Ambrose (sola scriptura, 3/12/03)
Ambrose (salvation, 3/15/03)
Aphrahat (Purgatory, 1/12/03)
Aphrahat (scripture interpretation, 2/6/03)
Apostolic Constitutions (ecumenism, 2/12/03)
Apostolic Constitutions (the papacy, 2/28/03)
Apostolic Constitutions (baptism, 3/23/03)
Aristides (infant salvation, 3/24/03)
Arnobius (salvation, 3/30/03)
Athanasius (baptism, 2/17/03)
Athenagoras (Purgatory, 1/15/03)
Athenagoras (prayer to the dead, 1/20/03)
Athenagoras (the eucharist, 2/5/03)
Augustine (salvation, 1/21/03)
Augustine (Purgatory, 1/28/03)
Basil (penance, 2/16/03)
Basil (baptism, 3/21/03)
Callistus (the Trinity, 2/27/03)
Callistus (clerical celibacy, 3/31/03)
Clement of Alexandria (prayer to the dead, 1/24/03)
Clement of Alexandria (baptism, 3/22/03)
Clement of Rome (church government, 2/9/03)
Commodianus (Purgatory, 1/16/03)
Cyprian (killing, 1/2/03)
Cyprian (baptism, 1/8/03)
Cyprian (Purgatory, 1/17/03)
Cyprian (prayer to the dead, 1/25/03)
Cyprian (succession of truth, 1/30/03)
Cyprian (church government, 2/10/03)
Cyprian (sola scriptura, 3/6/03)
Cyprian (prayer, 3/7/03)
Cyprian (the eucharist, 3/8/03)
Cyprian (salvation, 3/9/03)
Cyril of Jerusalem (baptism, 2/18/03)
Cyril of Jerusalem (the sinlessness of Mary, 3/26/03)
The Didache (church government, 2/8/03)
Dionysius of Alexandria (baptism, 1/10/03)
Dionysius of Alexandria (the Trinity, 3/19/03)
Eusebius (the eucharist, 3/16/03)
Eusebius (the eucharist, 3/17/03)
Eusebius (the deity of Christ, 3/18/03)
Firmilian (baptism, 1/9/03)
Gaius (the perspicuity of scripture, 1/19/03)
Gregory Nazianzen (the sinlessness of Mary, 3/27/03)
Gregory Thaumaturgus (Mary as mediator, 2/15/03)
Gregory Thaumaturgus (Purgatory, 3/25/03)
Hermas (salvation, 3/29/03)
Hippolytus (eschatology, 2/20/03)
Hippolytus (the papacy, 3/1/03)
Ignatius (salvation, 1/23/03)
Ignatius (salvation, 2/21/03)
Ignatius (ecumenism, 3/10/03)
Irenaeus (infant salvation, 1/5/03)
Irenaeus (ecumenism, 2/22/03)
Irenaeus (veneration of images, 2/26/03)
Irenaeus (sola scriptura, 3/3/03)
Jerome (overpopulation, 1/1/03)
John Chrysostom (salvation, 1/22/03)
John Chrysostom (infant salvation, 2/13/03)
Justin Martyr (veneration of images, 2/11/03)
Justin Martyr (sola scriptura, 3/2/03)
Justin Martyr (the sinlessness of Mary, 3/28/03)
Lactantius (salvation, 2/7/03)
Lactantius (the church, 2/24/03)
Lactantius (Israel's future, 3/14/03)
Melito of Sardis (the perspicuity of scripture, 1/29/03)
Minucius Felix (veneration of images, 2/1/03)
Minucius Felix (Purgatory, 2/2/03)
Minucius Felix (salvation, 2/3/03)
Minucius Felix (the eucharist, 2/4/03)
Origen (marriage, 1/4/03)
Origen (the historicity of scripture, 1/11/03)
Origen (Purgatory, 1/14/03)
Origen (the fall, 2/14/03)
Origen (the Trinity, 3/20/03)
Phileas (the papacy, 1/18/03)
Polycarp (ecumenism, 3/11/03)
Tertullian (marriage, 1/3/03)
Tertullian (infant salvation, 1/6/03)
Tertullian (baptism, 1/7/03)
Tertullian (Purgatory, 1/13/03)
Tertullian (prayer to the dead, 1/26/03)
Tertullian (the church, 2/23/03)
Tertullian (the faithfulness of Rome, 2/25/03)
Tertullian (succession of truth, 3/4/03)
Tertullian (tradition, 3/5/03)
Tertullian (the status of Mary, 3/13/03)
Theonas (the perspicuity of scripture, 2/19/03)
Victorinus (Purgatory, 1/27/03)
Victorinus (Revelation 11:19, 1/31/03)
1/1/03
"The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil." - Jerome (The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius, 23)
1/2/03
"Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow...Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.... Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2264-2265, 2267)
"they [Christians] do not in turn assail their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent even to kill the guilty" - Cyprian (Letter 56:2)
1/3/03
"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)
"Since, therefore, His [Jesus'] prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions...Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender....For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.' He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together...He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness." - Tertullian (Against Marcion, 4:34)
1/4/03
"The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, 'a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2382)
"After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, 'Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.' But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication." - Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 14:24)
1/5/03
In the past, Roman Catholic leaders have taught that unbaptized infants who die go to Hell. More recently, however:
"The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth....All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism....With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1250, 1261, 1283)
In other words, the RCC accuses people who delay baptism of children of depriving them of "priceless grace", neglecting an "urgent" situation, and risking the possibility that the child won't be saved if he dies. According to the RCC, the salvation of unbaptized children is questionable, and can be altered after death through prayer.
Irenaeus disagreed. He considered all infants who die to be saved, and not on the basis of baptism:
"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." (Against Heresies, 4:28:3)
1/6/03
Unlike the RCC, Tertullian was convinced that deceased infants go to Heaven, regardless of whether they were baptized:
"if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place [the heavenly region of Hades] the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent?" (A Treatise on the Soul, 58)
1/7/03
The RCC teaches that baptisms performed by heretics are valid. Those converting from heresy to true doctrine don't need to be rebaptized:
"If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, session 7, "On Baptism", canon 4)
But some of the church fathers disagreed. Tertullian, for example, wrote:
"There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well according to the Lord's gospel as according to the apostle's letters, inasmuch as he says, 'One God, and one baptism, and one church in the heavens.' But it must be admitted that the question, 'What rules are to be observed with regard to heretics?' is worthy of being treated. For it is to us that that assertion refers. Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one-that is, the same-Christ. And therefore their baptism is not one with ours either, because it is not the same; a baptism which, since they have it not duly, doubtless they have not at all; nor is that capable of being counted which is not had. Thus they cannot receive it either, because they have it not." (On Baptism, 15)
1/8/03
"Lucian, our co-presbyter, has reported to me, dearest brother, that you have wished me to declare to you what I think concerning those who seem to have been baptized by heretics and schismatics; of which matter, that you may know what several of us fellow-bishops, with the brother presbyters who were present, lately determined in council, I have sent you a copy of the same epistle. For I know not by what presumption some of our colleagues are led to think that they who have been dipped by heretics ought not to be baptized when they come to us, for the reason that they say that there is one baptism which indeed is therefore one, because the Church is one, and there cannot be any baptism out of the Church. For since there cannot be two baptisms, if heretics truly baptize, they themselves have this baptism. And he who of his own authority grants this advantage to them yields and consents to them, that the enemy and adversary of Christ should seem to have the power of washing, and purifying, and sanctifying a man. But we say that those who come thence are not re-baptized among us, but are baptized. For indeed they do not receive anything there, where there is nothing; but they come to us, that here they may receive where there is both grace and all truth, because both grace and truth are one." - Cyprian (Letter 70:1)
1/9/03
Firmilian, writing in opposition to the Roman bishop Stephen, explains that heretical baptism is invalid:
"But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles...Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone....For as a heretic may not lawfully ordain nor lay on hands, so neither may he baptize, nor do any thing holily or spiritually, since he is an alien from spiritual and deifying sanctity....And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen [bishop of Rome], that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles." (in Cyprian's Letter 74:6-7, 74:19)
"If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, session 7, "On Baptism", canon 3)
1/10/03
Dionysius of Alexandria wrote the following about how he and many other bishops, along with numerous councils, opposed the validity of baptism by heretics:
"He [Stephen, bishop of Rome] therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying that he would not commune with them for this same cause; namely, that they re-baptized heretics. But consider the importance of the matter. For truly in the largest synods of the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been passed on this subject, that those coming over from heresies should be instructed, and then should be washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven. And I wrote entreating him concerning all these things." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 7:5:4-5)
1/11/03
How many conservative Roman Catholics would agree with Origen's view of the historicity of scripture? He affirms that much of what's recorded as history in the Bible did occur, but he also dismisses a lot as unhistorical:
"And if we come to the legislation of Moses, many of the laws manifest the irrationality, and others the impossibility, of their literal observance. The irrationality is this, that the people are forbidden to eat vultures, although no one even in the direst famines was ever driven by want to have recourse to this bird; and that children eight days old, which are uncircumcised, are ordered to be exterminated from among their people, it being necessary, if the law were to be carried out at all literally with regard to these, that their fathers, or those with whom they are brought up, should be commanded to be put to death. Now the Scripture says: 'Every male that is uncircumcised, who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, shall be cut off from among his people.' And if you wish to see impossibilities contained in the legislation, let us observe that the goat-stag is one of those animals that cannot exist, and yet Moses commands us to offer it as being a clean beast; whereas a griffin, which is not recorded ever to have been subdued by man, the lawgiver forbids to be eaten....But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history [in scripture] is real because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, understood according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Savior are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses; or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed; - we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements. For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification." (De Principiis, 4:17, 4:19)
1/12/03
Aphrahat apparently rejected the concept of Purgatory. He refers to the souls of believers going to be with Christ in a sort of state of sleep until the time of the resurrection. He refers to believers not fearing death and entering into peace, citing 2 Corinthians 5:8, as evangelicals do:
"For when men die, the animal spirit is buried with the body, and sense is taken away from it, but the heavenly spirit that they receive goes according to its nature to Christ. And both these the Apostle has made known, for he said:-The body is buried in animal wise, and rises again in spiritual wise. The Spirit goes back again to Christ according to its nature, for the Apostle said again:-When we shall depart from the body we shall be with our Lord. For the Spirit of Christ, which the spiritual receive, goes to our Lord....But our faith thus teaches, that when men fall asleep, they sleep this slumber without knowing good from evil. And the righteous look not forward to their promises, nor do the wicked look forward to their sentence of punishment, until the Judge come and separate those whose place is at His right hand from those whose place is at His left....From all these things, understand thou, my beloved, as it has been made certain for thee, that as yet no one has received his reward. For the righteous have not inherited the kingdom, nor have the wicked gone into torment. The Shepherd has not as yet divided His flock. And lo! the workmen enter into the vineyard, and as yet have not received the reward. And lo! the merchants are trading with the money. And as yet their Lord has not come to take the account. And the King has gone to receive the Kingdom, but as yet He has not returned the second time. And those virgins that are waiting the bridegroom are sleeping up to the present time, and are awaiting the cry when they will awake. And the former men who toiled in the faith until the last men shall come, shall not be made perfect....the spirit which the righteous receive, according to its heavenly nature, goes to our Lord until the time of the Resurrection, when it shall come to put on the body in which it dwelt. And at every time it has the memory of this in the presence of God, and looks eagerly for the Resurrection of that body in which it dwelt...The sons of peace remember death; and they forsake and remove from them wrath and enmity. As sojourners they dwell in this world, and prepare for themselves a provision for the journey before them. On that which is above they set their thoughts, on that which is above they meditate; and those things which are beneath their eyes they despise. They send away their treasures to the place where there is no peril, the place where there is no moth, nor are there thieves. They abide in the world as aliens, sons of a far land; and look forward to be sent out of this world and to come to the city, the place of the righteous. They afflict themselves in the place of their sojourning; and they are not entangled or occupied in the house of their exile. Ever day by day their faces are set upwards, to go to the repose of their fathers. As prisoners are they in this world, and as hostages of the King are they kept. To the end they have no rest in this world, nor is their hope in it, that it will continue for ever." (Demonstrations, 6:14, 8:20, 8:22-23, 22:9)
1/13/03
Though Roman Catholic apologists often erroneously cite Tertullian in support of the doctrine of Purgatory (http://catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp), the historian Jacques Le Goff explains:
"Between Tertullian's refrigerium interim [a region of the afterlife some believers go to] and Purgatory there is a difference not only of kind - for Tertullian it is a matter of a restful wait until the Last Judgment, whereas with Purgatory it is a question of a trial that purifies because it is punitive and expiatory - but also of duration: souls remain in refrigerium until the resurrection but in Purgatory only as long as it takes to expiate their sins." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 47-48)
Tertullian sees some believers going to a different region *within* Heaven, a place of enjoyment, that lasts until the time of judgment. Purgatory, on the other hand, is a place of suffering that can end before the judgment. Tertullian writes:
"there is some determinate place called Abraham's bosom, and that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham's children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is 'the father of many nations,' which must be classed amongst his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham's bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the 'full recompense of their reward.'" (Against Marcion, 4:34)
Did Tertullian believe in different regions *within* what we commonly consider Heaven? Yes. Did he believe in praying for the dead and offering sacrifices for them? Yes. Did he believe in Purgatory? No.
