders, then he'll claim that Ignatius' comments apply to today's Roman Catholic hierarchy.
But what did Ignatius actually mean? When he refers to submitting to the bishop as though he were God, is Ignatius saying that we shouldn't ever disagree with any bishop on any subject? When he says that we should submit to the presbyter as if he was an apostle, is Ignatius saying that presbyters have as much authority as the apostles?
No, some of the other comments Ignatius made clarify what he was saying. For example:
"But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?" (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, 2)
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant." (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 4)
Ignatius was a bishop in a city the apostles had visited. There's evidence that Ignatius personally knew at least one of the apostles. Yet, he denies that he has as much authority as an apostle. Why, then, did he tell people to obey the bishops and the presbyters as they would obey God and the apostles?
Obviously, Ignatius didn't believe that bishops were actually God or that presbyters were actually apostles. He was using a figure of speech that we have to keep in its proper context. Similarly, the apostle Paul refers to government officials as ministers of God (Romans 13:4), but we wouldn't conclude that he therefore viewed government officials as some infallible authority that we're to submit to in every case, without ever disagreeing with them. Ignatius, like Paul, is referring to the concept of subordinate authority. There are authorities God has placed over us, such as bishops, who are to be obeyed *within* the framework of obedience to God. If a parent tells a five-year-old boy to go to bed at 9 P.M., the boy should obey. But if the parent tells that boy to steal some bread from a store, the child should disobey. Similarly, church leaders are subordinate authorities who should be obeyed as we would obey God or the apostles *as far as they're faithful to God and to apostolic teaching*.
Ignatius was familiar with the churches he was writing to. He knew that the leaders of those churches were faithful to apostolic teaching. Would Ignatius write the same things to a Montanist church of the third century? I doubt it. To an Arian church of the fourth century? Surely not. Or to a Roman Catholic church today? I don't think so.
In the coming days, I want to give more examples of the church fathers *qualifying* their statements about church authority. Roman Catholics often quote the church fathers referring to the authority of church leaders, then they apply those comments to the hierarchy of the RCC, without explaining the context and qualifications of those comments.
10/18/02
Roman Catholic apologists often quote Irenaeus referring to apostolic succession, the authority of the church, etc. In an earlier segment in this series, I gave an example of how Irenaeus' view of church government is different from the RCC's. He held a high view of the Roman church, but for non-papal reasons, some of which aren't even applicable today. He also held a high view of churches in other cities, such as Smyrna and Ephesus. Roman Catholics wouldn't look to Smyrna or Ephesus for their doctrines, yet they quote Irenaeus when he refers to the significance of the Roman church. As I've documented in this series, Irenaeus repeatedly contradicted the teachings of Roman Catholicism. But he's often quoted as somebody who supported Roman Catholic concepts of authority.
I want to give some examples of passages in Irenaeus that you won't often see Catholics quoting. While he did refer to apostolic succession, he added some qualifications:
"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, looking upon them either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God-namely, strange doctrines-shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, shall remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron. But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, shall receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did. Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust perverted thy heart. Thou that art waxen old in wicked days, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light; for thou hast pronounced false judgments, and hast been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and the righteous shalt thou not slay.' Of whom also did the Lord say: 'But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.' From all such persons, therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood (presbyterii ordine), display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others....Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, namely, from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech." (Against Heresies, 4:26:2-5)
Irenaeus says that a historical succession from the apostles isn't enough. A succession must be combined with sound doctrine and good behavior. The leaders of Roman Catholicism, including many Popes, have frequently failed to meet those standards. According to Irenaeus, we should "keep aloof" from those Popes and other such bishops, and we should look for the truth elsewhere.
We should remember the context in which Irenaeus wrote. He was writing in the second half of the second century. He was writing against people who rejected some of the most foundational teachings of Christianity, such as monotheism, the deity of Christ, and the resurrection. We're living in significantly different circumstances. Today, there are numerous groups that claim some type of apostolic succession, and their teachings widely contradict each other. Roman Catholics claim a succession. Copts claim a succession. So do Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, some Lutherans, some Baptists, etc. If Irenaeus was alive today, he could appeal to these groups to defend a doctrine such as monotheism or the resurrection. But if he was to address a subject such as the papacy, how we attain eternal life, or whether Mary was a sinner, for example, he wouldn't be able to point to any universal consensus among these groups.
Would Irenaeus think that a church in the twenty-first century needs a historical succession of bishops in order to be acceptable? I don't think so. When Irenaeus wrote in the second century, it had been only several decades since the last apostle died. The concept of a historical succession from the apostles had much more evidential significance in the second century than such a succession has today. It's an argument that loses its power with the passing of time. Whatever Irenaeus might argue if he was alive today, we know that what he advocated in the second century, though similar to Roman Catholicism in some ways, was in some ways different from the Roman Catholic view of authority.
10/19/02
Tertullian thought that having a historical succession of bishops is good and significant, but not necessary, nor an assurance of doctrinal correctness. He says that a church with no historical succession from the apostles can be acceptable if its doctrines are in agreement with those of the apostles:
"But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr, have fallen from the rule of faith, will heresies on that account appear to possess the truth? Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the persons by the faith?...For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine." (The Prescription Against Heretics, 3, 32)
10/20/02
Gregory Nazianzen explains that true apostolic succession comes from doctrinal correctness, not a historical lineage:
"Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense." (Oration 21:8)
10/21/02
Just as the Bible says that teaching sound doctrine is a requirement for being a bishop (Titus 1:9), The Didache explains that teachers are to be followed only as far as they're faithful to sound doctrine. They aren't to be followed just because they hold a church office:
"My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as you do the Lord. For wherever the lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord....Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord....Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers." (4, 11, 15)
10/22/02
The Roman bishop Marcellinus remains on the RCC's list of an unbroken succession from Peter, despite his apparent lapse, which occurred the year before the date assigned to the end of his pontificate:
"By contrast [to an earlier Roman bishop who had been martyred], in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifice to the gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him." - Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 14
There's controversy over just what happened with Marcellinus, but there seems to be a consensus among scholars that he did comply with the Roman government to at least some extent. The church father Cyprian didn't think a person could remain a bishop after having committed such sins, and he even names sacrificing to idols as an example:
"I was gravely and grievously disturbed, dearest brethren, at learning that Fortunatianus, formerly bishop among you, after the sad lapse of his fall [sacrificing to an idol], was now wishing to act as if he were sound, and beginning to claim for himself the episcopate....[he] dares still to claim to himself the priesthood which he has betrayed, as if it were right, from the altars of the devil, to approach to the altar of God....Since, therefore, the Lord threatens these torments, these punishments in the day of judgment, to those who obey the devil and sacrifice to idols, how does he think that he can act as a priest of God who has obeyed and served the priests of the devil; or how does he think that his hand can be transferred to the sacrifice of God and the prayer of the Lord which has been captive to sacrilege and to crime, when in the sacred Scriptures God forbids the priests to approach to sacrifice even if they have been in lighter guilt; and says in Leviticus: 'The man in whom there shall be any blemish or stain shall not approach to offer gifts to God?' Also in Exodus: 'And let the priests which come near to the Lord God sanctify themselves, lest perchance the Lord forsake them.' And again: 'And when they come near to minister at the altar of the Holy One, they shall not bring sin upon them, lest they die.' Those, therefore, who have brought grievous sins upon themselves, that is, who, by sacrificing to idols, have offered sacrilegious sacrifices, cannot claim to themselves the priesthood of God" (Letter 63:1-2)
Cyprian explains that if somebody who commits such sins repents, he can return to the church, but as a layman, not as a leader:
"We add, however, and connect with what we have said, dearest brother, with common consent and authority, that if, again, any presbyters or deacons, who either have been before ordained in the Catholic Church, and have subsequently stood forth as traitors and rebels against the Church, or who have been promoted among the heretics by a profane ordination by the hands of false bishops and antichrists contrary to the appointment of Christ, and have attempted to offer; in opposition to the one and divine altar, false and sacrilegious sacrifices without, that these also be received when they return, on this condition, that they communicate as laymen, and hold it to be enough that they should be received to peace, after having stood forth as enemies of peace; and that they ought not, on returning, to retain those arms of ordination and honour with which they rebelled against us." (Letter 71:2)
Elsewhere, Cyprian makes other comments that would disqualify many Roman bishops and would lead to the conclusion that those Roman bishops shouldn't be obeyed:
"Nor let the people flatter themselves that they can be free from the contagion of sin, while communicating with a priest who is a sinner, and yielding their consent to the unjust and unlawful episcopacy of their overseer, when the divine reproof by Hosea the prophet threatens, and says, 'Their sacrifices shall be as the bread of mourning; all that eat thereof shall be polluted;' teaching manifestly and showing that all are absolutely bound to the sin who have been contaminated by the sacrifice of a profane and unrighteous priest....On which account a people obedient to the Lord's precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones. Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony...And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct." (Letter 67:3-5)
Notice that Cyprian refers to these church leaders as "unlawful", as not legitimately holding the office they claim to hold. Later in the same letter, Cyprian explains that the lapsed bishop Basilides remains illegitimate, despite being supported by the Roman bishop Stephen:
"Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed....But if Basilides could deceive men [such as the Roman bishop Stephen], he cannot deceive God, since it is written, 'God is not mocked.'" (67:5)
Here are some examples of the RCC contradicting Cyprian:
"[this council] also teaches, that even priests, who are in mortal sin, exercise, through the virtue of the Holy Ghost which was bestowed in ordination, the office of forgiving sins, as the ministers of Christ; and that their sentiment is erroneous who contend that this power exists not in bad priests." - Council of Trent (session 14, "Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance", chapter 6)
"this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace" - Catechism of the Catholic Church (1550)
"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
10/23/02
Roman Catholics sometimes claim to be concerned with obeying passages like 1 Timothy 3, regarding the moral requirements for church leaders. The Council of Trent and the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, cite that passage and claim that it's important that church leaders maintain high moral standards. Yet, bishops and other Roman Catholic officials who engage in murder, fornication, bribery, etc., sometimes even attaining their office by means of such behavior, frequently go undisciplined. When asked about Roman bishops who attained their office by means of bribery or murder, for example, or bishops who committed such sins after attaining the office, Roman Catholic apologists often respond by pointing to the sins of David, Peter, or some other Biblical figure. But since passages like 1 Timothy 3 are about bishops and deacons, not kings and apostles, such comparisons are erroneous.
Polycarp seems to have taken church discipline more seriously than the RCC does. He doesn't seem to have thought that the sins of a David or a Peter were a justification for failing to discipline church leaders:
"I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a presbyter among you, because he so little understands the place that was given him in the Church. I exhort you, therefore, that ye abstain from covetousness, and that ye be chaste and truthful. 'Abstain from every form of evil.' For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others? If a man does not keep himself from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the heathen. But who of us are ignorant of the judgment of the Lord? 'Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world?' as Paul teaches." (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 11)
10/24/02
Clement of Alexandria didn't think he needed an infallible ruling from the RCC in order to recognize which books are scripture and which aren't:
"It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves....He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly regarded faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth....Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration." (The Stromata, 4:1, 7:16)
10/25/02
John of Damascus wrote:
"All Scripture, then, is given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable. Wherefore to search the Scriptures is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of waters, so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season , viz. orthodox belief, and is adorned with evergreen leafage, I mean, actions pleasing to God. For through the Holy Scriptures we are trained to action that is pleasing to God, and untroubled contemplation. For in these we find both exhortation to every virtue and dissuasion from every vice." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:17)
He refers to *every* virtue and vice being addressed in scripture. He seems to be advocating sola scriptura. Yet, elsewhere in the same document, he says:
"Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle. And to the Corinthians he writes, Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you." (4:16)
Shortly before these comments, he gives us some examples of what he's referring to:
"For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady [Mary], and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things." (4:16)
While *some* of the traditions he refers to are accepted by Roman Catholics, other traditions aren't. In a previous segment in this series, I documented that John of Damascus disagreed with the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon, which is another example of his concept of tradition differing from the RCC's.