1/14/02
Origen believed in a purification after death, similar to the Roman Catholic concept of Purgatory in some ways, but also different in some ways. Philip Schaff writes:
"Origen, following in the path of Plato, used the term 'purgatorial fire,' by which the remaining stains of the soul shall be burned away; but he understood it figuratively, and connected it with the consuming fire at the final judgment, while Augustin and Gregory I. transferred it to the middle state." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch12.htm, section 156)
Jacques Le Goff comments:
"In this vision of the other world [advocated by Clement of Alexandria and Origen] a number of ingredients of the true Purgatory are lacking, however. No clear distinction is made between time in Purgatory and the time of the Last Judgment. This confusion is so troublesome that Origen is forced both to expand the end of the world and to collapse it into a single moment, while at the same time making its prospect imminent. Purgatory is not really distinguished from Hell, and there is no clear awareness that Purgatory is a temporary and provisional abode. The responsibility for postmortem purification is shared by the dead, with their weight of sin, and God, the benevolent judge of salvation; the living play no part. Finally, no place is designated as the place of purgatory. By making the purifying fire not only 'spiritual' but also 'invisible,' Origen prevented the imagination of the faithful from gaining a purchase on it." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 57)
In one place, Origen comments:
"I think, therefore, that all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls, in which they are to be instructed regarding all the things which they had seen on earth, and are to receive also some information respecting things that are to follow in the future, as even when in this life they had obtained in some degree indications of future events, although 'through a glass darkly,' all of which are revealed more clearly and distinctly to the saints in their proper time and place. If any one indeed be pure in heart, and holy in mind, and more practised in perception, he will, by making more rapid progress, quickly ascend to a place in the air, and reach the kingdom of heaven, through those mansions, so to speak, in the various places which the Greeks have termed spheres, i.e., globes, but which holy Scripture has called heavens; in each of which he will first see clearly what is done there, and in the second place, will discover the reason why things are so done: and thus he will in order pass through all gradations, following Him who hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, who said, 'I will that where I am, these may be also.' And of this diversity of places He speaks, when He says, 'In My Father's house are many mansions.' He Himself is everywhere, and passes swiftly through all things; nor are we any longer to understand Him as existing in those narrow Limits in which He was once confined for our sakes, i.e., not in that circumscribed body which He occupied on earth, when dwelling among men, according to which He might be considered as enclosed in some one place." (De Principiis, 2:11:6)
1/15/02
Athenagoras rejects the concept of Purgatory in favor of believers going to Heaven when they die. Not only does he say that believers go to Heaven, but he mentions Hell as the only alternative, without mentioning any Purgatory:
"For if we believed that we should live only the present life, then we might be suspected of sinning, through being enslaved to flesh and blood, or overmastered by gain or carnal desire; but since we know that God is witness to what we think and what we say both by night and by day, and that He, being Himself light, sees all things in our heart, we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated." (A Plea for the Christians, 31)
1/16/03
Commodianus refers to believers going to Heaven when they die, and the only alternative he mentions is Hell:
"For to him who has lived well there is advantage after death. Thou, however, when one day thou diest, shalt be taken away in an evil place. But they who believe in Christ shall be led into a good place, and those to whom that delight is given are caressed; but to you who are of a double mind, against you is punishment without the body." (The Instructions of Commodianus in Favour of Christian Discipline. Against the Gods of the Heathens., 24)
1/17/03
Roman Catholics often erroneously cite Cyprian as a supporter of the doctrine of Purgatory, at least a seed form of the doctrine. The historian Jacques Le Goff writes:
"Some writers have credited Cyprian with making an important doctrinal contribution to Purgatory as early as the mid-third century. In his Letter to Antonian [Letter 51:20] Cyprian distinguishes between two kinds of Christians: 'It is one thing to await forgiveness and another thing to arrive in glory; it is one thing to be sent to prison [in carcere] to be let out only when the last farthing has been paid and another thing to receive immediately the reward of faith and virtue; it is one thing to be relieved and purified of one's sins through a long suffering in fire and another thing to have all of one's faults wiped out by martyrdom; and it is one thing to be hanged by the Lord on Judgment Day and another to be crowned by him at once.'...Jay's refutation of the notion that Cyprian put forth a doctrine akin to that of Purgatory seems to me well founded. According to Jay, what is being discussed in the letter to Antonian is the difference between Christians who did not stand up to persecution (the lapsi and apostates) and the martyrs. It is not a question of 'purgatory' in the hereafter but of penitence here below. The reference to imprisonment has to do not with Purgatory, which in any case did not yet exist, but rather with the penitential discipline of the Church." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 57-58)
Cyprian repeatedly refers to believers going to Heaven when this life ends. For example:
"But, beloved brethren, this is so, because faith is lacking, because no one believes that the things which God promises are true, although He is true, whose word to believers is eternal and unchangeable. If a grave and praiseworthy man should promise you anything, you would assuredly have faith in the promiser, and would not think that you should be cheated and deceived by him whom you knew to be stedfast in his words and his deeds. Now God is speaking with you; and do you faithlessly waver in your unbelieving mind? God promises to you, on your departure from this world, immortality and eternity; and do you doubt? This is not to know God at all; this is to offend Christ, the Teacher of believers, with the sin of incredulity; this is for one established in the Church not to have faith in the house of faith. How great is the advantage of going out of the world, Christ Himself, the Teacher of our salvation and of our good works, shows to us, who, when His disciples were saddened that He said that He was soon to depart, spoke to them, and said, 'If ye loved me, ye would surely rejoice because I go to the Father;' teaching thereby, and manifesting that when the dear ones whom we love depart from the world, we should rather rejoice than grieve. Remembering which truth, the blessed Apostle Paul in his epistle lays it down, saying, 'To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain;' counting it the greatest gain no longer to be held by the snares of this world, no longer to be liable to the sins and vices of the flesh, but taken away from smarting troubles, and freed from the envenomed fangs of the devil, to go at the call of Christ to the joy of eternal salvation....We should consider, dearly beloved brethren - we should ever and anon reflect that we have renounced the world, and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers. Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise and the kingdom. Who that has been placed in foreign lands would not hasten to return to his own country? Who that is hastening to return to his friends would not eagerly desire a prosperous gale, that he might the sooner embrace those dear to him? We regard paradise as our country - we already begin to consider the patriarchs as our parents: why do we not hasten and run, that we may behold our country, that we may greet our parents? There a great number of our dear ones is awaiting us, and a dense crowd of parents, brothers, children, is longing for us, already assured of their own safety, and still solicitous for our salvation. To attain to their presence and their embrace, what a gladness both for them and for us in common! What a pleasure is there in the heavenly kingdom, without fear of death; and how lofty and perpetual a happiness with eternity of living! There the glorious company of the apostles - there the host of the rejoicing prophets - there the innumerable multitude of martyrs, crowned for the victory of their struggle and passion - there the triumphant virgins, who subdued the lust of the flesh and of the body by the strength of their continency - there are merciful men rewarded, who by feeding and helping the poor have done the works of righteousness - who, keeping the Lord's precepts, have transferred their earthly patrimonies to the heavenly treasuries. To these, beloved brethren, let us hasten with an eager desire; let us crave quickly to be with them, and quickly to come to Christ. May God behold this our eager desire; may the Lord Christ look upon this purpose of our mind and faith, He who will give the larger rewards of His glory to those whose desires in respect of Himself were greater!" (Treatises, 7, On the Mortality, 6-7, 26)
1/18/03
"In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1559)
"There is the law of our fathers and forefathers, of which neither art thou thyself ignorant, established according to divine and ecclesiastical order; for it is all for the good pleasure of God and the zealous regard of better things. By them it has been established and settled that it is not lawful for any bishop to celebrate ordinations in other parishes than his own; a law which is exceedingly important and wisely devised." - Phileas (The Epistle of the Same Phileas of Thmuis to Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis)
1/19/03
The Roman presbyter Gaius, in the process of refuting people who altered the text of scripture, refers to the faith of scripture as "simple":
"The sacred Scriptures they have boldly falsified, and the canons of the ancient faith they have rejected, and Christ they have ignored, not inquiring what the sacred Scriptures say, but laboriously seeking to discover what form of syllogism might be contrived to establish their impiety. And should any one lay before them a word of divine Scripture, they examine whether it will make a connected or disjoined form of syllogism; and leaving the Holy Scriptures of God, they study geometry, as men who are of the earth, and speak of the earth, and are ignorant of Him who cometh from above. Euclid, indeed, is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, forsooth, is perhaps even worshipped by some of them. But as to those men who abuse the arts of the unbelievers to establish their own heretical doctrine, and by the craft of the impious adulterate the simple faith of the divine Scriptures, what need is there to say that these are not near the faith? For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them." (Fragments of Caius, 2:3, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-134.htm#P9954_3097171)
1/20/03
Athenagoras apparently didn't believe in praying to the deceased. He suggests that prayers shouldn't be addressed to created beings:
"Because the multitude, who cannot distinguish between matter and God, or see how great is the interval which lies between them, pray to idols made of matter, are we therefore, who do distinguish and separate the uncreated and the created, that which is and that which is not, that which is apprehended by the understanding and that which is perceived by the senses, and who give the fitting name to each of them,-are we to come and worship images?...For if they differ in no respect from the lowest brutes (since it is evident that the Deity must differ from the things of earth and those that are derived from matter), they are not gods. How, then, I ask, can we approach them as suppliants, when their origin resembles that of cattle, and they themselves have the form of brutes, and are ugly to behold?" (A Plea for the Christians, 15, 20)
1/21/03
Augustine disagreed with numerous aspects of the modern Roman Catholic view of salvation. The Roman Catholic priest Peter Stravinskas gives us some examples:
"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)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'...'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'" (841, 847-848)
But Augustine wrote:
"Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth-because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way,-what must human nature do, or what has it done-for it had either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learnt that it was accomplished-but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: 'Then Christ died in vain.' For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, 'If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain.' If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath-in a word, from punishment-except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ....Whence they, who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. 'For all have sinned'-whether in Adam or in themselves-'and come short of the glory of God.'" (On Nature and Grace, Against Pelagius, 2, 4)
"no one is delivered from the condemnation which was incurred through Adam except through the faith of Jesus Christ, and yet from this condemnation they shall not deliver themselves who shall be able to say that they have not heard the gospel of Christ" (On Rebuke and Grace, 11)
1/22/03
John Chrysostom comments on Romans 10:18-19:
"'Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.' What do you say? he means. They have not heard? Why the whole world, and the ends of the earth, have heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard? Now can this ever be? Sure if the ends of the world heard, much more must you. Then again another objection. Ver. 19. 'But I say, Did not Israel know?' For what if they heard, he means, but did not know what was said, nor understand that these were the persons sent? Are they not to be forgiven for their ignorance? By no means." (Homilies on Romans, 18, vv. 18-19)
1/23/03
"'Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.' 'However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 817-818)
"Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God." - Ignatius (Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3)
1/24/03
Clement of Alexandria defines prayer as communication with God. He refers to Christians "passing over the whole world" in order to commune with God alone in prayer. He describes it as a form of worship to God. Apparently, he had no concept of praying to the dead:
"But if, by nature needing nothing, He delights to be honoured, it is not without reason that we honour God in prayer; and thus the best and holiest sacrifice with righteousness we bring, presenting it as an offering to the most righteous Word, by whom we receive knowledge, giving glory by Him for what we have learned....For the sacrifice of the Church is the word breathing as incense from holy souls, the sacrifice and the whole mind being at the same time unveiled to God. Now the very ancient altar in Delos they celebrated as holy; which alone, being undefiled by slaughter and death, they say Pythagoras approached. And will they not believe us when we say that the righteous soul is the truly sacred altar, and that incense arising from it is holy prayer?...Prayer is, then, to speak more boldly, converse with God. Though whispering, consequently, and not opening the lips, we speak in silence, yet we cry inwardly. For God hears continually all the inward converse. So also we raise the head and lift the hands to heaven, and set the feet in motion at the closing utterance of the prayer, following the eagerness of the spirit directed towards the intellectual essence; and endeavouring to abstract the body from the earth, along with the discourse, raising the soul aloft, winged with longing for better things, we compel it to advance to the region of holiness, magnanimously despising the chain of the flesh. For we know right well, that the Gnostic [believer] willingly passes over the whole world, as the Jews certainly did over Egypt, showing clearly, above all, that he will be as near as possible to God." (The Stromata, 7:6-7)
Compare Clement's comments to those of the Popes, who tell us to pour our hearts out to Mary, praying to her in *every* difficulty we face:
"With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race." (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)
"How grateful and magnificent a spectacle to see in the cities, and towns, and villages, on land and sea-wherever the Catholic faith has penetrated-many hundreds of thousands of pious people uniting their praises and prayers with one voice and heart at every moment of the day, saluting Mary, invoking Mary, hoping everything through Mary." (Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense)
1/25/03
When Jesus prayed, it was always to the Father, never to any deceased person (Matthew 26:39, Luke 6:12, John 17). When He taught others to pray, He always told them to pray to God, not to the deceased (Matthew 6:6, 7:11, Luke 10:2, 11:2). Similarly, David in the Psalms, Paul in his epistles, and other Biblical authors teach us to pray only to God. We find the same pattern in the earliest church fathers.
Cyprian wrote a treatise on The Lord's Prayer, a treatise that addresses prayer in general, even though it focuses on that one prayer in the gospels. He describes prayer as something done "in God's sight", something directed to God, not to people:
"Let us consider that we are standing in God's sight. We must please the divine eyes both with the habit of body and with the measure of voice. For as it is characteristic of a shameless man to be noisy with his cries, so, on the other hand, it is fitting to the modest man to pray with moderated petitions." (On the Lord's Prayer, 4)
Later in the treatise, he explains that The Lord's Prayer addresses "all our prayer", which implies that we're to pray only to God, since The Lord's Prayer is addressed only to God:
"What wonder is it, beloved brethren, if such is the prayer which God taught, seeing that He condensed in His teaching all our prayer in one saving sentence? This had already been before foretold by Isaiah the prophet, when, being filled with the Holy Spirit, he spoke of the majesty and loving-kindness of God, 'consummating and shortening His word,' He says, 'in righteousness, because a shortened word will the Lord make in the whole earth.'" (On the Lord's Prayer, 28)
In other words, Cyprian considers The Lord's Prayer to be an outline for *all* prayer, which necessarily excludes praying to anybody but God.
Later, Cyprian tells us that we pray to "nothing but the Lord", to "God alone":
"Moreover, when we stand praying, beloved brethren, we ought to be watchful and earnest with our whole heart, intent on our prayers. Let all carnal and worldly thoughts pass away, nor let the soul at that time think on anything but the object only of its prayer. For this reason also the priest, by way of preface before his prayer, prepares the minds of the brethren by saying, 'Lift up your hearts,' that so upon the people's response, 'We lift them up unto the Lord,' he may be reminded that he himself ought to think of nothing but the Lord. Let the breast be closed against the adversary, and be open to God alone" (On the Lord's Prayer, 31)
Throughout the treatise, Cyprian instructs the reader how to pray to God, and he repeatedly says that he's addressing *all* of our prayers in this treatise, yet he says nothing of praying to Mary, praying to Joseph, praying to Jude, or praying to anybody else other than God. Rather, he describes prayer as an act of worship and reverence to God, something addressed to God alone. An angel might bring our prayers to God, as we see in the book of Revelation, for example, but the prayer is to be addressed only to God. That's the Protestant view of prayer, it's the Biblical view, and it's the view of the earliest church fathers.
1/26/03
Like Cyprian, Tertullian takes The Lord's Prayer to be representative of all prayer. The object of all prayer, then, is God:
"God alone could teach how he wished Himself prayed to. The religious rite of prayer therefore, ordained by Himself, and animated, even at the moment when it was issuing out of the Divine mouth, by His own Spirit, ascends, by its own prerogative, into heaven, commending to the Father what the Son has taught." (On Prayer, 9)
Notice that Tertullian refers to "the religious rite of prayer", meaning that he's referring to all prayers, not just some. All prayers are "commended to the Father", following the pattern of The Lord's Prayer, according to Tertullian.
He explains that prayer is a sacrifice to God, which would exclude praying to anybody else:
"We are the true adorers and the true priests, who, praying in spirit, sacrifice, in spirit, prayer,-a victim proper and acceptable to God, which assuredly He has required, which He has looked forward to for Himself! This victim, devoted from the whole heart, fed on faith, tended by truth, entire in innocence, pure in chastity, garlanded with love, we ought to escort with the pomp of good works, amid psalms and hymns, unto God's altar, to obtain for us all things from God." (On Prayer, 28)
1/27/03
Victorinus refers to deceased believers, including martyrs, going to a heavenly region of Hades until the resurrection. He explains that this region of Hades is a place without punishment, a place of repose. He comments on Revelation 6:9-11 as follows:
"As the golden altar is acknowledged to be heaven, so also by the brazen altar is understood the earth, under which is the Hades,-a region withdrawn from punishments and fires, and a place of repose for the saints, wherein indeed the righteous are seen and heard by the wicked, but they cannot be carried across to them. He who sees all things would have us to know that these saints, therefore-that is, the souls of the slain-are asking for vengeance for their blood, that is, of their body, from those that dwell upon the earth; but because in the last time, moreover, the reward of the saints will be perpetual, and the condemnation of the wicked shall come, it was told them to wait. And for a solace to their body, there were given unto each of them white robes." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 6:9)
1/28/03
Augustine is widely considered the father of Purgatory. Roman Catholics often quote him referring to something similar to the modern Catholic doctrine. But what these Catholics don't explain is that Augustine acknowledged that he was speculating. In other words, he wasn't passing on some apostolic tradition handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles. Rather, he was speculating about what might happen in the afterlife. Jacques Le Goff explains:
"[Joseph Ntedika] has put his finger on a key point, showing not only that Augustine's position evolved over the years, which was to be expected, but that it underwent a marked change at a specific point in time, which Ntedika places in the year 413....In the Letter to Dardinus (417) he [Augustine] sketches a geography of the otherworld which makes no place for Purgatory." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 62, 70)
In other words, Augustine's views on the subject developed over time, and he was inconsistent. The Protestant historian George Salmon explains the significance of these facts:
"In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture to say that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may. Well, if the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a 'perhaps' at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for, if the Church had had any tradition in the time of Augustine, that great Father could not have helped knowing it." (The Infallibility of the Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], pp. 133-134)
Here's an example of Augustine expressing his uncertainty:
"And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it." (The Enchiridion, 69)
Now, doesn't that paint quite a different picture than what we get from Roman Catholic apologists who only quote Augustine affirming the doctrine of Purgatory, then portray it as evidence of some apostolic tradition always held by the church?
1/29/03
Roman Catholics often refer to doctrines such as the deity of Christ and His two natures as being absent from or unclear in scripture. Phil Porvaznik, for example, wrote:
"We don't know with certainty until the Church has made her definition. Same can be asked of Jesus: how do we know his divinity goes back to eternity, that he was equal in substance and nature with God the Father, and this continues once he became a man. After all, Jesus said while on earth 'the Father is greater than I' (John 14:28) and similar texts suggest the Son's subordination to the Father (1 Cor 11:3; 15:28). The Church ruled on this at the Council of Nicaea (and subsequent Councils) so now we can be sure about the deity of Christ and the orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity." (http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/pp7.htm)
Melito of Sardis, on the other hand, refers to such doctrines as "assured" by what we're told about Jesus in the Bible. He tells us that any "person of intelligence" can see Christ's deity and His two natures just by knowing some of the basic facts about His life:
"For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to His baptism, that His soul and His body, His human nature like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination. For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages." (Fragments, 7, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-164.htm#P11877_3511609)
1/30/03
Roman Catholicism claims to have passed down all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history. For example:
"For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus -- that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning." (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)
"This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, 'the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.' 'The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.'...The Church, 'the pillar and bulwark of the truth', faithfully guards "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints". She guards the memory of Christ's words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles' confession of faith....In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a 'supernatural sense of faith' the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, 'unfailingly adheres to this faith.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 78, 171, 889)
Roman Catholics often criticize evangelicals for going to the Bible for their doctrinal conclusions rather than following a succession of doctrine passed down from the apostles. But Cyprian believed that past generations could err, and that we must go back to the original revelation given by God:
"Wherefore, if Christ alone must be heard, we ought not to give heed to what another before us may have thought was to be done, but what Christ, who is before all, first did. Neither is it becoming to follow the practice of man, but the truth of God; since God speaks by Isaiah the prophet, and says, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.' And again the Lord in the Gospel repeals this same saying, and says, 'Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.' Moreover, in another place He establishes it, saying, 'Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.' But if we may not break even the least of the Lord's commandments, how much rather is it forbidden to infringe such important ones, so great, so pertaining to the very sacrament of our Lord's passion and our own redemption, or to change it by human tradition into anything else than what was divinely appointed! For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered....And let this conclusion be reached, dearest brother: if from among our predecessors any have either by ignorance or simplicity not observed and kept this which the Lord by His example and teaching has instructed us to do, he may, by the mercy of the Lord, have pardon granted to his simplicity." (Letter 62:14, 62:17)
1/31/03
Roman Catholics often speculate that the ark in Revelation 11:19 is referring to Mary, and that the passage is therefore referring to a bodily assumption of Mary. It can't be proven that the ark is Mary, and, even if the ark is identified as her, there's no way to determine whether it represents Mary's bodily presence in Heaven or just her soul. Victorinus, commenting on the passage, sees the ark as representing the blessings Jesus brought to mankind. He tells us that the temple is Jesus, meaning that the ark is within Jesus. Roman Catholics make the opposite argument, claiming that the ark, as Mary, carries Jesus.
"'And the temple of God was opened which is in heaven.' The temple opened is a manifestation of our Lord. For the temple of God is the Son, as He Himself says: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' And when the Jews said, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building,' the evangelist says, 'He spake of the temple of His body.' 'And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord's testament.' The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 11:19)
2/1/03
The Octavius of Minucius Felix is a recounting of a debate that occurred between a Christian, Octavius, and a non-Christian, Caecilius. The moderator of the debate, Minucius Felix, tells us that the debate began as he, Octavius, and Caecilius were walking together along a seashore. As they passed an image along the way:
"Caecilius, observing an image of Serapis, raised his hand to his mouth, as is the custom of the superstitious common people, and pressed a kiss on it with his lips. Then Octavius said: 'It is not the part of a good man, my brother Marcus [Minucius Felix], so to desert a man who abides by your side at home and abroad, in this blindness of vulgar ignorance, as that you should suffer him in such broad daylight as this to give himself up to stones, however they may be carved into images, anointed and crowned; since you know that the disgrace of this his error redounds in no less degree to your discredit than to his own.'" (The Octavius of Minucius Felix, 2-3)
Caecilius, offended by Octavius' rebuke, challenges him to a debate, which is to be moderated by Minucius Felix. Notice that Octavius, a Christian, objects to blowing a kiss at an image. He refers to Caecilius "giving himself up to stones, however they may be carved into images". He doesn't seem to be objecting to the identity of the image Caecilius is venerating. Rather, he's objecting to venerating *any* image.