However John of Damascus viewed the authority of scripture, we know that his definition of tradition contradicted the RCC's definition. Whether he never advocated sola scriptura, advocated it inconsistently, or advocated it consistently, we know that he didn't hold to the Roman Catholic rule of faith.
10/26/02
In addition to rejecting the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon, John of Damascus disagreed with the RCC's New Testament:
"The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:17)
10/27/02
Some passages of scripture are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16), but Roman Catholics exaggerate that difficulty and propose the wrong solution to it. Origen doesn't seem to have thought that scripture is as unclear as Roman Catholics claim it is, nor did he think the solution to some passages being unclear was to look for an infallible interpretation from the Roman Catholic denomination:
"What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work [the gospel of John], though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears? What shall we say of this work? He who is accurately to apprehend what it contains should be able to say with truth, 'We have the mind of Christ, that we may know those things which are bestowed on us by God.'" (Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:6)
"Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our defence of the truths contained in Christianity, that if any one were to come from the study of Grecian opinions and usages to the Gospel, he would not only decide that its doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to their demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say, moreover, that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the apostle the 'manifestation of the Spirit and of power:' of 'the Spirit,' on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who reads them" (Against Celsus, 1:2)
"Observe now the difference between the fine phrases of Plato respecting the 'chief good,' and the declarations of our prophets regarding the 'light' of the blessed; and notice that the truth as it is contained in Plato concerning this subject did not at all help his readers to attain to a pure worship of God, nor even himself, who could philosophize so grandly about the 'chief good,' whereas the simple language of the holy Scriptures has led to their honest readers being filled with a divine spirit" (Against Celsus, 6:5)
Though Origen often allegorized, and he advocated scriptural interpretations that he claimed only the more spiritual Christians could understand, he never appealed to the Roman Catholic concept of following infallible scripture interpretations from a worldwide denomination led by a Pope. Apparently, he thought that scripture was clear for the most part, and that less clear interpretations could be attained by more mature Christians, but not by means of an infallible Roman Catholic hierarchy.
10/28/02
Roman Catholics often quote a church father referring to tradition, but don't explain that the church father's *definition* of tradition was different from Roman Catholicism's. I've given some examples in previous segments in this series, and Clement of Alexandria is another one. For example, he accepted the alleged revelations recorded in The Shepherd of Hermas:
"Divinely, therefore, the power which spoke to Hermas by revelation said, 'The visions and revelations are for those who are of double mind, who doubt in their hearts if these things are or are not.'" (The Stromata, 1:29)
He also approves of a number of apocryphal writings. He quotes from the Preaching of Peter, for example, as the words of the apostle Peter (The Stromata, 6:5). Clement of Alexandria considered such traditions to be Divine and apostolic, but Roman Catholics reject them.
10/29/02
Origen apparently disagreed with the Roman Catholic New Testament canon. For example, he didn't think 2 Peter was authentic:
"And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,' has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 6:25:8)
On another occasion, Origen refers to the Epistle of Barnabas as a "general epistle" (or "catholic epistle"), a phrase he applies elsewhere to the first epistle of Peter. He quotes the Epistle of Barnabas along with the gospel of Luke and 1 Timothy:
"And since Celsus has termed the apostles of Jesus men of infamous notoriety, saying that they were tax-gatherers and sailors of the vilest character, we have to remark, with respect to this charge, that he seems, in order to bring an accusation against Christianity, to believe the Gospel accounts only where he pleases, and to express his disbelief of them, in order that he may not be forced to admit the manifestations of Divinity related in these same books; whereas one who sees the spirit of truth by which the writers are influenced, ought, from their narration of things of inferior importance, to believe also the account of divine things. Now in the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded that 'Jesus selected His own apostles, as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evildoers.' And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, 'Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man.' Moreover, Paul, who himself also at a later time became an apostle of Jesus, says in his Epistle to Timothy, 'This is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.'" (Against Celsus, 1:63)
10/30/02
Irenaeus quotes from The Shepherd of Hermas as scripture:
"Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says, 'First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence: He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one.' [The Shepherd of Hermas, 2:1]" (Against Heresies, 4:20:2)
10/31/02
Some Roman Catholic apologists, such as Brent Arias and Phil Porvaznik, claim that the phrase "man of God" in 2 Timothy 3:17 is referring to Divinely appointed leaders, not laymen. They point to the phrase being associated with prophets and other leaders in the Old Testament, and they conclude that the phrase *only* refers to such leaders. They even claim that all Christians throughout church history must submit to a succession of these men of God, which they identify with the leadership of the Roman Catholic denomination.
John Chrysostom, somebody these Roman Catholics would cite as one of their men of God, didn't define the phrase "man of God" that way:
"'But thou, O man of God.' This is a title of great dignity. For we are all men of God, but the righteous peculiarly so, not by right of creation only, but by that of appropriation. If then thou art a 'man of God,' seek not superfluous things, which lead thee not to God, but 'Flee these things, and follow after righteousness.' Both expressions are emphatic; he does not say turn from one, and approach the other, but 'flee these things, pursue righteousness,' so as not to be covetous." (Homilies on First Timothy, 17, v. 11)
He refers to 2 Timothy 3:17 applying to all Christians, not just members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy:
"'That the man of God may be perfect.' For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!" (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
11/1/02
Augustine applies Luke 22:32 and the phrase "man of God" to *all* believers, all the predestined:
"Therefore when Christ says, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,' we may understand that it was said to him who is built upon the rock. And thus the man of God, not only because he has obtained mercy to be faithful, but also because faith itself does not fail, if he glories, must glory in the Lord. I speak thus of those who are predestinated to the kingdom of God, whose number is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor taken from them; not of those who, when He had announced and spoken, were multiplied beyond number." (On Rebuke and Grace, 38-39)
Elsewhere, he applies the phrase "man of God" to *all* believers again:
"If then these two new things, not yet done, were set before us, and it were asked of us, 'Which is the most wonderful, that He who is God should be made Man, or he who is man should be made a man of God? which is the more wonderful? which the more difficult?' What hath Christ promised us? That which as yet we see not; that is, that we should be His men, and reign with Him, and never die? This is so to say with difficulty believed, that a man once born should arrive at that life, where he shall never die. This is what we believe with a heart well cleansed, cleansed, I mean, of the world's dust; that this dust close not up our eye of faith. This it is that we are bid believe, that after we have been dead, we shall be even with our dead bodies in life, where we shall never die." (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 80:4)
11/2/02
Gregory Nazianzen applies the phrase "man of God" even to immature believers:
"Wherefore, O man of God, do thou recognize the plots of thine adversary; for the battle is against him that hath, and it is concerned with the most important interests. Take not thine enemy to be thy counsellor; despise not to be and to be called Faithful. As long as you are a Catechumen you are but in the porch of Religion; you must come inside, and cross the court, and observe the Holy Things, and look into the Holy of Holies, and be in company with the Trinity." (Orations, 40:16)
11/3/02
The church fathers held a variety of views of the atonement. One view saw the ransom aspect of the atonement (Matthew 20:28) as being paid to Satan. That view and others that involved some sort of transaction with Satan were advocated by numerous church fathers and Roman bishops. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff explains:
"This strange theory is variously held by Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Augustin, Leo the Great and Gregory the Great." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch12.htm, note 1093)
The Leo and Gregory he refers to were Roman bishops. Ambrose wrote:
"And let no one be startled at the word 'creditor.' We were before under a hard creditor, who was not to be satisfied and paid to the full but by the death of the debtor. The Lord Jesus came, He saw us bound by a heavy debt. No one could pay his debt with the patrimony of his innocence. I could have nothing of my own wherewith to free myself. He gave to me a new kind of acquittance, changing my creditor because I had nothing wherewith to pay my debt. But it was sin, not nature, which had made us debtors, for we had contracted heavy debts by our sins, that we who had been free should be bound, for he is a debtor who received any of his creditor's money. Now sin is of the devil; that wicked one has, as it were, these riches in his possession. For as the riches of Christ are virtues, so crimes are the wealth of the devil. He had reduced the human race to perpetual captivity by the heavy debt of inherited liability, which our debt-laden ancestor had transmitted to his posterity by inheritance. The Lord Jesus came, He offered His death for the death of all, He poured out His Blood for the blood of all. So, then, we have changed our creditor, not escaped wholly, or rather we have escaped, for the debt remains but the interest is cancelled" (Letter 41:7-8)
11/4/02
In a previous segment in this series, I documented Irenaeus advocating a false recapitulation view of the atonement. It seems that he also held a false ransom to Satan view. He refers to sinners being held captive to Satan, and he suggests that Jesus purchased sinners back from Satan. Notice his references to the justice of God in working with Satan (as opposed to the injustice of Satan's actions), which suggests that he's referring to a *legal right* of Satan, not just some influence that Satan had:
"the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy [Satan] tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the apostasy had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction." (Against Heresies, 5:1:1)
11/5/02
Augustine, in addition to advocating other views, advocated a variation of the ransom to Satan view of the atonement:
"For men were held captive under the devil, and served devils; but they were redeemed from captivity. They could sell, but they could not redeem themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave a price; He poured forth His Blood, and bought the whole world." (Expositions on the Psalms, 96:5)
"What, then, is the righteousness by which the devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because, when he found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. And certainly it is just, that we whom he [Satan] held as debtors, should be dismissed free by believing in Him whom he slew without any debt. In this way it is that we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ....And hence He proceeds to His passion, that He might pay for us debtors that which He Himself did not owe....For then that blood, since it was His who had no sin at all, was poured out for the remission of our sins; that, because the devil deservedly held those whom, as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition of death, he might deservedly loose them through Him, whom, as guilty of no sin, the punishment of death undeservedly affected. The strong man [Satan] was conquered by this righteousness, and bound with this chain, that his vessels might be spoiled, which with himself and his angels had been vessels of wrath while with him, and might be turned into vessels of mercy....And hence the same apostle also, exhorting believers to the giving of thanks to God the Father, says: 'Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son: in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins.' In this redemption, the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us, by accepting which the devil was not enriched, but bound" (On the Trinity, 13:14:18, 13:15:19)
11/6/02
Clement of Alexandria believed that fallen angels and deceased unbelievers could be saved:
"Do not the Scriptures show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept 'in ward and guard'? And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that He should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrews, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge. And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching of the Gospel, to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there; since God's punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of a sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh....So I think it is demonstrated that the God being good, and the Lord powerful, they save with a righteousness and equality which extend to all that turn to Him, whether here or elsewhere. For it is not here alone that the active power of God is beforehand, but it is everywhere and is always at work." (The Stromata, 6:6)
"'And not only for our sins,'-that is for those of the faithful,-is the Lord the propitiator, does he say, 'but also for the whole world.' He, indeed, saves all; but some He saves, converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily He saves with dignity of honour; so 'that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth;' that is, angels, men, and souls that before His advent have departed from this temporal life." (Fragments, 1:3, c. 2, v. 2)
11/7/02
Roman Catholic apologists, such as Jacob Michael of Catholic Apologetics International (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/patristicpuppet2.html) and Stephen Ray (Upon This Rock [San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1999]), cite some letters John Chrysostom sent to the bishop of Rome as evidence that he believed in a papacy. The letters were written in the context of some controversies in Constantinople, where Chrysostom was bishop and was eventually banished from his church. Chrysostom was opposed by the bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus, among others. Stephen Ray writes:
"One may object that Chrysostom perceived the 'successors' [of Peter] to refer to all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, but if this had been the case, his actions would have given evidence of it. As Dr. Hergenrother reminds us, 'Chrysostom sent epistles and deputies to Pope Innocent I., to obtain from him speedy correction of the acts done against him, and the annulling of his condemnation, as well as the chastisement of those who had violated all canonical law' (Anti-Janus, 130-31). This is another case where one's actions speak volumes." (p. 221)
W.R.W. Stephens, in an introduction to the correspondence between Chrysostom and the Roman bishop Innocent I, gives us some context and additional information that Stephen Ray doesn't mention:
"Copies of the first letter [of John Chrysostom] were addressed also to Venerius Bishop of Milan, and Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia. It is interesting therefore as indicating the relation between the Eastern and Western branches of the Church at the beginning of the fifth century. On the one hand it illustrates the growing tendency of Christendom to appeal to the authority of the Western Church, especially of the Bishop of Rome, on questions of ecclesiastical discipline. The law-making, law-protecting spirit of the West is invoked to restrain the turbulence and licentiousness of the East. no jealousy is entertained of the Patriarch of the old Rome by the Patriarch of the new. But on the other hand it is to be noted that the Bishop of Rome is in no sense addressed as a supreme arbitrator: aid and sympathy are solicited from him as from an elder brother, and two other prelates of Italy are joint recipients with him of the appeal. To Chrysostom Innocent writes, as friend to friend and bishop to brother bishop, a letter of Christian consolation and encouragement, not entering into the legal questions of the case, and not pledging himself to decisive action of any kind. In his letter to the Church of Constantinople he denounces the illegality of the late proceedings of Theophilus and his accomplices, in the strongest terms; but insists upon the necessity of convoking an oecumenical council as the only means of allaying the tempest. And it must be allowed that he did his best to accomplish this object. He wrote a letter to Honorius, the Emperor of the Western Empire, who resided at Ravenna, describing the pitiable condition of the Church at Constantinople. The Emperor issued an order for the convention of an italian synod, and the synod, swayed no doubt by Innocent, requested Honorius to write to his brother Arcadius the Eastern Emperor urging the convention of a general council to be held in Thessalonica which would be a convenient meeting-point for the prelates of East and West. Honorius complied, and the letter was despatched under the care of a deputation from the Italian Church, consisting of five bishops, two priests and a deacon. They were the bearers also of letters from Innocent, and the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia, and of a memorial from the Italian synod, recommending that Chrysostom should be reinstated in his see before he was required to take his trial before the Council. The party hostile to Chrysostom however had now such complete sway over the court at Constantinople that the deputation never succeeded in getting an audience with the Emperor, and after suffering many insults and indignities, returned to Italy without having accomplished anything." (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-48.htm#P1404_1162204)
What we have, then, is *numerous* authority figures being appealed to, with the bishop of Rome being just one of them. The first letter is sent to multiple bishops, not just the bishop of Rome. The text of the letter refers to the plural "lords":
"Having been informed then of all these things, my lords, most honourable and devout, exhibit the courage and zeal which becomes you, so as to put a stop to this great assault of lawlessness which has been made upon the Churches." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)
Should we assume that the other bishops Chrysostom wrote to were Popes as well? How about when Chrysostom and other church fathers appeal to government officials, such as emperors, to settle disputes? Should we assume that those government officials have a Divinely approved primacy in matters of faith and morals? If appeals to the bishop of Rome for help are evidence of a Roman papacy, then why wouldn't such appeals for help to other bishops and government officials be evidence of *their* papal authority?
Though the bishop of Rome tried to help Chrysostom, his efforts failed. David Farmer explains:
"although his own people, the pope, and many western bishops supported him [John Chrysostom], he was exiled, first to Cucusus in Armenia and then to Pontus where he was killed by enforced travel in bad weather" (Oxford Dictionary of Saints [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997] p. 267)
The bishop of Rome didn't seem to think he would be able to settle the dispute himself. He tried, instead, to get the authority of an ecumenical council to support Chrysostom:
"But what are we to do against such things at the present time? A synodical decision of them is necessary, and we have long declared that a synod ought to be convened, as it is the only means of allaying the agitation of such tempests as these: and if we obtain this it is expedient that the healing of these evils should be committed to the will of the great God, and His Christ our Lord. All the disturbances then which have been caused by the envy of the devil for the probation of the faithful will be mitigated; through the firmness of our faith we ought not to despair of anything from the Lord. For we ourselves also are considering much by what means the oecumenical synod may be brought together in order that by the will of God these disturbing movements may be brought to an end." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 4)
This Roman bishop says that a council would be the only means of settling the dispute. Apparently, he didn't think the churches of the world would accept commandments from him alone. But they might listen to an ecumenical council. He was right. John Chrysostom's critics continued to oppose him, unconvinced by the Roman bishop's support of Chrysostom.
Roman Catholic apologists tell us about the alleged jurisdictional primacy of the bishop of Rome, and they hold up past appeals to Rome for help as evidence of such authority. But when that help fails to settle the dispute, and when *other* entities are also appealed to for help, we're not often told about those things by these Catholic apologists.
When the bishop of Rome appeals to an emperor for help in settling a church dispute, should we assume that the emperor has more spiritual authority, and that the other churches wouldn't submit to the bishop of Rome unless the government was with him? When the Second Council of Constantinople claims authority over the bishop of Rome and excommunicates him, should we assume that councils therefore have authority over Roman bishops? Why do Roman Catholic apologists so often ignore such things or dismiss them as insignificant while, at the same time, seeing papal authority under every rock and behind every bush whenever Rome helps somebody or is appealed to for help?
11/8/02
Roman Catholic apologists often tell us that we should return to the unity that existed during the early centuries of Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are criticized for causing disunity where there used to be unity. The church fathers are described as belonging to one worldwide denomination led by a Pope.
In previous segments in this series, I've given examples of the church fathers referring to widespread disunity in the early centuries. Jerome gives us another example. He writes of "the whole world" accepting Arianism, a heresy that denies the deity of Christ:
"For the Emperor and all good men had one and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hid, and the sore that is healed superficially before the bad humour has been worked off breaks out again. Valens and Ursacius and others associated with them in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian." (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 19)
11/9/02
John Chrysostom didn't think there was much unity in his day:
"What is one to say to the disorders in the other Churches? For the evil did not stop even here [Constantinople], but made its way to the east. For as when some evil humor is discharged from the head, all the other parts are corrupted, so now also these evils, having originated in this great city as from a fountain, confusion has spread in every direction, and clergy have everywhere made insurrection against bishops, there has been schism between bishop and bishop, people and people, and will be yet more; every place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)
11/10/02
Roman Catholics often claim that the Roman church and its bishops have been free of heresy throughout church history. They often quote church fathers referring to the Roman church and its bishops as untainted, spotless, faithful, pure, etc. In a previous segment, I cited Theodoret as an example, who says that the greatest reason for admiring the Roman church is that "it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled" (Letter 116). Similarly, Jerome writes, "Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you [Damasus, bishop of Rome] alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold" (Letter 15:1).
But some of the same church fathers who make such comments refer elsewhere to the Roman church and its bishops being unfaithful at times. Thus, at least with many of these church fathers, what they seem to be referring to is a *general* faithfulness of the Roman church and its bishops, not complete faithfulness or infallibility.
Two examples are the Roman bishops Felix II and Liberius. Both supported the Arian heresy. Roman Catholics now dismiss Felix II as an antipope, but they accept Liberius as a legitimate bishop. Different Catholic apologists attempt to explain Liberius' support of Arianism in different ways. Some argue that he did support Arianism or something like it, but in an unofficial, fallible way. Others argue that he didn't support Arianism at all.