As the debate proceeds, Caecilius issues the following criticism against Christians:
"Why have they no altars, no temples, no acknowledged images?" (10)
Octavius, in his response, tries to explain why Christians reject images:
"In like manner with respect to the gods too, our ancestors believed carelessly, credulously, with untrained simplicity; while worshipping their kings religiously, desiring to look upon them when dead in outward forms, anxious to preserve their memories in statues, those things became sacred which had been taken up merely as consolations." (20)
Roman Catholics sometimes argue that the early fathers weren't objecting to images in general, but only to *some* images, such as images of people or gods who didn't exist. But Octavius goes on to comment:
"What is your Jupiter himself? Now he is represented in a statue as beardless, now he is set up as bearded" (21)
In other words, one of his objections to images is that we don't know what the people being portrayed in the image look like. One image is inconsistent with another image. The same criticism would apply to Roman Catholic images. We find different portrayals of Mary, for example, in images in different parts of the world.
Elsewhere, Octavius issues another criticism that would apply to Roman Catholic images just as much as any other image:
"How much more truly do dumb animals naturally judge concerning your gods? Mice, swallows, kites, know that they have no feeling: they gnaw them, they trample on them, they sit upon them; and unless you drive them off, they build their nests in the very mouth of your god. Spiders, indeed, weave their webs over his face, and suspend their threads from his very head. You wipe, cleanse, scrape, and you protect and fear those whom you make; while not one of you thinks that he ought to know God before he worships Him; desiring without consideration to obey their ancestors, choosing rather to become an addition to the error of others, than to trust themselves; in that they know nothing of what they fear. Thus avarice has been consecrated in gold and silver; thus the form of empty statues has been established; thus has arisen Roman superstition." (24)
How likely is it that somebody who supported the veneration of images, as long as the correct figures are being venerated, would refer to animals building nests on images? Animals can build nests on the allegedly sacred images of Roman Catholicism just as easily as they build nests on other allegedly sacred images.
Octavius goes on to say that demons are "consecrated under statues and images" (27). Any doubt that Octavius is objecting to images in general, not just non-Christian images, is removed when he explains why Christians have no images of God:
"But do you think that we conceal what we worship, if we have not temples and altars? And yet what image of God shall I make, since, if you think rightly, man himself is the image of God? What temple shall I build to Him, when this whole world fashioned by His work cannot receive Him? And when I, a man, dwell far and wide, shall I shut up the might of so great majesty within one little building? Were it not better that He should be dedicated in our mind, consecrated in our inmost heart?...But certainly the God whom we worship we neither show nor see. Verily for this reason we believe Him to be God, that we can be conscious of Him, but cannot see Him; for in His works, and in all the movements of the world, we behold His power ever present when He thunders, lightens, darts His bolts, or when He makes all bright again. Nor should you wonder if you do not see God....Do you wish to see God with your carnal eyes, when you are neither able to behold nor to grasp your own soul itself, by which you are enlivened and speak?" (32)
Contrary to Octavius, Roman Catholicism tells us:
"The required attentiveness [in meditation toward God] is difficult to sustain. We are usually helped by...holy icons" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2705)
2/2/03
In The Octavius of Minucius Felix, which I mentioned in the previous segment, Caecelius issues the following objection to Christians:
"Deceived by this error, they promise to themselves, as being good, a blessed and perpetual life after their death; to others, as being unrighteous, eternal punishment." (The Octavius of Minucius Felix, 11)
He apparently doesn't know of any Purgatory. Octavius, in his response, doesn't mention any Purgatory either, but instead only mentions Heaven and Hell:
"And in this respect I the more wonder at you, in the way in which you apply to a lifeless person, or to one who does not feel, a torch; or a garland to one who does not smell it, when either as blessed he does not want, or, being miserable, he has no pleasure in, flowers. Still we adorn our obsequies with the same tranquillity with which we live; and we do not bind to us a withering garland, but we wear one living with eternal flowers from God, since we, being both ate and secure in the liberality of our God, are animated to the hope of future felicity by the confidence of His present majesty. Thus we both rise again in blessedness, and are already living in contemplation of the future." (38)
2/3/03
Roman Catholicism teaches that people can be sincere and be seeking God, yet still be ignorant of God's identity and not knowingly believe in Christ:
"Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life." (Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", 16)
"'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'...Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 847-848, 1260)
In contrast:
"By these fictions [of non-Christian religions], and such as these, and by lies of a more attractive kind, the minds of boys are corrupted; and with the same fables clinging to them, they grow up even to the strength of mature age; and, poor wretches, they grow old in the same beliefs, although the truth is plain, if they will only seek after it....But that they who know not God are deservedly tormented as impious, as unrighteous persons, no one except a profane man hesitates to believe, since it is not less wicked to be ignorant of, than to offend the Parent of all, and the Lord of all....ignorance of God is sufficient for punishment, even as knowledge of Him is of avail for pardon" - Minucius Felix and Octavius (The Octavius of Minucius Felix, 22, 35)
2/4/03
Roman Catholics often refer to how central the eucharist is in their denomination. They loudly and frequently tell people of their belief that they consume the physical flesh and blood of Christ. Converts to Roman Catholicism often cite the eucharist, particularly belief in a physical transformation of the elements, as one of the reasons they converted, if not *the* main reason.
Would such a person write the following, in response to the charge that Christians murder infants and drink their blood:
"And now I should wish to meet him who says or believes that we are initiated by the slaughter and blood of an infant. Think you that it can be possible for so tender, so little a body to receive those fatal wounds; for any one to shed, pour forth, and drain that new blood of a youngling, and of a man scarcely come into existence? No one can believe this, except one who can dare to do it. And I see that you at one time expose your begotten children to wild beasts and to birds; at another, that you crush them when strangled with a miserable kind of death. There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come don from the teaching of your gods. For Saturn did not expose his children, but devoured them. With reason were infants sacrificed to him by parents in some parts of Africa, caresses and kisses repressing their crying, that a weeping victim might not be sacrificed. Moreover, among the Tauri of Pontus, and to the Egyptian Busiris, it was a sacred rite to immolate their guests, and for the Galli to slaughter to Mercury human, or rather inhuman, sacrifices. The Roman sacrificers buried living a Greek man and a Greek woman, a Gallic man and a Gallic woman; and to this day, Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder; and, what is worthy of the son of Saturn, he is gorged with the blood of an evil and criminal man. I believe that he himself taught Catiline to conspire under a compact of blood, and Bellona to steep her sacred rites with a draught of human gore, and taught men to heal epilepsy with the blood of a man, that is, with a worse disease. They also are not unlike to him who devour the wild beasts from the arena, besmeared and stained with blood, or fattened with the limbs or the entrails of men. To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food." - Minucius Felix and Octavius (The Octavius of Minucius Felix, 30)
Would a Roman Catholic make such comments without exempting the body and blood of Christ? Would a Roman Catholic say that he's so opposed to consuming human blood that he even refrains from animal blood? Would you criticize non-Christians who consume flesh and blood in their religious ceremonies? Any Roman Catholic who would use such argumentation would be leaving himself open to charges of dishonesty and hypocrisy.
2/5/03
In previous segments, I've given examples of some of the earliest church fathers denying that Christians consume human blood, without exempting Christ's blood. Athenagoras is another example:
"But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance" (On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)
Athenagoras denies that anybody can cite *any* example of God telling us to eat human flesh. He repeatedly uses the word "never", without making any exemptions.
How likely is it that all of these fathers believed in transubstantiation, yet repeatedly denied that they consume human flesh and blood, in numerous ways in numerous contexts, without ever making any exemption for the eucharist?
2/6/03
Aphrahat apparently had no concept of resolving difficulties in interpreting scripture by going to a Roman Catholic magisterium for infallible guidance. Compare the Roman Catholic approach toward scripture interpretation with what Aphrahat describes:
"Everyone who reads the sacred scriptures, both former and latter, in both covenants, and reads with persuasion, will learn and teach. But if he strives about anything that he does not understand, his mind does not receive teaching. But if he finds words that are too difficult for him, and he does not understand their force, let him say thus, 'Whatsoever is written is written well, but I have not attained to the understanding of it.' And if he shall ask about the matters that are too hard for him of wise and discerning men who inquire into doctrine, then, when ten wise men shall speak to him in ten different ways about one matter, let him accept that which pleases him; and if any please not him, let him not scorn the sages; for the word of God is like a pearl, that has a beautiful appearance on whatever side you turn it. And remember, O disciple, what David said, From all my teachers have I learned. And the Apostle said:-Thou readest every Scripture that is in the Spirit of God. And prove everything; hold fast that which is good; and flee from every evil thing. For if the days of a man should be many as all the days of the world from Adam to the end of the ages, and he should sit and meditate upon the Holy Scriptures, he would not comprehend all the force of the depth of the words." (Demonstrations, 22:26)
2/7/03
"Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life." (Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", 16)
"'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'...Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 847-848, 1260)
"But some one will say that this supreme Being, who made all things, and those also who conferred on men particular benefits, are entitled to their respective worship. First of all, it has never happened that the worshipper of these has also been a worshipper of God. Nor can this possibly happen. For if the honour paid to Him is shared by others, He altogether ceases to be worshipped, since His religion requires us to believe that He is the one and only God....For He [Jesus] gained life for us by overcoming death. No hope, therefore, of gaining immortality is given to man, unless he shall believe on Him, and shall take up that cross to be borne and endured....Truly religion is the cultivation of the truth, but superstition of that which is false. And it makes the entire difference what you worship, not how you worship, or what prayer you offer. But because the worshippers of the gods imagine themselves to be religious, though they are superstitious, they are neither able to distinguish religion from superstition...The first head of this law is, to know God Himself, to obey Him alone, to worship Him alone. For he cannot maintain the character of a man who is ignorant of God, the parent of his soul: which is the greatest impiety. For this ignorance causes him to serve other gods, and no greater crime than this can be committed. Hence there is now so easy a step to wickedness through ignorance of the truth and of the chief good; since God, from the knowledge of whom he shrinks, is Himself the fountain of goodness. Or if he shall wish to follow the justice of God, yet, being ignorant of the divine law, he embraces the laws of his own country as true justice, though they were clearly devised not by justice, but by utility....Civil law is one thing, which varies everywhere according to customs; but justice is another thing, which God has set forth to all as uniform and simple: and he who is ignorant of God must also be ignorant of justice. But let us suppose it possible that any one, by natural and innate goodness, should gain true virtues, such a man as we have heard that Cimon was at Athens, who both gave alms to the needy, and entertained the poor, and clothed the naked; yet, when that one thing which is of the greatest importance is wanting-the acknowledgment of God-then all those good things are superfluous and empty, so that in pursuing them he has laboured in vain. For all his justice will resemble a human body which has no head, in which, although all the limbs are in their proper position, and figure, and proportion, yet, since that is wanting which is the chief thing of all, it is destitute both of life and of all sensation. Therefore those limbs have only the shape of limbs, but admit of no use, as much so as a head without a body; and he resembles this who is not without the knowledge of God, but yet lives unjustly. For he has that only which is of the greatest importance; but he has it to no purpose, since he is destitute of the virtues, as it were, of limbs.Therefore, that the body may be alive, and capable of sensation, both the knowledge of God is necessary, as it were the head, and all the virtues, as it were the body. Thus there will exist a perfect and living man; but, however, the whole substance is in the head; and although this cannot exist in the absence of all, it may exist in the absence of some. And it will be an imperfect and faulty animal, but yet it will be alive, as he who knows God and yet sins in some respect. For God pardons sins. And thus it is possible to live without some of the limbs, but it is by no means possible to live without a head. This is the reason why the philosophers, though they may be naturally good, yet have no knowledge and no intelligence. All their learning and virtue is without a head, because they are ignorant of God, who is the Head of virtue and knowledge; and he who is ignorant of Him, though he may see, is blind; though he may hear, is deaf; though he may speak, is dumb. But when he shall know the Creator and Parent of all things, then he will both see, and hear, and speak. For he begins to have a head, in which all the senses are placed, that is, the eyes, and ears, and tongue. For assuredly he sees who has beheld with the eyes of his mind the truth in which God is, or God in whom the truth is; he hears, who imprints on his heart the divine words and life-giving precepts; he speaks, who, in discussing heavenly things, relates the virtue and majesty of the surpassing God. Therefore he is undoubtedly impious who does not acknowledge God; and all his virtues, which he thinks that he has or possesses, are found in that deadly road which belongs altogether to darkness." - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 1:19, 4:19, 4:28, 6:9)
2/8/03
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"'One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.' The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church's ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop. In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom....Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the 'gift of the Spirit,' the 'apostolic line.' Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders." (1559, 1576)
The Council of Trent condemns those who say that church leaders can be appointed by laymen:
"Furthermore, the sacred and holy Synod teaches, that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid: yea rather doth It decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door." (session 23, chapter 4, "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and on Ordination")
But The Didache tells laymen to appoint church leaders, without any reference to the approval of the bishop of Rome:
"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. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers." (15)
2/9/03
Though the Council of Trent criticized those who say that church leaders are to be appointed only with the approval of the whole church, Clement of Rome, himself a Roman bishop, disagreed:
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry." (First Clement, 44)
2/10/03
In contrast to what Roman Catholicism teaches, Cyprian tells us that church leaders are to be appointed by laymen:
"a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people, when he is protected by the help of God in persecution, faithfully linked with all his colleagues, approved to his people by now four years' experience in his episcopate" (Letter 54:6)
"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....For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. 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. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides." (67:3, 67:5)
The second citation above, from Letter 67, was written in the context of Cyprian opposing the Roman bishop Stephen in a dispute over church government. He criticizes Stephen for supporting the reappointment of a bishop who had been deposed by the people of the church:
"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." (67:5)
So, not only does Cyprian think that the approval of laymen is necessary for the appointing of a church leader, and not only does he think that the approval of the bishop of Rome isn't necessary, but he even thinks that laymen can appoint a bishop *in opposition to* the bishop of Rome. Compare Cyprian's comments to the teachings of the RCC:
"'One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.' The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church's ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop. In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom....Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the 'gift of the Spirit,' the 'apostolic line.' Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1559, 1576)
"Furthermore, the sacred and holy Synod teaches, that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid: yea rather doth It decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door." (Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 4, "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and on Ordination")
2/11/03
Justin Martyr opposes venerating images of the dead and making images of God:
"And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God (for we do not consider that God has such a form as some say that they imitate to His honour), but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared." (First Apology, 9)
He mentions the fact that the entities being honored are dead as a reason for not venerating their images. He criticizes attempts to portray God with images that aren't accurate representations of what God looks like. The same reasoning would prohibit Roman Catholics from venerating images of the deceased and making images of God, since they don't know what God looks like.