The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"Even the papal chair was desecrated by heresy during this Arian interregnum; after the deposition of Liberius, the deacon Felix II., 'by antichristian wickedness,' as Athanasius expresses it, was elected his successor. Many Roman historians for this reason regard him as a mere anti-pope. But in the Roman church books this Felix is inserted, not only as a legitimate pope, but even as a saint, because, according to a much later legend, he was executed by Constantius, whom he called a heretic. His memory is celebrated on the twenty-ninth of July. His subsequent fortunes are very differently related. The Roman people desired the recall of Liberius, and he, weary of exile, was prevailed upon to apostatize by subscribing an Arian or at least Arianizing confession, and maintaining church fellowship with the Eusebians. On this condition he was restored to his papal dignity, and received with enthusiasm into Rome (358). He died in 366 in the orthodox faith, which he had denied through weakness, but not from conviction....The apostasy of Liberius comes to us upon the clear testimony of the most orthodox fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, Sozomen, &c., and of three letters of Liberius himself, which Hilary admitted into his sixth fragment, and accompanied with some remarks. Jerome says in his Chronicle: 'Liberius, taedio victus exilii, in haereticam pravitatem subscribens Romam quasi victor intravit.' Comp. his Catal. script. eccl c. 97. He probably subscribed what is called the third Sirmian formula, that is, the collection of Semi-Arian decrees adopted at the third council of Sirmium in 358. Hefele (i. 673), from his Roman point of view, knows no way of saving him but by the hypothesis that he renounced the Nicene word (oJmoouvsio"), but not the Nicene faith. But this, in the case of so current a party term as oJmoouvsio", which Liberius himself afterwards declared 'the bulwark against all Arian heresy' (Socr. H. E. iv. 12), is entirely untenable." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm, section 121 and footnote 1342)
Jerome wrote:
"when Liberius bishop of Rome was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy" (Lives of Illustrious Men, 97)
11/11/02
Athanasius, the primary opponent of Arianism, sympathized with the Roman bishop Liberius because of the pressure placed upon him to support Arianism. However, despite sympathizing with him, he says that Liberius did support the heresy under pressure:
"Thus they endeavoured at the first to corrupt the Church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it as well as others. But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shews their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors." (History of the Arians, 5:41)
"Liberius, Bishop of Rome, (for although he did not endure to the end the sufferings of banishment, yet he remained in his exile for two years, being aware of conspiracy formed against us)" (Defense Against the Arians, 2:6:89)
Athanasius wasn't so sympathetic toward the Roman bishop Felix II:
"For he is prepared to do everything that the Emperor wishes; who accordingly availing himself of his assistance, has committed at Rome a strange act, but one truly resembling the malice of Antichrist. Having made preparations in the Palace instead of the Church, and caused some three of his own eunuchs to attend instead of the people, he then compelled three ill-conditioned spies (for one cannot call them Bishops), to ordain forsooth as Bishop one Felix, a man worthy of them, then in the Palace." (History of the Arians, 8:75)
11/12/02
The church father and historian Sozomen writes about the Roman bishop Liberius participating in an Arianizing council. He also describes the support the Roman bishops Liberius and Felix II received from the Arian emperor and those working with him:
"Not long after these events, the emperor returned to Sirmium from Rome; on receiving a deputation from the Western bishops, he recalled Liberius from Beroea. Constantius urged him, in the presence of the deputies of the Eastern bishops, and of the other priests who were at the camp, to confess that the Son is not of the same substance as the Father. He was instigated to this measure by Basil, Eustathius, and Eusebius, who possessed great influence over him. They had formed a compilation, in one document, of the decrees against Paul of Samosata, and Photinus, bishop of Sirmium; to which they subjoined a formulary of faith drawn up at Antioch at the consecration of the church, as if certain persons had, under the pretext of the term 'consubstantial,' attempted to establish a heresy of their own. Liberius, Athanasius, Alexander, Severianus, and Crescens, a priest of Africa, were induced to assent to this document, as were likewise Ursacius, Germanius, bishop of Sirmium, Valens, bishop of Mursa, and as many of the Eastern bishops as were present. They partially approved of a confession of faith drawn up by Liberius, in which he declared that those who affirm that the Son is not like unto the Father in substance and in all other respects, are excommunicated. For when Eudoxius and his partisans at Antioch, who favored the heresy of Aetius, received the letter of Hosius, they circulated the report that Liberius had renounced the term 'consubstantial,' and had admitted that the Son is dissimilar from the Father. After these enactments had been made by the Western bishops, the emperor permitted Liberius to return to Rome. The bishops who were then convened at Sirmium wrote to Felix, who governed the Roman church, and to the other bishops, desiring them to receive Liberius. They directed that both should share the apostolical throne and discharge the priestly duties in common, with harmony of mind; and that whatever illegalities might have occurred in the ordination of Felix, or the banishment of Liberius, might be buried in oblivion. The people of Rome regarded Liberius as a very excellent man, and esteemed him highly on account of the courage he had evinced in opposing the emperor, so that they had even excited seditions on his account, and had gone so far as to shed blood. Felix survived but a short time; and Liberius found himself in sole possession of the church. This event was, no doubt, ordained by God, that the seat of Peter might not be dishonored by the occupancy of two bishops; for such an arrangement is a sign of discord, and is foreign to ecclesiastical law. Such were the events which transpired at Sirmium. It seemed at this period as if, from the fear of displeasing the emperor, the Eastern and Western Churches had united in the profession of the same doctrine." (Ecclesiastical History, 4:15-16)
11/13/02
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)
Despite these historical facts, the Council of Trent falsely claimed:
"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)
Tertullian describes a form of confession different from the RCC's:
"And thus exomologesis is a discipline for man's prostration and humiliation, enjoining a demeanor calculated to move mercy. With regard also to the very dress and food, it commands the penitent to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to cover his body in mourning, to lay his spirit low in sorrows, to exchange for severe treatment the sins which he has committed; moreover, to know no food and drink but such as is plain,-not for the stomach's sake, to wit, but the soul's; for the most part, however, to feed prayers on fastings, to groan, to weep and make outcries unto the Lord your God; to bow before the feet of the presbyters, and kneel to God's dear ones; to enjoin on all the brethren to be ambassadors to bear his deprecatory supplication before God....Yet most men either shun this work, as being a public exposure of themselves, or else defer it from day to day. I presume as being more mindful of modesty than of salvation; just like men who, having contracted some malady in the more private parts of the body, avoid the privity of physicians, and so perish with their own bashfulness." (On Repentance, 9-10)
He explains that the opportunities for repenting are limited. According to Tertullian, you can lose your salvation without any possibility of regaining it, which is another contradiction of Roman Catholic doctrine:
"So long, Lord Christ, may the blessing of learning or hearing concerning the discipline of repentance be granted to Thy servants, as is likewise behoves them, while learners, not to sin; in other words, may they thereafter know nothing of repentance, and require nothing of it. It is irksome to append mention of a second - nay, in that case, the last - hope...this second and only remaining repentance" (On Repentance, 7, 9)
11/14/02
Like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria believed that there was a limit to how many times a Christian could repent of some sins and still be forgiven:
"He, then, who has received the forgiveness of sins ought to sin no more. For, in addition to the first and only repentance from sins (this is from the previous sins in the first and heathen life-I mean that in ignorance), there is forthwith proposed to those who have been called, the repentance which cleanses the seat of the soul from transgressions, that faith may be established. And the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing the future, foresaw both the fickleness of man and the craft and subtlety of the devil from the first, from the beginning; how that, envying man for the forgiveness of sins, he would present to the servants of God certain causes of sins; skilfully working mischief, that they might fall together with himself. Accordingly, being very merciful, He has vouch-safed, in the case of those who, though in faith, fall into any transgression, a second repentance; so that should any one be tempted after his calling, overcome by force and fraud, he may receive still a repentance not to be repented of. 'For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shah devour the adversaries.' But continual and successive repentings for sins differ nothing from the case of those who have not believed at all, except only in their consciousness that they do sin." (The Stromata, 2:13)
11/15/02
Ambrose seems to have agreed with Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria regarding limitations on penance for some sins:
"Deservedly are they blamed who think that they often do penance, for they are wanton against Christ. For if they went through their penance in truth, they would not think that it could be repeated again; for as there is but one baptism, so there is but one course of penance, so far as the outward practice goes, for we must repent of our daily faults, but this latter has to do with lighter faults, the former with such as are graver." (On Repentance, 2:10:95)
11/16/02
Socrates Scholasticus criticizes John Chrysostom for saying that there can be more than one penance after baptism:
"For whereas by the Synod of bishops repentance was accepted but once from those who had sinned after baptism; he did not scruple to say, 'Approach, although you may have repented a thousand times.' For this doctrine, many even of his friends censured him, but especially Sisinnius bishop of the Novatian; who wrote a book condemnatory of the above quoted expression of Chrysostom's, and severely rebuked him for it." (Ecclesiastical History, 6:21)
11/17/02
Polycarp seems to have held a Protestant view of salvation, combining the freeness of eternal life with the necessity of a resulting life of good works (http://www.christiantruth.com/reformers.html). Notice his exclusion of works, without any qualification, his reference to those who "only believe" (faith alone), and his references to the substitutionary nature of Christ's life and death:
"'by grace ye are saved, not of works,' but by the will of God through Jesus Christ....If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, 'we shall also reign together with Him,' provided only we believe....Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, 'who bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' 'who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,' but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him." (Epistle to the Philippians, 1, 5, 8)
11/18/02
Roman Catholics tell us that their denomination must interpret the scriptures for us. For example:
"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" (Council of Trent, Rules on Prohibited Books, 4, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html)
"I [Pope Pius IX] accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." (First Vatican Council, 2:3, http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM)
"Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the Church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed." (First Vatican Council, 3:5, http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM)
"But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God,whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation", 2:10, http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/dei.ver)
Apparently, the church father John Cassian disagreed. Instead of telling people to look to a Roman Catholic magisterium led by a Pope for infallible scripture interpretations, he refers to the perspicuity of scripture and how we can understand the Bible through personal effort:
"WE knew also Abbot Theodore, a man gifted with the utmost holiness and with perfect knowledge not only in practical life, but also in understanding the Scriptures, which he had not acquired so much by study and reading, or worldly education, as by purity of heart alone: since he could with difficulty understand and speak but a very few words of the Greek language. This man when he was seeking an explanation of some most difficult question, continued without ceasing for seven days and nights in prayer until he discovered by a revelation from the Lord the solution of the question propounded. This man therefore, when some of the brethren were wondering at the splendid light of his knowledge and were asking of him some meanings of Scripture, said that a monk who wanted to acquire a knowledge of the Scriptures ought not to spend his labour on the works of commentators, but rather to keep all the efforts of his mind and intentions of his heart set on purifying himself from carnal vices: for when these are driven out, at once the eyes of the heart, as if the veil of the passions were removed, will begin as it were naturally to gaze on the mysteries of Scripture: since they were not declared to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit in order that they should remain unknown and obscure; but they are rendered obscure by our fault, as the veil of our sins covers the eyes of the heart, and when these are restored to their natural state of health, the mere reading of Holy Scripture is by itself amply sufficient for beholding the true knowledge, nor do they need the aid of commentators, just as these eyes of flesh need no man's teaching how to see, provided that they are free from dimness or the darkness of blindness. For this reason there have arisen so great differences and mistakes among commentators because most of them, paying no sort of attention towards purifying the mind, rush into the work of interpreting the Scriptures, and in proportion to the density or impurity of their heart form opinions that are at variance with and contrary to each other's and to the faith, and so are unable to take in the light of truth." (The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia, 5:33-34)
He explains that some passages of scripture are difficult to understand, but he still leaves the responsibility of interpreting with the individual, not with an infallible Roman Catholic hierarchy:
"The authority of holy Scripture says on those points on which it would inform us some things so plainly and clearly even to those who are utterly void of understanding, that not only are they not veiled in the obscurity of any hidden meaning, but do not even require the help of any explanation, but carry their meaning and sense on the surface of the words and letters: but some things are so concealed and involved in mysteries as to offer us an immense field for skill and care in the discussion and explanation of them. And it is clear that God has so ordered it for many reasons: first for fear lest the holy mysteries, if they were covered by no veil of spiritual meaning, should be exposed equally to the knowledge and understanding of everybody, i.e., the profane as well as the faithful and thus there might be no difference in the matter of goodness and prudence between the lazy and the earnest: next that among those who are indeed of the household of faith, while immense differences of intellectual power open out before them, there might be the opportunity of reproving the slothfulness of the idle, and of proving the keenness and diligence of the earnest. And so holy Scripture is fitly compared to a rich and fertile field, which, while bearing and producing much which is good for man's food without being cooked by fire, produces some things which are found to be unsuitable for man's use or even harmful unless they have lost all the roughness of their raw condition by being tempered and softened down by the heat of fire. But some are naturally fit for use in both states, so that even when uncooked they are not unpleasant from their raw condition, but still are rendered more palatable by being cooked and heated by fire. Many more things too are produced only fit for the food of irrational creatures, and cattle, and wild animals and birds, but utterly useless as food for men, which while still in their rough state without being in any way touched by fire, conduce to the health and life of cattle. And we can clearly see that the same system holds good in that most fruitful garden of the Scriptures of the Spirit, in which some things shine forth clear and bright in their literal sense, in such a way that while they have no need of any higher interpretation, they furnish abundant food and nourishment in the simple sound of the words, to the hearers: as in this passage: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord; and: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength.' But there are some which, unless they are weakened down by an allegorical interpretation, and softened by the trial of the fire of the spirit cannot become wholesome food for the inner man without injury and loss to him; and damage rather than profit will accrue to him from receiving them: as with this passage: 'But let your loins be girded up and your lights burning;' and: 'whosoever has no sword, let him sell his coat and buy himself a sword;' and: 'whosoever taketh not up his cross and followeth after Me is not worthy of Me;' a passage which some most earnest monks, having 'indeed a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge' understood literally, and so made themselves wooden crosses, and carried them about constantly on their shoulders, and so were the cause not of edification but of ridicule on the part of all who saw them. But some are capable of being taken suitable and properly in both ways, i.e., the historical and allegorical, so that either explanation furnishes a healing draught to the soul; as this passage: 'If any one shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;' and: 'when they persecute you in one city, flee to another;' and: 'if thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow Me.' It produces indeed 'grass for the cattle' also, (and of this food all the fields of Scripture are full); viz., plain and simple narratives of history, by which simple folk, and those who are incapable of perfect and sound understanding (of whom it is said 'Thou, Lord, wilt save both man and beast') may be made stronger and more vigorous for their hard work and the labour of actual life, in accordance with the state and measure of their capacity. Wherefore on those passages which are brought forward with a clear explanation we also can constantly lay down the meaning and boldly state our own opinions. But those which the Holy Spirit, reserving for our meditation and exercise, has inserted in holy Scripture with veiled meaning, wishing some of them to be gathered from various proofs and conjectures, ought to be step by step and carefully brought together, so that their assertions and proofs may be arranged by the discretion of the man who is arguing or supporting them. For sometimes when a difference of opinion is expressed on one and the same subject, either view may be considered reasonable and be held without injury to the faith either firmly, or doubtfully, i.e., in such a way that neither is full belief nor absolute rejection accorded to it, and the second view need not interfere with the former, if neither of them is found to be opposed to the faith: as in this case: where Elias came in the person of John, and is again to be the precursor of the Lord's Advent: and in the matter of the 'Abomination of desolation' which 'stood in the holy place,' by means of that idol of Jupiter which, as we read, was placed in the temple in Jerusalem, and which is again to stand in the Church through the coming of Antichrist, and all those things which follow in the gospel, which we take as having been fulfilled before the captivity of Jerusalem and still to be fulfilled at the end of this world. In which matters neither view is opposed to the other, nor does the first interpretation interfere with the second. And therefore since the question raised by us, does not seem to have been sufficiently or often ventilated among men, and is clear to most people, and from this fact what we bring forward may perhaps appear to some to be doubtful, we ought to regulate our own view (since it does not interfere with faith in the Trinity) so that it may be included among those things which are to be held doubtfully; although they rest not on mere opinions such as are usually given to guesses and conjectures, but on clear Scripture proof." (Conferences, 8:3-5)
11/19/02
Theophilus of Antioch doesn't seem to have thought that scripture is as unclear as Roman Catholicism claims. When discussing the prophetic books of scripture, which are some of the most difficult to understand, he said that people can understand the books sufficiently by reading them:
"And why should I recount the multitude of prophets, who are numerous, and said ten thousand things consistently and harmoniously? For those who desire it, can, by reading what they uttered, accurately understand the truth, and no longer be carried away by opinion and profitless labour....Moreover, it is said that among your writers there were prophets and prognosticators, and that those wrote accurately: who were informed by them. How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world. For the very accomplishment of predicted and already consummated events should demonstrate to those who are fond of information, yea rather, who are lovers of truth, that those things are really true which they declared concerning the epochs and eras before the deluge" (Theophilus to Autolycus, 2:35, 3:17)
11/20/02
Gregory of Nyssa didn't agree with the modern Roman Catholic apologists who claim that doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit aren't clear in scripture:
"For that there is a Word of God, and a Spirit of God, powers essentially subsisting, both creative of whatever has come into being, and comprehensive of things that exist, is shown in the clearest light out of the Divinely-inspired Scriptures." (The Great Catechism, 4)
11/21/02
Sozomen gives us an example of the inconsistencies in the traditions of the Roman church, this time with regard to penance. When's the last time you heard of the following taking place in the RCC?
"It is observed with great rigor by the Western churches, particularly at Rome, where there is a place appropriated to the reception of penitents, in which spot they stand and mourn until the completion of the services, for it is not lawful for them to take part in the mysteries; then they cast themselves, with groans and lamentations, prostrate on the ground. The bishop conducts the ceremony, sheds tears, and prostrates himself in like manner; and all the people burst into tears, and groan aloud. Afterwards, the bishop rises first from the ground, and raises up the others; he offers up prayer on behalf of the penitents, and then dismisses them. Each of the penitents subjects himself in private to voluntary suffering, either by fastings, by abstaining from the bath or from divers kinds of meats, or by other prescribed means, until a certain period appointed by the bishop. When the time arrives, he is made free from the consequences of his sin, and assembles at the church with the people. The Roman priests have carefully observed this custom from the beginning to the present time." (Ecclesiastical History, 7:16)
11/22/02
The modern Roman Catholic view of clerical celibacy was unknown during the earliest generations of Christianity. More and more limits were placed on clerical marriages with the passing of time. Early on, we see Paul referring to married bishops (1 Timothy 3:2), and we find references to married presbyters and bishops in Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians, 11), Cyprian (Letter 48:2), Eusebius (Church History, 6:42:3), Athanasius (Festal Letter 49:9), and elsewhere.
Socrates Scholasticus tells us about an incident that occurred at the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. Though clerical celibacy of various types had become popular by the time of Nicaea, allowing a married man to become a bishop was still widely accepted. Socrates Scholasticus tells us of a bishop who attended Nicaea, by the name of Paphnutius, who gave a wise warning about going too far with the enforcement of celibacy. He cites Hebrews 13:4, much as evangelicals do:
"Paphnutius then was bishop of one of the cities in Upper Thebes: he was a man so favored divinely that extraordinary miracles were done by him. In the time of the persecution he had been deprived of one of his eyes. The emperor honored this man exceedingly, and often sent for him to the palace, and kissed the part where the eye had been torn out. So great devoutness characterized the emperor Constantine. Let this single fact respecting Paphnutius suffice: I shall now explain another thing which came to pass in consequence of his advice, both for the good of the Church and the honor of the clergy. It seemed fit to the bishops to introduce a new law into the Church, that those who were in holy orders, I speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, should have no conjugal intercourse with the wives whom they had married while still laymen. Now when discussion on this matter was impending, Paphnutius having arisen in the midst of the assembly of bishops, earnestly entreated them not to impose so heavy a yoke on the ministers of religion: asserting that 'marriage itself is honorable, and the bed undefiled'; urging before God that they ought not to injure the Church by too stringent restrictions. 'For all men,' said he, 'cannot bear the practice of rigid continence; neither perhaps would the chastity of the wife of each be preserved': and he termed the intercourse of a man with his lawful wife chastity. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their sacred calling should abjure matrimony, according to the ancient tradition of the Church: but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been united. And these sentiments he expressed, although himself without experience of marriage, and, to speak plainly, without ever having known a woman: for from a boy he had been brought up in a monastery, and was specially renowned above all men for his chastity. The whole assembly of the clergy assented to the reasoning of Paphnutius: wherefore they silenced all further debate on this point, leaving it to the discretion of those who were husbands to exercise abstinence if they so wished in reference to their wives." (The Ecclesiastical History, 1:11)
11/23/02
Apparently, Julius Africanus didn't view scripture as being as unclear as Roman Catholics suggest it is. He refers to the clarity of Biblical prophecy, such as Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy, which is surely one of the more difficult passages of scripture. He says that Jews and other non-Christians can easily understand these things:
"But I am amazed that the Jews deny that the Lord has yet come, and that the followers of Marcion refuse to admit that His coming was predicted in the prophecies when the Scriptures display the matter so openly to our view." (The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus, 18)
11/24/02
Julius Africanus apparently had no concept of getting his canon of scripture from the Roman Catholic magisterium, nor was he aware of an apostolic tradition supporting the RCC's Old Testament canon. He explains that though he once accepted the apocryphal History of Susanna, he rejected it after his own personal examination of the evidence against the book's canonicity. And though Roman Catholics reject the concept that the Old Testament canon was entrusted to the Jews, Julius Africanus considered the Jews' rejection of the History of Susanna as "fatal" to the book's canonicity:
"In your sacred discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related of his youth. This at that time, as was meet, I accepted as genuine. Now, however, I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is spurious. For, in sooth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this....But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the Jews." (A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna)
11/25/02
Cyprian didn't agree with the eschatology of the RCC. Apparently, he was a premillennialist and held to the view that the world would last only six thousand years before the millennium began as the seventh day (a day being a thousand years):
"It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man....the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years" (Treatise 11; Preface, 2; On the Exhortation to Martyrdom, 11, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-121.htm#P7735_2602222)
That Cyprian viewed the return of Christ as something that would occur at the end of the six thousand years, not at the end of the seventh thousand, is suggested in passages such as the following. Notice that the first passage is from the treatise quoted above, which means that Cyprian referred to the coming of the Antichrist being near in the same document in which he referred to the six thousandth year being near. Thus, the seventh millennium would have to come after the Antichrist:
"You have desired, beloved Fortunatus that, l since the burden of persecutions and afflictions is lying heavy upon us, and in the ending and completion of the world the hateful time of Antichrist is already beginning to draw near, I would collect from the sacred Scriptures some exhortations for preparing and strengthening the minds of the brethren, whereby I might animate the soldiers of Christ for the heavenly and spiritual contest." (Treatise 11; Preface, 1, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-121.htm#P7735_2602222)
"For you ought to know and to believe, and hold it for certain, that the day of affliction has begun to hang over our heads, and the end of the world and the time of Antichrist to draw near, so that we must all stand prepared for the battle" (Letter 55:1)
"Nor let it disturb you, dearest brethren, if with some, in these last times, either an uncertain faith is wavering, or a fear of God without religion is vacillating, or a peaceable concord does not continue. These things have been foretold as about to happen in the end of the world; and it was predicted by the voice of the Lord, and by the testimony of the apostles, that now that the world is failing, and the Antichrist is drawing near, everything good shall fail, but evil and adverse things shall prosper." (Letter 67:7)
11/26/02
In previous segments of this series, I've given examples of Roman bishops, the Roman church, or Christians who lived in Rome contradicting Roman Catholicism. One wonders how these people could have not only been ignorant of Roman Catholic tradition, but would even contradict it. If the traditions weren't being passed down in unbroken succession in Rome, then where were they being passed down? And what does that tell us about the reliability of Rome?
Another example of Roman Catholicism being contradicted in Rome is Gaius, a Roman presbyter of the late second and early third centuries. Apparently, he rejected the canonicity of the gospel of John and the book of Revelation. He seems to have attributed the authorship of those two books to the heretic Cerinthus. Regarding the book of Revelation, Eusebius writes:
"We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, the author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius [Gaius], whose words we quoted above, in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this man: 'But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals.'" (Church History, 3:28:1-2)
The historian F.F. Bruce explains that the church father Hippolytus, in some works now lost to us, wrote against Gaius (The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988], pp. 168-169, 178). Bruce tells us that a twelfth century author, who apparently had access to those documents written by Hippolytus, affirms that Gaius is accused by Hippolytus of rejecting the canonicity of the gospel of John and Revelation.