2/12/03
"If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended....If any Christian carries oil into an heathen temple, or into a synagogue of the Jews, or lights up lamps in their festivals, let him be suspended." - Apostolic Constitutions (8:47:65, 8:47:71)
"Pope John Paul and religious leaders including Muslims and Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, committed themselves on Thursday to work for peace and shun violence. Christian monks in brown woolen habits, saffron-robed Buddhists, black-cloaked Muslims, Sikhs wearing turbans, white-bearded Orthodox patriarchs and rabbis traveled together on a peace train to pray near the tomb of St. Francis. 'Violence never again! War never again! Terrorism never again! In the name of God, may every religion bring upon the earth justice and peace, forgiveness and life. Love,' the Pope said....Wearing his traditional white robe, the Roman Catholic leader sat on a red stage flanked by religious figures as they each addressed a crowd of 3,000 people in a white tent....The Pope...lit peace lamps with other participants...Assisi, a medieval city accustomed to Western choirs and Gregorian chants, was treated to something different as religious pluralism ruled. Geshe Tashi Tsering, wearing a crimson and saffron robe, began his time on the center stage with a Buddhist chant....It was the third such day of peace led by the Pope...After a morning session, the religious groups went off to pray in various rooms before sharing a vegetarian lunch and returning to the tent for the final pledges....But outside Assisi, not everyone was happy with the events. 'To pray with heretics, schismatics, rabbis, mullahs, witch doctors and various idolaters creates confusion among Catholic believers,' Federico Bricolo and Massimo Polledri, members of an Italian government coalition party, said in a statement." ("World Religious Leaders Join Pope in Peace Bid", Reuters, January 24, 2002)
"Catholics around the world are also being urged to pray for peace, and some local churches have planned services with other faiths....The call by John Paul II for a day of prayer has brought a positive response from the leaders of the world's religions." (BBC News, "Worried Pope prays for peace", January 23, 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1773515.stm)
"On Friday, the pope prayed with members of the Jewish community and Marek Edelman, the sole surviving leader of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, at Warsaw's Umschlagplatz, the ghetto site from which 300,000 Jews were deported to Treblinka and Auschwitz." (The Jerusalem Post, "Poland's chief rabbi asks 'Mr. Pope' to remove Auschwitz cross" June 13, 1999, http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/13.Jun.1999/News/Article-5.html)
"It was Sunday, and Cardinal Bernard F. Law had come to pray. So, wearing a gold crucifix and a flowing black robe with red trim, Law removed his shoes. Then, as the imam chanted the sunset prayers, the bishop knelt with his forehead just inches from the carpet and offered praise to Allah. No doubt, Law looked out of place at the Islamic Center of Boston last night - but he didn't feel that way. Law, who participated in the Wayland mosque's Ramadan observance as a gesture of good will, said he felt right at home among the Muslim worshipers....After the prayers, Law shared the iftar, the meal breaking the daily sunrise-to-sunset Ramadan fast." (The Boston Globe, "Law shares prayers, feast, hope with Muslims", November 25, 2002, http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/112502_law.htm)
"The final authority [for Catholics] is the living Magisterium, which, a priori, stands above criticism. Words, documents, and entire epochs of Church history have suffered the death of a thousand qualifications, and Rome still remains; ever-changing, ever the same. But what about the Protestant evangelical who, without a Magisterium, contemplates the path taken by his Roman Catholic counterpart?" (John Montgomery, God's Inerrant Word [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1974], p. 275)
2/13/03
In the past, Roman Catholic leaders have taught that unbaptized infants who die go to Hell. More recently, however:
"The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth....All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism....With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1250, 1261, 1283)
In other words, the RCC accuses people who delay baptism of children of depriving them of "priceless grace", neglecting an "urgent" situation, and risking the possibility that the child won't be saved if he dies. According to the RCC, the salvation of unbaptized children is questionable, and can be altered after death through prayer.
John Chrysostom, however, refers to children going to Heaven because of innocence. He explains that children murdered by sorcerers, children who probably wouldn't have been baptized, go to Heaven. He refers to what "many tell us" about these children being murdered, so he apparently had no knowledge of these children being baptized, since the knowledge of their being murdered was itself secondhand:
"'But what then wilt thou say,' one may ask, 'when many of the sorcerers take children and slay them, in order to have the soul afterwards to assist them?' Why, whence is this evident? for of their slaying them, indeed, many tell us, but as to the souls of the slain being with them, whence knowest thou it, I pray thee? 'The possessed themselves,' it is replied, 'cry out, I am the soul of such a one.' But this too is a kind of stage-play, and devilish deceit. For it is not the spirit of the dead that cries out, but the evil spirit that feigns these things in order to deceive the hearers. For if it were possible for a soul to enter into the substance of an evil spirit, much more into its own body....Nor indeed is it possible for a soul, torn away from the body, to wander here any more. For 'the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God;' and if of the righteous, then those children's souls also; for neither are they wicked: and the souls too of sinners are straightway led away hence." (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 28:3)
2/14/03
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin'." (417)
But Origen allegorized the early chapters of Genesis, arguing that Adam is a reference to all pre-existing human souls sinning before this life. He says that God clothing Adam and Eve after their sin is a reference to the pre-existing souls taking on human bodies:
"For as those whose business it is to defend the doctrine of providence do so by means of arguments which are not to be despised, so also the subjects of Adam and his son will be philosophically dealt with by those who are aware that in the Hebrew language Adam signifies man; and that in those parts of the narrative which appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is discoursing upon the nature of man in general. For 'in Adam' (as the Scripture says) 'all die,' and were condemned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, the word of God asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception. And the expulsion of the man and woman from paradise, and their being clothed with tunics of skins (which God, because of the transgression of men, made for those who had sinned), contain a certain secret and mystical doctrine (far transcending that of Plato) of the souls losing its wings, and being borne downwards to earth, until it can lay hold of some stable resting-place." (Against Celsus, 4:40)
2/15/03
Roman Catholicism tells us that we *should* and *must* go through Mary in order to get to Christ:
"With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race." (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)
"With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ, thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother....How grateful and magnificent a spectacle to see in the cities, and towns, and villages, on land and sea-wherever the Catholic faith has penetrated-many hundreds of thousands of pious people uniting their praises and prayers with one voice and heart at every moment of the day, saluting Mary, invoking Mary, hoping everything through Mary." (Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense)
"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." (Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi)
"Mary is all powerful with her divine Son who grants all graces to mankind through her" (Pope Benedict XV, Fausto Appetente Die)
But Gregory Thaumaturgus refers to Christ as the *only* necessary mediator, repeatedly using the word "alone":
"But let us commit the praises and hymns in honour of the King and Superintendent of all things, the perennial Fount of all blessings, to the hand of Him who, in this matter as in all others, is the Healer of our infirmity, and who alone is able to supply that which is lacking; to the Champion and Saviour of our souls, His first-born Word, the Maker and Ruler of all things, with whom also alone it is possible, both for Himself and for all, whether privately and individually, or publicly and collectively, to send up to the Father uninterrupted and ceaseless thanksgivings. For as He is Himself the Truth, and the Wisdom, and the Power of the Father of the universe, and He is besides in Him, and is truly and entirely made one with Him, it cannot be that, either through forgetfulness or unwisdom, or any manner of infirmity, such as marks one dissociated from Him, He shall either fail in the power to praise Him, or, while having the power, shall willingly neglect (a supposition which it is not lawful, surely, to indulge) to praise the Father. For He alone is able most perfectly to fulfil the whole meed of honour which is proper to Him, inasmuch as the Father of all things has made Him one with Himself, and through Him all but completes the circle of His own being objectively, and honours Him with a power in all respects equal to His own, even as also He is honoured; which position He first and alone of all creatures that exist has had assigned Him, this Only-begotten of the Father, who is in Him, and who is God the Word; while all others of us are able to express our thanksgiving and our piety only if, in return for all the blessings which proceed to us from the Father, we bring our offerings in simple dependence on Him alone, and thus present the meet oblation of thanksgiving to Him who is the Author of all things, acknowledging also that the only way of piety is in this manner to offer our memorials through Him." (The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origin, 4)
2/16/03
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)
In reality, there was no such system of private confession to a priest early on. Instead, the earliest documents suggest that there were numerous types of confession practiced, sometimes only private confessions to God and other times public confessions. Basil gives us some examples of the *public* confession practiced and the generally more public and more severe nature of the penitential system of his day:
"The intentional homicide, who has afterwards repented, will be excommunicated from the sacrament for twenty years. The twenty years will be appointed for him as follows: for four he ought to weep, standing outside the door of the house of prayer, beseeching the faithful as they enter in to offer prayer in his behalf, and confessing his own sin. After four years he will be admitted among the hearers, and during five years will go out with them. During seven years he will go out with the kneelers, praying. During four years he will only stand with the faithful, and will not take part in the oblation. On the completion of this period he will be admitted to participation of the sacrament. The unintentional homicide will be excluded for ten years from the sacrament. The ten years will be arranged as follows: For two years he will weep, for three years he will continue among the hearers; for four he will be a kneeler; and for one he will only stand. Then he will be admitted to the holy rites. The adulterer will be excluded from the sacrament for fifteen years. During four he will be a weeper, and during five a hearer, during four a kneeler, and for two a stander without communion. The fornicator will not be admitted to participation in the sacrament for seven years; weeping two hearing two kneeling two, and standing one: in the eighth he will be received into communion." (Letter 217:56-59)