11/27/02
Roman Catholic apologists often refer to church fathers accepting "the Apocrypha" as scripture. But the use of such a term is misleading, since different church fathers accepted different portions of the Apocrypha. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions includes *some* of the books of the Apocrypha in its canon, yet that canon is different from Roman Catholicism's. Notice, for example, that there are three books of Maccabees included rather than two:
"Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of Moses--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty psalms; three books of Solomon--Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach." (8:47:85)
11/28/02
Origen advocated the preexistence of the soul. He refers to the condition of a person's life at birth being determined by his behavior prior to this life:
"When He in the beginning created those beings which He desired to create, i.e., rational natures, He had no other reason for creating them than on account of Himself, i.e., His own goodness. As He Himself, then, was the cause of the existence of those things which were to be created, in whom there was neither any variation nor change, nor want of power, He created all whom He made equal and alike, because there was in Himself no reason for producing variety and diversity. But since those rational creatures themselves, as we have frequently shown, and will yet show in the proper place, were endowed with the power of free-will, this freedom of will incited each one either to progress by imitation of God, or reduced him to failure through negligence. And this, as we have already stated, is the cause of the diversity among rational creatures, deriving its origin not from the will or judgment of the Creator, but from the freedom of the individual will. Now God, who deemed it just to arrange His creatures according to their merit, brought down these different understandings into the harmony of one world, that He might adorn, as it were, one dwelling, in which there ought to be not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay (and some indeed to honour, and others to dishonour), with those different vessels, or souls, or understandings. And these are the causes, in my opinion, why that world presents the aspect of diversity, while Divine Providence continues to regulate each individual according to the variety of his movements, or of his feelings and purpose. On which account the Creator will neither appear to be unjust in distributing (for the causes already mentioned) to every one according to his merits; nor will the happiness or unhappiness of each one's birth, or whatever be the condition that falls to his lot, be deemed accidental...It seems worth while, then, to inquire what is meant by this new term [the word 'foundation' in Ephesians 1:4]; and I am, indeed, of opinion that, as the end and consummation of the saints will be in those ages which are not seen, and are eternal, we must conclude (as frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from a contemplation of that very end, that rational creatures had also a similar beginning. And if they had a beginning such as the end for which they hope, they existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in those ages which are not seen, and are eternal. And if this is so, then there has been a descent from a higher to a lower condition, on the part not only of those souls who have deserved the change by the variety of their movements, but also on that of those who, in order to serve the whole world, were brought down from those higher and invisible spheres to these lower and visible ones, although against their will-'Because the creature was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected the same in hope;' so that both sun, and moon, and stars, and angels might discharge their duty to the world, and to those souls which, on account of their excessive mental defects, stood in need of bodies of a grosser and more solid nature; and for the sake of those for whom this arrangement was necessary, this visible world was also called into being." (De Principiis, 2:9:6, 3:5:4)
11/29/02
The Roman Catholic Church has restricted the reception of the eucharist to people who have reached the age of reason (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1244), but some of the church fathers advocated the practice of infant communion. Some even taught that participating in communion was necessary for the salvation of infants. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"In the Oriental and North African churches prevailed the incongruous custom of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism, and was advocated by Augustine and Innocent I. on the authority of John vi. 53. In the Greek church this custom continues to this day, but in the Latin, after the ninth century, it was disputed or forbidden, because the apostle (1 Cor. xi. 28, 29) requires self-examination as the condition of worthy participation." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm, section 97)
The Innocent I Schaff refers to was a Roman bishop. Thus, we have another example of modern Roman Catholic teaching not only being unknown in Rome, but even being contradicted there.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge comments:
"In the primitive Church, the newly baptized were immediately admitted to communion; and with the growing frequency of infant baptism the same custom was still maintained. Cyprian (De lapsis, ix.) speaks of children who at the outset of their lives have received 'the meat and drink of the Lord,' and similar evidence may be collected from the Apostolic Constitutions, Dionysius the Areopagite, Paulinus of Nola (d. 431), and Gennadiue of Marseilles (c. 492). The necessity of communion to salvation being taught on the basis of John vi. 53, this argument is applied to the communion of infants by Augustine and by Innocent I." (http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc07&page=39&view=thml)
Cyprian refers to an infant taking part in communion. His comments about the child resisting the wine aren't meant to be a condemnation of infant communion. Rather, Cyprian is describing what happened to a child whose mother had sinned, a child who had been fed with sacrifices to idols after being abandoned by her mother. Thus, Cyprian approves of infant communion, but he disapproves of an unrepentant mother bringing her child, who had been corrupted by taking part in idolatrous practices, to take part in communion. Notice that Cyprian refers to the mother failing to deceive "God's priest", thus suggesting that Cyprian approved of the priest practicing infant communion:
"When, however, the solemnities were finished, and the deacon began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup. Still the deacon persisted, and, although against her efforts, forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup. Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lord's power, so great is His majesty. The secrets of darkness were disclosed under His light, and not even hidden crimes deceived God's priest. This much about an infant, which was not yet of an age to speak of the crime committed by others in respect of herself." (Treatise 3, On the Lapsed, 25-26)
Cyprian also implies his acceptance of infant communion elsewhere in the same document (9).
11/30/02
"If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema." - Council of Trent (session 21, "On Communion Under Both Species, and on the Communion of Infants", canon 4)
"Will, however, any man be so bold as to say that this statement has no relation to infants, and that they can have life in them without partaking of His body and blood--on the ground that He does not say, Except one eat, but 'Except ye eat;' as if He were addressing those who were able to hear and to understand, which of course infants cannot do? But he who says this is inattentive...From all this it follows, that even for the life of infants was His flesh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that even they will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man." - Augustine (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, 1:27)
12/1/02
Augustine contradicted Roman Catholicism on a lot of issues. I've given many examples in this series, I could cite many more, and I will be citing more as the series progresses. An article by Peter Stravinskas in the September/October 1998 issue of Envoy, a conservative Roman Catholic magazine, comments:
"The great St. Augustine too held this position: No salvation for Christian heretics or schismatics, no salvation for Jews or pagans living since the beginning of the Christian era and no salvation for any unbelievers, even those who never heard the Gospel preached....Despite Augustine's tremendous influence, several of his opinions never gained acceptability in the Church. Among them, we can list the following theories: that God would condemn unbaptized infants to hell, simply because of the inheritance of original sin; that God would justly condemn adults who had never had the chance to be presented with the Gospel, again, due solely to original sin's hold on them; that some people would suffer eternal damnation for no other reason than God's lack of interest in saving them! As we reflect on these Augustinian positions, we must recall the fact that just because someone is a saint or even a doctor of the Church does not make his entire body of teaching acceptable; only the Church's Magisterium can decide what is and is not consonant with Her understanding of the truth of Christ." (http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html)
Stravinskas mentions the damnation of unbaptized infants. Here are some examples of what Augustine wrote on the subject, in contrast to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1283) telling us to pray for the salvation of unbaptized infants:
"Now in which of these classes must we place infants--amongst those who believe on the Son, or amongst those who believe not the Son? In neither, say some, because, as they are not yet able to believe, so must they not be deemed unbelievers. This, however, the rule of the Church does not indicate, for it joins baptized infants to the number of the faithful. Now if they who are baptized are, by virtue of the excellence and administration of so great a sacrament, nevertheless reckoned in the number of the faithful, although by their own heart and mouth they do not literally perform what appertains to the action of faith and confession; surely they who have lacked the sacrament must be classed amongst those who do not believe on the Son, and therefore, if they shall depart this life without this grace, they will have to encounter what is written concerning such--they shall not have life, but the wrath of God abideth on them....So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness [of sin]." (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, 1:28)
"And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin [infants], to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world. Thus, when reprobate angels and men are left to endure everlasting punishment, the saints shall know more fully the benefits they have received by grace." (The Enchiridion, 93-94)
12/2/02
The Apostolic Constitutions disagrees with the New Testament canon of Roman Catholicism:
"But our sacred books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles." (8:47:85)
12/3/02
Origen suggests universal salvation:
"If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist." (De Principiis, 3:5:7)
12/4/02
When discussing the canon of scripture, Roman Catholics often refer to how a church father accepted the canonicity of "the Apocrypha". What they often don't explain, perhaps because they don't know it, is that these church fathers sometimes accept a different portion of the Apocrypha than the RCC accepts. Some of the church fathers accepted books that aren't accepted by Roman Catholicism. The Epistle of Barnabas, for example, cites 2 Esdras and 1 Enoch as scripture:
"The final stumbling-block (or source of danger) approaches, concerning which it is written, as Enoch says, 'For for this end the Lord has cut short the times and the days, that His Beloved may hasten; and He will come to the inheritance.'...In like manner He points to the cross of Christ in another prophet, who saith, 'And when shall these things be accomplished? And the Lord saith, When a tree shall be bent down, and again arise, and when blood shall flow out of wood.'...For the Scripture saith, 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction.'" (4, 12, 16)
12/5/02
Tertullian cites 1 Enoch as scripture. He seems to quote the book in the following passage:
"But, that you may not suppose that it is merely those bodies which are consigned to tombs whose resurrection is foretold, you have it declared in Scripture: 'And I will command the fishes of the sea, and they shall cast up the bones which they have devoured; and I will bring joint to joint, and bone to bone.'" (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 32)
Elsewhere, Tertullian defends the canonicity of 1 Enoch. Roman Catholics often cite church fathers disagreeing with the Old Testament canon of the Jews, but how often do those Catholics explain that rejecting the Jewish canon led some of these church fathers to also accept books that even the RCC rejects? Here's Tertullian rejecting the Jewish canon in favor of the canonicity of 1 Enoch:
"I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order of action to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason for rejecting it, let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's 'grace in the sight of God,' and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of his preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition of things made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house. If Noah had not had this conservative power by so short a route, there would still be this consideration to warrant our assertion of the genuineness of this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra. But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that 'every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.' By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that very reason, just like all the other portions nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude." (On the
Apparel of Women, 1:3)
12/6/02
The church father Victorinus seems to have accepted a Jewish rendering of the Old Testament canon, not the Roman Catholic rendering. The Jewish canon is referred to as consisting of either 22 or 24 books, depending on how the books are combined. While interpreting Revelation 4, Victorinus comments that the 24 elders in that passage are an allusion to the 24 books of the Old Testament:
"The four and twenty elders are the twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment....These are the testimonies of the books of the Old Testament. Thus, twenty and four make as many as there are elders sitting upon the thrones....And the books of the Old Testament that are received are twenty-four, which you will find in the epitomes of Theodore." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 4:7-8)
12/7/02
Although the RCC claims that its canon of scripture was derived from apostolic tradition (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 120), Eusebius didn't agree with the canon of Roman Catholicism:
"But we have learned that his [Peter's] extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine" (Church History, 3:3:1, 3:3:4)
12/8/02
Pope Pius XII approvingly wrote:
"Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos." (Munificentissimus Deus)
Roman Catholics often claim that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, even though the latter part of the chapter speaks about events, including events of the end times, which didn't occur during Mary's life. Even if we view the woman as Mary, the passage doesn't logically lead to the Assumption of Mary, a doctrine for which the passage is often cited.