2/17/03
"If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, session 7, "On Baptism", canon 4)
"And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them [the Arians], is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, 'O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says, 'Teach;' then thus: 'Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism. There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed." - Athanasius (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 2:42-43)
2/18/03
"We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said, Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas if thou fail once, the thing cannot be set right; for there is one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism: for only the heretics are re-baptized, because the former was no baptism." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, Procatechesis, 7)
2/19/03
Theonas tells us that nothing, not even the infallible scripture interpretations of the Roman Catholic magisterium, is as beneficial to the soul as reading scripture for yourself:
"Let no day pass by without reading some portion of the Sacred Scriptures, at such convenient hour as offers, and giving some space to meditation. And never cast off the habit of reading in the Holy Scriptures; for nothing feeds the soul and enriches the mind so well as those sacred studies do. But look to this as the chief gain you are to make by them, that, in all due patience, ye may discharge the duties of your office religiously and piously - that is, in the love of Christ - and despise all transitory objects for the sake of His eternal promises, which in truth surpass all human comprehension and understanding, and shall conduct you into everlasting felicity." (The Epistle of Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria, to Lucianus, the Chief Chamberlain, 9)
2/20/03
"And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day 'on which God rested from all His works.' For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they 'shall reign with Christ,' when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.'" - Hippolytus (On Daniel, 2:4)
2/21/03
"Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation." - Ignatius (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 6)
"Do not err, my brethren. Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled in this way, shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him." - Ignatius (Epistle to the Ephesians, 16)
"'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'...'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841, 847-848)
2/22/03
"There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.' And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, 'Dost thou know me?' 'I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.' Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, 'A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.'" - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:3:4)
"Pope John Paul and religious leaders including Muslims and Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, committed themselves on Thursday to work for peace and shun violence. Christian monks in brown woolen habits, saffron-robed Buddhists, black-cloaked Muslims, Sikhs wearing turbans, white-bearded Orthodox patriarchs and rabbis traveled together on a peace train to pray near the tomb of St. Francis. 'Violence never again! War never again! Terrorism never again! In the name of God, may every religion bring upon the earth justice and peace, forgiveness and life. Love,' the Pope said....Wearing his traditional white robe, the Roman Catholic leader sat on a red stage flanked by religious figures as they each addressed a crowd of 3,000 people in a white tent....The Pope...lit peace lamps with other participants...Assisi, a medieval city accustomed to Western choirs and Gregorian chants, was treated to something different as religious pluralism ruled. Geshe Tashi Tsering, wearing a crimson and saffron robe, began his time on the center stage with a Buddhist chant....It was the third such day of peace led by the Pope...After a morning session, the religious groups went off to pray in various rooms before sharing a vegetarian lunch and returning to the tent for the final pledges....But outside Assisi, not everyone was happy with the events. 'To pray with heretics, schismatics, rabbis, mullahs, witch doctors and various idolaters creates confusion among Catholic believers,' Federico Bricolo and Massimo Polledri, members of an Italian government coalition party, said in a statement." ("World Religious Leaders Join Pope in Peace Bid", Reuters, January 24, 2002)
2/23/03
"Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under 'three witnesses,' there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) there is the Church, which is a body of three." - Tertullian (On Baptism, 6)
"But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics [laymen]. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says." - Tertullian (On Exhortation to Chastity, 7)
2/24/03
Roman Catholics tell us that the church is a worldwide denomination led by a Pope, an institution whose legitimacy doesn't depend on moral character. But Lactantius tells us:
"In the next place, Solomon was never called the son of God, but the son of David; and the house which he built was not firmly established, as the Church, which is the true temple of God, which does not consist of walls, but of the heart and faith of the men who believe on Him, and are called faithful....But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable." (The Divine Institutes, 4:13, 4:30)
2/25/03
Roman Catholics often quote church fathers referring to the faithfulness and doctrinal purity of the Roman church and its bishops. They then argue that the Roman church and its bishops have been more faithful than other churches and bishops, and they even claim that Rome has a record of infallibility, without any departure from apostolic teaching. For example, Tertullian wrote:
"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority of apostles themselves. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even our churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith." (The Prescription Against Heretics, 36)
But elsewhere Tertullian refers to how Rome was corrupted by the heretic Praxeas and how one of the bishops of Rome supported the Montanist heresy:
"However, he [Satan] is himself a liar from the beginning, and whatever man he instigates in his own way; as, for instance, Praxeas. For he was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity, a man in other respects of restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison; on which occasion, even 'if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profiled him nothing,' not having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father." (Against Praxeas, 1)
2/26/03
In the context of describing the erroneous beliefs and practices of heretics, Irenaeus disapprovingly mentions that they venerate images "after the same manner of the Gentiles". The way in which they venerate images is no different from what Roman Catholics do. No Roman Catholic would disapprove of venerating an image of Jesus this way, but Irenaeus does disapprove of it:
"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Against Heresies, 1:25:6)
"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Against Heresies, 1:24:5)
2/27/03
The Roman bishop Callistus describes his heretical view of the Trinity:
"I will not profess belief in two Gods, Father and Son, but in one. For the Father, who subsisted in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made it one; so that Father and Son must be styled one God, and that this Person being one, cannot be two." (cited in Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, 9:7)
2/28/03
The Apostolic Constitutions has no concept of a papacy. Instead, it refers to local church leaders as holding the highest offices under God's authority:
"Wherefore both the presbyters and the deacons are those of authority in the Church next to God Almighty and His beloved Son....The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit." (8:44, 8:47:35)
3/1/03
Hippolytus seems to have had no concept of a papacy. He refers to the Roman bishop Victor as "a bishop", not as the universal ruler of all Christians on earth:
"But after a time, there being in that place other martyrs, Marcia, a concubine of Commodus, who was a God-loving female, and desirous of performing some good work, invited into her presence the blessed Victor, who was at that time a bishop of the Church, and inquired of him what martyrs were in Sardinia." (The Refutation of All Heresies, 9:7)
Hippolytus goes on to tell us that the Roman bishop Callistus set up a school of theology that was in opposition to "the Church". He explains that other churches ("sects") acted independently of the Roman church under Callistus. He refers to other Christians belonging to a different "congregation" and a different "school" than that of the Roman bishop Callistus. He refers to Callistus' followers wrongly considering themselves "a Catholic Church". In other words, not only does Hippolytus not see Callistus and his church as *the* catholic church, but he doesn't even see them as *a* catholic church. Apparently, Hippolytus had no concept of the Roman church and its bishop having universal jurisdiction.
"The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church....And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church!" (The Refutation of All Heresies, 9:7)
3/2/03
Justin Martyr wrote:
"And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: 'Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.'" (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)
A common Catholic response to such patristic passages is to argue that the church father in question was only referring to the importance of scripture, not its sufficiency. In other words, though Justin Martyr is correct that there's nothing better than scripture, he isn't denying that there can be other sources of *equal* authority, such as the traditions of Roman Catholicism.
But Justin criticizes those who would "leave" scripture, who wouldn't "constantly" look to it in their arguments. If we can't leave scripture, and we're to look to it constantly, what is that if not sola scriptura?
Another common Catholic response to such patristic passages is to claim that the church father was advocating the material sufficiency of scripture, but not its formal sufficiency. In other words, all doctrines can be derived from scripture, but we need the infallible Roman Catholic hierarchy to guide us, to tell us what is to be derived from the scriptures. But Justin doesn't say that. He doesn't refer to scripture being sufficient if accompanied by the interpretations of the Roman Catholic magisterium. Rather, he refers to scripture itself being sufficient. Just after his comments on the sufficiency of scripture, Justin goes on to quote a passage from the Psalms as proof for one of his arguments. Instead of quoting the Roman Catholic magisterium's interpretation of the Psalm, Justin tells us that the Psalm itself is the proof.
It doesn't seem, then, that Justin had material sufficiency in view. It seems that he was referring to the formal sufficiency of scripture. Even if he had been referring to material sufficiency, the popularity of material sufficiency in some Roman Catholic circles is of recent origin, and some Catholics still reject the concept.
If scripture is as insufficient, as unclear as Roman Catholics claim it is, one wonders why there wasn't some infallible interpreter of scripture in the Old Testament era, one to which both Justin Martyr and Trypho could have appealed in their disputes over the Messianic prophecies. Justin Martyr shows no knowledge of such an Old Testament infallible interpreter, nor does he show any knowledge of such an institution in this New Testament era.