The church father Methodius says that the woman is the church, not Mary. He refers to *the* correct view of the woman, so he doesn't seem to have thought that there were multiple correct interpretations. Apparently, he thought it would be incorrect to view the woman as Mary:
"The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: 'Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see; all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.' It is the Church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters." (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8:5)
Not only did Methodius not view the woman as Mary, but he didn't even think that the child is Christ. He describes the child in Revelation 12 as the people who are regenerated in baptism through the work of the church. He argues against those who think the child is Christ:
"The Church, then, stands upon our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fulness of the nations come in, labouring and bringing forth natural men as spiritual men; for which reason too she is a mother. For just as a woman receiving tim unformed seed of a man, within a certain time brings forth a perfect man, in the same way, one should say, does the Church conceive those who flee to the Word, and, forming them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state. Whence it is necessary that she should stand upon the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it....If any one, for there is no difficulty in speaking distinctly, should be vexed, and reply to what we have said: 'But how, O virgins, can this explanation seem to you to be according to the mind of Scripture, when the Apocalypse plainly defines that the Church brings forth a male, while you teach that her labour-pains have their fulfilment in those who are washed in the laver?' We will answer, But, O faultfinder, not even to you will it be possible to show that Christ Himself is the one who is born. For long before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word was fulfilled. And John speaks concerning things present and things to come. But Christ, long ago conceived, was not caught up to the throne of God when He was brought forth, from fear of the serpent injuring Him. But for this was He begotten, and Himself came down from the throne of the Father, that He should remain and subdue the dragon who made an assault upon the flesh. So that you also must confess that the Church labours and gives birth to those who are baptized." (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8:6-7)
Methodius disagreed with Pope Pius XII and Roman Catholicism's modern apologists.
12/9/02
Hippolytus says that the woman of Revelation 12 is the church. He says that this interpretation is "most manifest", and he contradicts numerous details of the Marian interpretation:
"By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the 'moon under her feet' he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, 'upon her head a crown of twelve stars,' refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, 'she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,' mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. 'And she brought forth,' he says, 'a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;' by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, 'her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,' signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.' 'And the dragon,' he says, 'saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.' That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: 'And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.'" (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 61)
12/10/02
Victorinus wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation. We would *expect* somebody to mention a Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 in such a document, if he held such a view. Instead, Victorinus says that the woman is the people of God, and he goes on at length to contradict numerous details of the Marian interpretation:
"The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people....And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 12:1-2)
When commenting on how the woman flees into the wilderness *after* the child is taken up to Heaven, Victorinus suggests that the fleeing into the wilderness hasn't occurred yet:
"Although, therefore, it may signify this woman bringing forth, it shows her afterwards flying when her offspring is brought forth, because both things did not happen at one time; for we know that Christ was born, but that the time should arrive that she should flee from the face of the serpent: we do not know that this has happened as yet." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 12:16)
Thus, if the fleeing into the wilderness hadn't occurred yet, at a time *after* Mary's death, the woman cannot be Mary.
Victorinus goes on to say that some of the events of Revelation 12 are to occur in the end times:
"This is the beginning of Antichrist yet previously Elias must prophesy, and there must be times of peace. And afterwards, when the three years and six months are completed in the preaching of Elias, he also must be cast down from heaven, where up till that time he had had the power of ascending; and all the apostate angels, as well as Antichrist, must be roused up from hell." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 12:17)
If the woman of Revelation 12 is still alive in the end times, she, once again, can't be Mary.
12/11/02
For hundreds of years, no church father said that Mary was sinless from conception onward. During that same time, many church fathers and Roman bishops said that she *was* a sinner. Roman Catholics try to counter such widespread evidence by arguing that at least *some* church fathers did believe in the sinlessness of Mary. One of the most commonly cited fathers in this context, if not *the* most commonly cited, is Ephraim. Catholic Answers cites him as follows:
"'You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?' (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])." (http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp)
Ephraim says nothing of sinlessness from conception onward. He may have believed, like Augustine, that Mary *became* sinless, but was conceived in sin.
In another passage, Ephraim writes (as though Mary was speaking):
"The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became His Mother; and as by a second birth I brought Him forth so did He bring me forth by the second birth, because He put His Mother's garments on, she clothed her body with His glory." (On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh, 11)
If Mary took part in *the* second birth, the implication is that she was a sinner who was regenerated. After citing the same passage cited by Catholic Answers, in addition to citing other passages that refer to Mary being spiritually "baptized" and "cleansed", the Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll wrote:
"These texts are no contradiction of Mary's initial holiness; nor are others found in the Armenian version of the commentary on the Diatessaron which seem to imply fault - doubt, for example, on the Resurrection. Here E. confused Mary with Mary Magdalene. Again the absence of a doctrine of Original Sin cannot be invoked." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], pp. 132-133)
In other words, O'Carroll is telling us that Ephraim viewed Mary as being spiritually baptized and cleansed and saw her as doubting the resurrection, yet he may have viewed her as sinless anyway. We can understand why a Roman Catholic scholar would put forward such an argument, but it isn't credible. If Ephraim viewed Mary as participating in the second birth, as being spiritually baptized and cleansed, as doubting Christ's resurrection, then he probably didn't think she was sinless from conception onward. Thus, Ephraim is another example of how a church father can hold a high view of Mary, even viewing her as sinless or almost sinless for a large portion of her life, without thereby agreeing with the Roman Catholic view of her.
12/12/02
Is Psalm 132:8 referring to an assumption of Mary? Augustine says that the ark is the church, not Mary. He mentions the flesh of Christ as another possibility, but says nothing of a Marian interpretation, much less an assumption of Mary. Compare the comments of Pope Pius XII with those of Augustine:
"this privilege of the Virgin Mary's Assumption is in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture...Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption [of Mary]. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified' [Psalm 132:8]; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven." - Pope Pius XII (Munificentissimus Deus)
"'Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting place' (ver. 8). He saith unto the Lord sleeping, 'Arise.' Ye know already who slept, and who rose again. ...'Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctification:' that is, Arise, that the ark of Thy sanctification, which Thou hast sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, hath been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Thy Body, that they who believe not may handle." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 132:8)
Notice that Augustine mentions Mary, saying that Christ's body was "born of Mary". Thus, it can't be argued that Augustine wasn't thinking of Mary at the time that he wrote. He *was* thinking of her, but he didn't view her as the ark. He didn't even mention a Marian interpretation as a secondary possibility. The only alternative he mentions to seeing the church as the ark is seeing Christ's flesh as the ark.
12/13/02
Is the queen in Psalm 45:9-14 Mary, and is the passage alluding to the Assumption of Mary? Pope Pius XII approvingly cites Roman Catholics who interpreted the passage that way:
"Treating of this subject, they [Roman Catholic theologians and preachers] also describe her [Mary] as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer [Psalm 45:9-14]." (Munificentissimus Deus)
But Augustine sees the queen as the church, not Mary, and he says nothing about an assumption of Mary:
"For all the souls that have been born through their preaching and evangelizing are 'daughters of kings:' and the Churches, as the daughters of Apostles, are daughters of kings....Behold, Rome, Carthage, and several other cities are the daughters of kings, and yet have they 'made glad the King in His honour:' and all these make up one single Queen....'Upon Thy right hand did stand the Queen' (ver. 9). She which stands on the left is no Queen. For there will be one standing on 'the left' also, to whom it will be said, 'Go into everlasting fire.' But she shall stand on the right hand, to whom it will be said, 'Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' On Thy right hand did stand the Queen, 'in a vesture of gold, clothed about with divers colours.' What is the vesture of this Queen? It is one both precious, and also of divers colours: it is the mysteries of doctrine in all the various tongues: one African, one Syrian, one Greek, one Hebrew, one this, and one that; it is these languages that produce the divers colours of this vesture. But just as all the divers colours of the vesture blend together in the one vesture, so do all the languages in one and the same faith....The Prophet addresses this Queen (for he delights in singing to her), and moreover each one of us, provided, however, we know where we are, and endeavour to belong to that body [the church], and do belong to it in faith and hope, being united in the membership of Christ. For it is us whom he addresses, saying, 'Hearken, O daughter, and behold'" (Expositions on the Psalms, 45:21-23)
12/14/02
Roman Catholics make much of the fact that Mary had a unique relationship with Jesus as His mother. For example:
"God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice." - Pope Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus)
"These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that - as the constant companion of Jesus from the house at Nazareth to the height of Calvary, as beyond all others initiated to the secrets of his Heart, and as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits, - she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ." - Pope Pius X (Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum)
"God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection...enlightened by divine grace and moved by affection for her, God's Mother and our own dearest Mother, they have contemplated in an ever clearer light the wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the most provident God has lavished upon this loving associate of our Redeemer, privileges which reach such an exalted plane that, except for her, nothing created by God other than the human nature of Jesus Christ has ever reached this level." - Pope Pius XII (Minificentissimus Deus)
"Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy mother of God who was involved in the mysteries of Christ: she is rightly honored by a special cult in the Church." (Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", no. 66)
"The 'splendor of an entirely unique holiness' by which Mary is 'enriched from the first instant of her conception' comes wholly from Christ: she is 'redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son'. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person 'in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places' and chose her 'in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love'....'Full of grace', Mary is 'the most excellent fruit of redemption'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 492, 508)
But Tertullian interprets Luke 11:28 as a reference to other people being more blessed than Mary, who wasn't yet a faithful follower of Christ:
"But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother [Mary] there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren [of Jesus]. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation of a certain woman, not denying His mother's 'womb and paps,' but designating those as more 'blessed who hear the word of God.'" (On the Flesh of Christ, 7)
12/15/02
Like Tertullian, John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have agreed with the RCC that Mary is the greatest of God's creations. He comments as follows on Matthew 11:11, placing John the Baptist above Mary and every other human. He suggests that Christ is the *only* exception to Jesus' comment in Matthew 11:11:
"For as with kings, they who ride near the chariot, these are more illustrious than the rest, just so John [the Baptist] also appears in his course near the advent itself....Now what He said [about John the Baptist] is like this: 'woman hath not borne a greater than this man.'...And moreover His saying, 'There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John,' suited one contrasting John with Himself, and thus tacitly excepting Himself. For though He too were born of a woman, yet not as John, for He was not a mere man, neither was He born in like manner as a man, but by a strange and wondrous kind of birth." (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 37:2-3)
When interpreting Matthew 20:23, Chrysostom comments that James, John, or some other person could have the first place in the kingdom of Heaven, which would mean that they would be above Mary:
"What therefore Christ saith is this: 'Ye shall die indeed for me, and shall be slain for the sake of the gospel, and shall be partakers with me, as far as regards the passion: but this is not sufficient to secure you the enjoyment of the first seat, and to cause that ye should occupy the first place. For if any one else should come, together with the martyrdom, possessed of all the other parts of virtue far more fully than you, not because I love you now, and prefer you to the rest, therefore, shall I set aside him that is distinguished by his good works, and give the first honors to you.'" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 65:3)
12/16/02
Many people don't realize the extent of the RCC's claims about Mary. For example, while many people are aware of doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, it seems that relatively few are aware of claims such as the following:
"By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity....This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 967, 969)
According to the RCC, Mary *completely* adhered to the Father's will, following *every* prompting of the Holy Spirit. She was the spiritual mother of us all *uninterruptedly*, from the annunciation onward.