3/3/03
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith....It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to 'the perfect' apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity....proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
3/4/03
Roman Catholicism claims that all apostolic teaching has been passed down in unbroken succession throughout church history. Yet, at the same time, we're told that a doctrine can be absent or contradicted in the historical sources for hundreds of years. When church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years deny that Mary was sinless, when one church father after another in the ante-Nicene era condemns the veneration of images, when the earliest patristic sources repeatedly deny the doctrine of Purgatory, we're told that such things are consistent with all Roman Catholic teaching being passed down in unbroken succession. Karl Keating, for example, writes:
"Something is clarified in one century, and in the next that clarification is investigated and built on so that a further clarification is produced. On and on it goes. What was determined with finality in the past is kept - there is no jettisoning of old doctrines for new - but fuller understandings are added." (Catholicism and Fundamentalism [San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1988], p. 152)
This process of development that Karl Keating and other Catholics refer to involves *contradictions*, such as the examples I cited above (the sinlessness of Mary, the veneration of images, Purgatory). But Tertullian tells us that in addition to the teachings of the apostles being passed down, the *explanations* of those teachings were also passed down. He condemns the concept of a doctrine not being understood by one generation, then being understood by a later generation. Notice that whereas Roman Catholic apologists cite John 16:13 in favor of one generation knowing of a doctrine that an earlier generation rejected, Tertullian cites John 16:13 as evidence that every doctrine was understood by the church since the time of the apostles:
"No doubt He had once said, 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;' but even then He added, 'When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth.' He thus shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down....But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any doctrines which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they disclosed others only in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: 'O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;' and again: 'That good thing which was committed unto thee keep.' What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, 'This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?' and also of that precept of which he says, 'I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?' Now, what is this commandment and what is this charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about some far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other doctrine than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: 'Before many witnesses' is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these 'many witnesses,' it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced 'before many witnesses.' Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to 'commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,' be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel....Openly did the Lord speak, without any intimation of a hidden mystery. He had Himself commanded that, 'whatsoever they had heard in darkness' and in secret, they should 'declare in the light and on the house-tops.'...Moreover, they [the apostles] remembered the words: 'Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil;' so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment....Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics." (The Prescription Against Heretics, 22, 25, 26-27)
3/5/03
Roman Catholic apologists often quote Tertullian referring approvingly to tradition. They cite him regarding the tradition of offering the eucharist for the dead, for example. Tertullian certainly did believe in tradition. But it wasn't Roman Catholic tradition. In the same passage in which he mentions offering the eucharist for the dead, he mentions other traditions that are rejected by Roman Catholicism, as the second citation below shows. Don't expect to see traditions like these ones practiced in your local Roman Catholic church:
"What prayer is complete if divorced from the 'holy kiss?' Whom does peace impede when rendering service to his Lord? What kind of sacrifice is that from which men depart without peace? Whatever our prayer be, it will not be better than the observance of the precept by which we are bidden to conceal our fasts; for now, by abstinence from the kiss, we are known to be fasting. But even if there be some reason for this practice, still, lest you offend against this precept, you may perhaps defer your 'peace' at home, where it is not possible for your fast to be entirely kept secret. But wherever else you can conceal your observance, you ought to remember the precept: thus you may satisfy the requirements of Discipline abroad and of custom at home." (On Prayer, 18)
"If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer." (The Chaplet, 3-4)
3/6/03
"Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: 'The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.' Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed." - Cyprian (Letter 73:2)
3/7/03
Cyprian gives us some traditions rejected by Roman Catholicism as he instructs us as to how to pray, and he claims to have derived these practices from scripture:
"And in discharging the duties of prayer, we find that the three children with Daniel, being strong in faith and victorious in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hour, as it were, for a sacrament of the Trinity, which in the last times had to be manifested. For both the first hour in its progress to the third shows forth the consummated number of the Trinity, and also the fourth proceeding to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when from the seventh the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered every three hours, which spaces of hours the worshippers of God in time past having spiritually decided on, made use of for determined and lawful times for prayer. And subsequently the thing was manifested, that these things were of old Sacraments, in that anciently righteous men prayed in this manner. For upon the disciples at the third hour the Holy Spirit descended, who fulfilled the grace of the Lord's promise. Moreover, at the sixth hour, Peter, going up unto the house-top, was instructed as well by the sign as by the word of God admonishing him to receive all to the grace of salvation, whereas he was previously doubtful of the receiving of the Gentiles to baptism. And from the sixth hour to the ninth, the Lord, being crucified, washed away our sins by His blood; and that He might redeem and quicken us, He then accomplished His victory by His passion. But for us, beloved brethren, besides the hours of prayer observed of old, both the times and the sacraments have now increased in number. For we must also pray in the morning, that the Lord's resurrection may be celebrated by morning prayer. And this formerly the Holy Spirit pointed out in the Psalms, saying, 'My King, and my God, because unto Thee will I cry; O Lord, in the morning shalt Thou hear my voice; in the morning will I stand before Thee, and will look up to Thee.' And again, the Lord speaks by the mouth of the prophet: 'Early in the morning shall they watch for me, saying, Let us go, and return unto the Lord our God.' Also at the sunsetting and at the decline of day, of necessity we must pray again." (On the Lord's Prayer, 34-35)
3/8/03
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily." (1389)
While Roman Catholicism "encourages" daily participation, but denies its necessity, Cyprian argues that it is necessary:
"For Christ is the bread of life; and this bread does not belong to all men, but it is ours. And according as we say, 'Our Father,' because He is the Father of those who understand and believe; so also we call it 'our bread,' because Christ is the bread of those who are in union with His body. And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not, by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from Christ's body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, 'I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.' When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, 'Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you.' And therefore we ask that our bread-that is, Christ-may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not depart from His sanctification and body." (On the Lord's Prayer, 18)
3/9/03
"Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life." (Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", 16)
"'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'...'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'...Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841, 847-848, 1260)
"But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ? For it is the Church alone which, conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons; as the same apostle again says, 'Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water.' If, then, she is the beloved and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His washing, cannot bear sons to God....But as the birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not a son of the Church, so as that he should have God as his Father, before he has had the Church for his Mother? But as no heresy at all, and equally no schism, being without, can have the sanctification of saving baptism, why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover, of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of Jesus Christ where blasphemy is uttered against the Father and against Christ the Lord God?...For it has been delivered to us, that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism ordained only in the one Church, from which unity whosoever will depart must needs be found with heretics" - Cyprian (Letter 73:6-7, 73:11)
3/10/03
The writings of Ignatius are filled with contradictions of Roman Catholic ecumenism:
"For some are in the habit of carrying about the name of Jesus Christ in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts....Nevertheless, I have heard of some who have passed on from this to you, having false doctrine, whom ye did not suffer to sow among you, but stopped your ears, that ye might not receive those things which were sown by them" (Epistle to the Ephesians, 7, 9)
"I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those that are given to this mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death. Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons....Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots of Satan, which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible." (Epistle to the Trallians, 6-7, 11)
"But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world" (Epistle to the Philadelphians, 6)
"I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions as I do. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with...I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ's passion, which is our resurrection. Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation....It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion of Christ has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 4-7)
"Pope John Paul and religious leaders including Muslims and Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, committed themselves on Thursday to work for peace and shun violence. Christian monks in brown woolen habits, saffron-robed Buddhists, black-cloaked Muslims, Sikhs wearing turbans, white-bearded Orthodox patriarchs and rabbis traveled together on a peace train to pray near the tomb of St. Francis. 'Violence never again! War never again! Terrorism never again! In the name of God, may every religion bring upon the earth justice and peace, forgiveness and life. Love,' the Pope said....Wearing his traditional white robe, the Roman Catholic leader sat on a red stage flanked by religious figures as they each addressed a crowd of 3,000 people in a white tent....The Pope...lit peace lamps with other participants...Assisi, a medieval city accustomed to Western choirs and Gregorian chants, was treated to something different as religious pluralism ruled. Geshe Tashi Tsering, wearing a crimson and saffron robe, began his time on the center stage with a Buddhist chant....It was the third such day of peace led by the Pope...After a morning session, the religious groups went off to pray in various rooms before sharing a vegetarian lunch and returning to the tent for the final pledges....But outside Assisi, not everyone was happy with the events. 'To pray with heretics, schismatics, rabbis, mullahs, witch doctors and various idolaters creates confusion among Catholic believers,' Federico Bricolo and Massimo Polledri, members of an Italian government coalition party, said in a statement." ("World Religious Leaders Join Pope in Peace Bid", Reuters, January 24, 2002)
"It was Sunday, and Cardinal Bernard F. Law had come to pray. So, wearing a gold crucifix and a flowing black robe with red trim, Law removed his shoes. Then, as the imam chanted the sunset prayers, the bishop knelt with his forehead just inches from the carpet and offered praise to Allah. No doubt, Law looked out of place at the Islamic Center of Boston last night - but he didn't feel that way. Law, who participated in the Wayland mosque's Ramadan observance as a gesture of good will, said he felt right at home among the Muslim worshipers....After the prayers, Law shared the iftar, the meal breaking the daily sunrise-to-sunset Ramadan fast." (The Boston Globe, "Law shares prayers, feast, hope with Muslims", November 25, 2002, http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/112502_law.htm)
3/11/03
Polycarp doesn't seem to have agreed with the modern ecumenism of the RCC:
"Pope John Paul and religious leaders including Muslims and Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, committed themselves on Thursday to work for peace and shun violence. Christian monks in brown woolen habits, saffron-robed Buddhists, black-cloaked Muslims, Sikhs wearing turbans, white-bearded Orthodox patriarchs and rabbis traveled together on a peace train to pray near the tomb of St. Francis. 'Violence never again! War never again! Terrorism never again! In the name of God, may every religion bring upon the earth justice and peace, forgiveness and life. Love,' the Pope said....Wearing his traditional white robe, the Roman Catholic leader sat on a red stage flanked by religious figures as they each addressed a crowd of 3,000 people in a white tent....The Pope...lit peace lamps with other participants...Assisi, a medieval city accustomed to Western choirs and Gregorian chants, was treated to something different as religious pluralism ruled. Geshe Tashi Tsering, wearing a crimson and saffron robe, began his time on the center stage with a Buddhist chant....It was the third such day of peace led by the Pope...After a morning session, the religious groups went off to pray in various rooms before sharing a vegetarian lunch and returning to the tent for the final pledges....But outside Assisi, not everyone was happy with the events. 'To pray with heretics, schismatics, rabbis, mullahs, witch doctors and various idolaters creates confusion among Catholic believers,' Federico Bricolo and Massimo Polledri, members of an Italian government coalition party, said in a statement." ("World Religious Leaders Join Pope in Peace Bid", Reuters, January 24, 2002)
"Let us be zealous in the pursuit of that which is good, keeping ourselves from causes of offence, from false brethren, and from those who in hypocrisy bear the name of the Lord, and draw away vain men into error. 'For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;' and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning" - Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians, 6-7)
"It was Sunday, and Cardinal Bernard F. Law had come to pray. So, wearing a gold crucifix and a flowing black robe with red trim, Law removed his shoes. Then, as the imam chanted the sunset prayers, the bishop knelt with his forehead just inches from the carpet and offered praise to Allah. No doubt, Law looked out of place at the Islamic Center of Boston last night - but he didn't feel that way. Law, who participated in the Wayland mosque's Ramadan observance as a gesture of good will, said he felt right at home among the Muslim worshipers....After the prayers, Law shared the iftar, the meal breaking the daily sunrise-to-sunset Ramadan fast." (The Boston Globe, "Law shares prayers, feast, hope with Muslims", November 25, 2002, http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/112502_law.htm)
"And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion [a heretic], who met him on one occasion, and said, 'Dost thou know me?' 'I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.' Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth" - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:3:4)
3/12/03
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
"The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father...So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint." - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)
3/13/03
"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)
"Respecting, then, this frail and poor, worthless body, which they do not indeed hesitate to call evil, even if it had been the work of angels, as Menander and Marcus are pleased to think, or the formation of some fiery being, an angel, as Apelles teaches, it would be quite enough for securing respect for the body, that it had the support and protection of even a secondary deity. The angels, we know, rank next to God." - Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 5)
3/14/03
"The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by 'all Israel', for 'a hardening has come upon part of Israel' in their 'unbelief' toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: 'Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.' St. Paul echoes him: 'For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?' The 'full inclusion' of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of 'the full number of the Gentiles', will enable the People of God to achieve 'the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ', in which 'God may be all in all'." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 674)
"Therefore, as we spoke in the fourth book concerning His first advent, so in this book we will relate His second advent, which the Jews also both confess and hope for; but in vain, since He must return to the confusion of those for whose call He had before come. For they who impiously treated Him with violence in His humiliation, will experience Him in His power as a conqueror; and, God requiting them, they will suffer all those things which they read and do not understand; inasmuch as, being polluted with all sins, and moreover sprinkled with the blood of the Holy One, they were devoted to eternal punishment by that very One on whom they laid wicked hands." - Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, 7:1)
3/15/03
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:
"schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (2089)
And:
"'Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.' 'However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers" (817-818)
The Catechism refers to people being separated from the RCC, yet still being saved:
"The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. 'These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments...Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, 'have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.' It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, 'when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.'" (1399-1400)
The RCC has named as its own Saints men who separated from the bishop of Rome and denied that he had authority over them. However, Ambrose tells us that those involved in schism are guilty of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and that they must return to the church in order to be saved:
"The Lord then replies to the blasphemy of the Pharisees, and refuses to them the grace of His power, which consists in the remission of sins, because they asserted that His heavenly power rested on the help of the devil. And He affirms that they act with satanic spirit who divide the Church of God, so that He includes the heretics and schismatics of all times, to whom He denies forgiveness, for every other sin is concerned with single persons, this is a sin against all. For they alone wish to destroy the grace of Christ who rend asunder the members of the Church for which the Lord Jesus suffered, and the Holy Spirit was given us....Return, then, to the Church, those of you who have wickedly separated yourselves. For He promises forgiveness to all who are converted, since it is written: 'Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.' And lastly, the Jewish people who said of the Lord Jesus, 'He hath a devil,' and 'He casteth out devils through Beelzebub,' and who crucified the Lord Jesus, are, by the preaching of Peter, called to baptism, that they may put away the guilt of so great a wickedness." (Two Books Concerning Repentance, 2:4:24, 2:4:26)
3/16/03
The church fathers viewed the eucharist as a sacrifice, but defined the sacrificial nature of it in different ways, including ways that contradict Roman Catholicism. In a previous segment in this series, I documented Justin Martyr contradicting the Roman Catholic definition of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist. Eusebius also disagreed with Roman Catholicism on this issue. He writes:
"And then 'He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,' and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1:10)
The question isn't whether Eusebius viewed the eucharist as a sacrifice. All professing Christians consider the eucharist a sacrifice in *some* sense, at least the sense of Hebrews 13:15. The question, then, is what Eusebius means when he says in the passage above that the eucharist is *not* a sacrifice. We know, from the context, that he just described Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. He had to be denying that the eucharist is a sacrifice in that sense. Thus, he's rejecting the Roman Catholic assertion that the eucharist is a re-presentation of Calvary.