One wonders how such things could be true in light of the fact that Mary didn't even understand a simple statement Jesus made about His own identity after living with Mary for twelve years (Luke 2:49-50). Apparently, she was following *all* of the Father's will and *every* prompting of the Spirit, while she was the spiritual mother of all believers, yet, at the same time, she didn't even understand what Jesus said in Luke 2:49. She also was among the kinsmen who thought Jesus was insane (Mark 3:20-35), and she didn't honor Jesus as He should have been honored (Mark 6:3-4).
The church father Irenaeus doesn't seem to have agreed with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead of seeing Mary as following *all* of the Father's will and *every* prompting of the Spirit, he sees Mary as being rebuked by Jesus in John 2:4, since she was ignorant of what He was doing and was *interfering with* the Father's will:
"With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging Him on to perform the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come' -waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father." (Against Heresies, 3:16:7)
12/17/02
Jerome apparently didn't believe in the sinlessness of Mary. What I'm about to quote is from a treatise he wrote against Pelagianism. I'm not suggesting that Roman Catholicism agrees with all of the arguments used by Pelagians. Rather, I'm saying that *some* of what Jerome said against the Pelagians is relevant to the RCC's claim that Mary was sinless from conception onward. For example, Jerome repeatedly refers to the universality of sin among men (Jesus being exempted, since He's God, not just man), and he repeatedly asks the Pelagians for an example of a person who has lived without sin. Apparently, Jerome didn't think they'd be able to cite Mary as an example.
One portion of the quote below mentions Mary. It's important to understand the context. Jerome is arguing that a person can be *relatively* righteous, in comparison with other people, yet still be a sinner. He gives numerous examples to that effect. After mentioning Mary, he mentions John the Baptist. I've included the sentence in which John the Baptist is mentioned, so that it will be clear that Jerome is including Mary *among other people*. The implication is that though Mary is more righteous than some people, such as Elizabeth and Zacharias, she's only *relatively* righteous. She, too, is a sinner.
"Medical skill, craftsmanship, and so on, are found in many persons; but to be always without sin is a characteristic of the Divine power only. Therefore, either give me an instance of those who were for ever without sin; or, if you cannot find one, confess your impotence, lay aside bombast, and do not mock the ears of fools with this being and possibility of being of yours. For who will grant that a man can do what no man was ever able to do?...For if a man can be without sin, and it is clear the Apostles were not without sin, a man can be higher than the Apostles: to say nothing of patriarchs and prophets whose righteousness under the law was not perfect, as the Apostle says, 'For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God: being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiator.'...For it is just my own view that no creature can be perfect in respect of true and finished righteousness. But that one differs from another, and that one man's righteousness is not the same as another's, no one doubts; nor again that one may be greater or less than another, and yet that, relatively to their own status and capacity, men may be called righteous who are not righteous when compared with others....Elizabeth and Zacharias, whom you adduce and with whom you cover yourself as with an impenetrable shield, may teach us how far they are beneath the holiness of blessed Mary, the Lord's Mother, who, conscious that God was dwelling in her, proclaims without reserve, 'Behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear Him: He hath showed strength with His arm.' Where, observe, she says she is blessed not by her own merit and virtue, but by the mercy of God dwelling in her. And John himself, a greater than whom has not arisen among the sons of men, is better than his parents....And again, he in comparison with whom you are inferior will be a sinner in respect of some other virtue, relatively to you or to another person; and thus it happens that whoever is thought to be first, is inferior to him who is his superior in some other particular....We are not told that a man can be without sin, which is your view, but that God, if He chooses, can keep a man free from sin, and of His mercy guard him so that he may be without blemish. And I say that all things are possible with God; but that everything which a man desires is not possible to him, and especially, an attribute which belongs to no created thing you ever read of....And although he professes to imitate, or rather complete the work of the blessed martyr Cyprian in the treatise which the latter wrote to Quirinus, he does not perceive that he has said just the opposite in the work under discussion. Cyprian, in the fifty-fourth heading of the third book, lays it down that no one is free from stain and without sin, and he immediately gives proofs" (Against the Pelagians, 1:9, 1:14, 1:16, 1:23-24, 1:32)
12/18/02
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting Pope Paul VI, refers to Mary receiving attention along with Jesus in Heaven:
"We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven" (1053)
It's sometimes argued that Jesus' comment in Matthew 20:23 is a reference to Mary having a throne by Jesus' side in Heaven. Pope Pius X wrote:
"Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son - a refuge so secure and a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection." (Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum)
But John Chrysostom didn't think Mary was being referred to in Matthew 20:23. He tells us that *nobody* will be at Christ's side:
"For indeed there are two points that are subjects of inquiry to many: one, if it be prepared for any to sit on His right hand; and then, if the Lord of all hath not power to bestow it on them for whom it is prepared....No one shall sit on His right hand nor on His left. For that throne is inaccessible to all, I do not say to men only, and saints, and apostles, but even to angels, and archangels, and to all the powers that are on high. At least Paul puts it as a peculiar privilege of the Only-Begotten, saying, 'To which of the angels said He at any time, 'Sit thou on my right hand?' And of the angels He saith, 'who maketh His angels spirits;' but unto the Son, 'Thy throne, O God.'' How then saith He, 'To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give,' as though there are some that should sit there? Not as though there are; far from it; but He makes answer to the thoughts of them who ask the favor, condescending to their understanding." (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 65:3)
12/19/02
Justin Martyr apparently didn't believe in infant baptism. He mentions infants, then *contrasts* them with the recipients of baptism, who have committed sin, have knowledge of Christian doctrine, and exercise choice:
"Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." (First Apology, 61)
12/20/02
Unlike the Roman Catholic apologists who argue that the Trinity is unclear in scripture, Augustine considered the doctrine to be taught "plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation" in Matthew 3:16-17:
"For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?' He answered, 'Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled'), when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice,-the Son in the Man,-the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation. For the Lord Christ Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit. 'Jesus,' it is said, 'cometh;' that is, the Son of God. And who hath any doubt about the Dove? or who saith, 'What is the Dove?' when the Gospel itself most plainly testifieth, 'The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.' And in like manner as to that voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father's, when He saith, 'Thou art My Son.' Thus then we have the Trinity distinguished." (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 2:1)
12/21/02
Augustine didn't think that believing something as a result of reading scripture is equivalent to holding an unreliable private judgment. Unlike Catholics who claim that accepting a doctrine because of what you read in the Bible *is* private judgment, Augustine *contrasts* believing what the Bible teaches with having a mere private judgment:
"For thus doth our faith teach, that is, the true, the right Catholic faith, gathered not by the opinion of private judgment, but by the witness of the Scriptures, not subject to the fluctuations of heretical rashness, but grounded on Apostolic truth: this we know, this we believe." (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 2:2)
12/22/02
Roman Catholics often argue that the Council of Nicaea had to clarify Trinitarian doctrines that are either unclear in or absent from scripture. Hilary of Poitiers disagreed. He explains that what Nicaea taught about the deity of Christ was known to him, through the study of scripture, before he had even heard of the Nicene creed. He explains that the distinctions in Greek terminology associated with the Council of Nicaea were known to him from scripture:
"I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted o0moiou/sion by o0moou/sion. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of o0moou/sion and o0moiou/sion." (On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns, 91)
12/23/02
"Here also the advocates of images are wont to say this also, that the ancients knew well that images have no divine nature, and that there is no sense in them, but that they formed them profitably and wisely, for the sake of the unmanageable and ignorant mob, which is the majority in nations and in states, in order that a kind of appearance, as it were, of deities being presented to them, from fear they might shake off their rude natures, and, supposing that they were acting in the presence of the gods, put away their impious deeds, and, changing their manners, learn to act as men" - Arnobius (Against the Heathen, 6:24)
"great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety." - Council of Trent (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html, session 25, "On the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics, of Saints, and on Sacred Images")
12/24/02
"As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, 'Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;' and this other, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;' and again, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.' It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God....it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images." - Origen (Against Celsus, 7:64-65)
12/25/02
Athenagoras condemns the use of images, and he criticizes a pagan argument used to justify the veneration of images, an argument that Roman Catholics also use:
"In a word, of not one of these statues can it be said that it was not made by man. If, then, these are gods, why did they not exist from the beginning? Why, in sooth, are they younger than those who made them? Why, in sooth, in order to their coming into existence, did they need the aid of men and art? They are nothing but earth, and stones, and matter, and curious art....it is affirmed by some that, although these are only images, yet there exist gods in honour of whom they are made; and that the supplications and sacrifices presented to the images are to be referred to the gods, and are in fact made to the gods" (A Plea for the Christians, 17-18)
"Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented....The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, 'the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,' and 'whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1192, 2132)
12/26/02
Roman Catholics often refer to how they agree with the scripture interpretations of the church fathers and how their denomination has been consistent in what it's taught about faith *and morals*. They cite examples such as abortion and birth control, claiming that their denomination has always been consistent on such matters. If they're going to argue that consistency on such issues is significant, then they can't deny that it's significant if the church fathers disagree with them on *other* moral issues. Over the next several days, I'm going to be giving some examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholicism on moral issues.
How many Catholics would agree with Lactantius condemning all forms of killing, including capital punishment, serving in the military, and bringing a capital charge against another person:
"For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal." (The Divine Institutes, 6:20)
12/27/02
Roman Catholicism teaches that it's permissible to divorce sometimes and to remarry after an annulment or the death of a spouse (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1629, 2382-2383), but Athenagoras considered all divorce and remarriage to be sin, even remarriage after the death of a spouse:
"a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. 'For whosoever puts away his wife,' says He, 'and marries another, commits adultery;' not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer" - Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians, 33)
12/28/02
The RCC allows people to marry more than twice. Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott comments:
"The Council of Florence declared in the Decretum pro Jacobitis, that not only a second, but also a third or fourth or further marriages are permitted" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 467)
Basil tells us that we can marry only twice, citing John 4:18 as evidence:
"In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, 'he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.' He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife." (Letter 118:4)
12/29/02
The RCC has taught that even if a spouse commits adultery, there can be no divorce:
"If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, session 24, "On the Sacrament of Matrimony", canon 7)
Hermas, an early church father who lived in Rome, is another example of a father who disagreed with the Roman Catholic view of marriage:
"And I said to him, 'Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?' And he said to me, 'As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.' And I said to him, 'What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?' And he said, 'The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.' And I said to him, 'What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?' And he said to me, 'Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. Moreover, adultery is committed not only by those who pollute their flesh, but by those who imitate the heathen in their actions. Wherefore if any one persists in such deeds, and repents not, withdraw from him, and cease to live with him otherwise you are a sharer in his sin. Therefore has the injunction been laid on you, that you should remain by yourselves, both man and woman, for in such persons repentance can take place." (The Shepherd of Hermas, 2:4:1)
12/30/02
Though the RCC has been consistent in teaching that life begins at conception in recent times, Roman Catholic theologians and Popes in past centuries disagreed with what the RCC now teaches on the subject. Even earlier, Augustine doesn't seem to have been aware of any unbroken apostolic tradition on the matter:
"And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man's power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being." (The Enchiridion, 86)
12/31/02
Conservative Roman Catholics often oppose the claim that the world is overpopulated, as we see in a recent article published in Envoy magazine (http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.3/coverstory.html). Some of the church fathers, however, argued that the world is overpopulated. Tertullian, for example, wrote:
"What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race" (A Treatise on the Soul, 30)