This conclusion is further confirmed by what Eusebius goes on to say. He compares the eucharist to other *spiritual* sacrifices, and he refers to how the eucharist is a *non-corporeal* sacrifice:
"Here it is plainly the mystic Chrism and the holy Sacrifices of Christ's Table that are meant, by which we are taught to offer to Almighty God through our great High Priest all through our life the celebration of our sacrifices, bloodless, reasonable, and well-pleasing to Him....And this very thing the great prophet Isaiah wonderfully foreknew by the Holy Spirit, and foretold. And he therefore says thus: 'O Lord, my God, I will glorify thee, I will hymn thy name, for thou hast done marvellous things.' And he goes on to explain what these things so truly 'wonderful' are: 'And the Lord of Sabaoth shall make a feast for all the nations. They shall drink joy, they shall drink wine, they shall be anointed with myrrh (on this mountain). Impart thou all these things to the nations. For this is God's counsel upon all the nations.' These were Isaiah's 'wonders,' the promise of the anointing with ointment of a good smell, and with myrrh made not to Israel but to all nations. Whence not unnaturally through the chrism of myrrh they gained the name of Christians. But he also prophesies the 'wine of joy' to the nations, darkly alluding to the sacrament of the new covenant of Christ, which is now openly celebrated among the nations. And these unembodied and spiritual sacrifices the oracle of the prophet also proclaims, in a certain place: 'Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and give the Highest thy vows: And call upon me in the day of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify me.' And again: 'The lifting up of my hands is an evening sacrifice.' And once more: 'The sacrifice of God is a contrite spirit.' And so all these predictions of immemorial prophecy are being fulfilled at this present time through the teaching of our Saviour among all nations. Truth bears witness with the prophetic voice with which God, rejecting the Mosaic sacrifices, foretells that the future lies with us: 'Wherefore from the rising of the sun unto the setting my name shall be glorified among the nations. And in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering.' We sacrifice, therefore, to Almighty God a sacrifice of praise. We sacrifice the divine and holy and sacred offering. We sacrifice anew according to the new covenant the pure sacrifice. But the sacrifice to God is called 'a contrite heart.' 'A humble and a contrite heart thou wilt not despise.' Yes, and we offer the incense of the prophet, in every place bringing to Him the sweet-smelling fruit of the sincere Word of God, offering it in our prayers to Him. This yet another prophet teaches, who says: 'Let my prayer be as incense in thy sight.' So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense: On the one hand when we celebrate the Memorial of His great Sacrifice according to the Mysteries He delivered to us, and bring to God the Eucharist for our salvation with holy hymns and prayers; while on the other we consecrate ourselves to Him alone and to the Word His High Priest, devoted to Him in body and soul. Therefore we are careful to keep our bodies pure and undefiled from all evil, and we bring our hearts purified from every passion and stain of sin, and worship Him with sincere thoughts, real intention, and true beliefs. For these are more acceptable to Him, so we are taught, than a multitude of sacrifices offered with blood and smoke and fat." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1:10)
Eusebius describes the eucharistic sacrifice as "a memorial" that we offer "instead of a sacrifice". He describes the sacrifice of the eucharist as "unembodied and spiritual". Just after quoting Malachi 1:11, he says that the sacrifice of praise is the sacrifice to which Malachi is referring.
Elsewhere, Eusebius tells us:
"And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)
3/17/03
In addition to rejecting the Roman Catholic definition of the sacrificial nature of the eucharist, Eusebius also seems to have rejected the concept of a physical presence. He writes:
"And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)
The phrase "only with wine and bread" suggests that there's no physical transformation or physical addition to the elements. Eusebius repeatedly uses words like "memorial", "figure", and "symbol" when describing the eucharistic elements:
"The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)
While it's true that a Roman Catholic could refer to symbols, figures, etc. within the eucharist, how likely is it that a Roman Catholic would use such terminology so frequently, without any qualifications?
Just after the first passage I cited above, after referring to the eucharist and its figurative nature, Eusebius writes:
"This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw, and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says: 'And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine: and he was priest of the Most High God, and he blessed Abraham.'" (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)
When Eusebius says that Melchizedek offered "figures" of Calvary, does he mean that Melchizedek offered something that was both figurative *and* a transubstantiation? No, what Eusebius is saying is that Melchizedek offered something that was only figurative.
3/18/03
"Whereas the Word of God has Its own essence and existence in Itself, and is not identical with the Father in being Unbegotten, but was begotten of the Father as His Only-begotten Son before all ages; while the fragrance being a kind of physical effluence of that from which it comes, and not filling the air around it by itself apart from its primary cause, is seen to be itself also a physical thing. We will not, then, conceive thus about the theory of our Saviour's coming-into-being. For neither was He brought into being from the Unbegotten Being by way of any event, or by division, nor was He eternally coexistent with the Father, since the One is Unbegotten and the other Begotten, and one is Father and the other Son. And all would agree that a father must exist before and precede his son." - Eusebius (Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:1)
3/19/03
According to Basil, Dionysius of Alexandria held some heretical views of the Trinity:
"You ask for the writings of Dionysius; they did indeed reach me, and a great many they were; but I have not the books with me, and so have not sent them. My opinion is, however, as follows. I do not admire everything that is written; indeed of some things I totally disapprove. For it may be, that of the impiety of which we are now hearing so much, I mean the Anomoean, it is he, as far as I know, who first gave men the seeds. I do not trace his so doing to any mental depravity, but only to his earnest desire to resist Sabellius. I often compare him to a woodman trying to straighten some ill-grown sapling, pulling so immoderately in the opposite direction as to exceed the mean, and so dragging the plant awry on the other side. This is very much what we find to be the case with Dionysius. While vehemently opposing the impiety of the Libyan, he is carried away unawares by his zeal into the opposite error. It would have been quite sufficient for him to have pointed out that the Father and the Son are not identical in substance, and thus to score against the blasphemer. But, in order to win an unmistakable and superabundant victory, he is not satisfied with laying down a difference of hypostases, but must needs assert also difference of substance, diminution of power, and variableness of glory. So he exchanges one mischief for another, and diverges from the right line of doctrine. In his writings he exhibits a miscellaneous inconsistency, and is at one time to be found disloyal to the homoousion, because of his opponent who made a bad use of it to the destruction of the hypostases, and at another admitting it in his Apology to his namesake. Besides this he uttered very unbecoming words about the Spirit, separating Him from the Godhead, the object of worship, and assigning Him an inferior rank with created and subordinate nature. Such is the man's character." - Basil (Letter 9:2)
3/20/03
"And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages,' showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him, we have to enquire if the Holy Spirit also was made through Him. it appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that 'all things were made through Him,' must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He. And he who shrinks from allowing the Holy Spirit to have been made through Christ must, if he admits the truth of the statements of this Gospel, assume the Spirit to be uncreated. There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated), namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the Father and the Son. But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage, 'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man. it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come.' We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ." - Origen (Commentary on John, 2:6)
3/21/03
"If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, session 7, "On Baptism", canon 4)
"But the baptism of the Pepuzeni seems to me to have no authority; and I am astonished how this can have escaped Dionysius, acquainted as he was with the canons. The old authorities decided to accept that baptism which in no wise errs from the faith....So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they still belonged to the Church." - Basil (Letter 188:1)
3/22/03
"Then He subjoins: 'For so shalt thou pass through the water of another;' reckoning heretical baptism not proper and true water." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 1:19)
3/23/03
"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord; not that which is conferred by wicked heretics, but that which is conferred by unblameable priests, 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:' and let not that which comes from the ungodly be received by you, nor let that which is done by the godly be disannulled by a second. For as there is one God, one Christ, and one Comforter, and one death of the Lord in the body, so let that baptism which is unto Him be but one. But those that receive polluted baptism from the ungodly will become partners in their opinions. For they are not priests. For God says to them: 'Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee from the office of a priest to me.' Nor indeed are those that are baptized by them initiated, but are polluted, not receiving the remission of sins, but the bond of impiety." - Apostolic Constitutions (6:15)
3/24/03
In the past, Roman Catholic leaders have taught that unbaptized infants who die go to Hell. More recently, however:
"The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth....All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism....With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1250, 1261, 1283)
In other words, the RCC accuses people who delay baptism of children of depriving them of "priceless grace", neglecting an "urgent" situation, and risking the possibility that the child won't be saved if he dies. According to the RCC, the salvation of unbaptized children is questionable, and can be altered after death through prayer.
But Aristides considered all infants who die to be saved, and not on the basis of baptism. He contrasts deceased infants with deceased sinners who didn't repent:
"And when a child has been born to one of them [Christians], they give thanks to God; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins. And further if they see that any one of them dies in his ungodliness or in his sins, for him they grieve bitterly, and sorrow as for one who goes to meet his doom." (Apology, 15)
3/25/03
Gregory Thaumaturgus seems to have had no concept of Purgatory. Like Protestants, he refers to two realms of the afterlife, not three, with all "good men" going to Heaven at death:
"And the good man shall depart with rejoicing to his own everlasting habitation; but the vile shall fill all their places with wailing, and neither silver laid up in store, nor proved gold, shall be of use any more. For a mighty stroke shall fall upon all things, even to the pitcher that standeth by the well, and the wheel of the vessel which may chance to have been left in the hollow, when the course of time comes to its end and the ablution-bearing period of a life that is like water has passed away." (A Metaphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 12)
3/26/03
"For we tell some part of what is written concerning His loving-kindness to men, but how much He forgave the Angels we know not: for them also He forgives, since One alone is without sin, even Jesus who purgeth our sins....Immaculate and undefiled was His generation: for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken away: undefiled from the Virgin was the incarnate generation of the Only-begotten....This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ the Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made. But I have no need of many words to teach thee that generation was without defilement or taint, for thou hast learned it." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 2:10, 12:32, 17:6)
3/27/03
The church fathers sometimes refer to Mary being purified by God. Do such passages suggest that Mary was cleansed from sin? We know that a person can be purified without being a sinner. For example, Gregory Nazianzen writes the following about the baptism of Jesus:
"A little later on you will see Jesus submitting to be purified in the River Jordan for my Purification, or rather, sanctifying the waters by His Purification (for indeed He had no need of purification Who taketh away the sin of the world)" (Orations, 38:16)
Jesus wasn't a sinner, yet He's referred to as being purified. But notice that Gregory Nazianzen *qualifies* his comments about Jesus. He explains that Jesus was purified only in one manner of speaking, not in the sense of the removal of sin.
Yet, in this same Oration, Gregory refers to Mary being purified without any such qualifications:
"took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul's sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man. Conceived by the Virgin, who first in body and soul was purified by the Holy Ghost" (Orations, 38:13)
Not only does Gregory not qualify his comments on Mary the way he qualified his comments on Jesus, but look at the *context* of his comments on Mary. He's discussing sin. Gregory refers to Jesus "purifying" sinners in general, then he refers to Mary being purified. So, while it's true that a reference to Mary being purified doesn't necessarily *in itself* lead to the conclusion that she was a sinner, the context of such passages can lead to that conclusion. And the context of Gregory Nazianzen's comments suggests that he viewed Mary as a sinner.
3/28/03
Justin Martyr didn't think Mary was sinless. He refers to every person being a sinner, and he denies that a Jewish opponent he was debating, Trypho, can cite a single person who didn't need to be saved by Christ from sins he had committed. No Roman Catholic could issue such a challenge to Trypho:
"Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression....For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God." (Dialogue with Trypho, 88, 95)
3/29/03
"'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'...'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841, 847-848)
"If, then, you cannot enter into the city except through its gate, so, in like manner, a man cannot otherwise enter into the kingdom of God than by the name of His beloved Son....Whosoever does not receive His name, shall not enter into the kingdom of God." - Hermas (The Shepherd of Hermas, 3:9:12)
3/30/03
"Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life." (Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", 16)
"'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'...Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 847-848, 1260)
"Unless, then, my opponent says, I shall be a Christian, I cannot hope for salvation. It is just as you yourself say. For, to bring salvation and impart to souls what should be bestowed and must be added, Christ alone has had given into His charge and entrusted to Him by God the Father, the remote and more secret causes being so disposed. For, as with you, certain gods have fixed offices, privileges, powers, and you do not ask from any of them what is not in his power and permitted to him, so it is the right of Christ alone to give salvation to souls, and assign them everlasting life. For if you believe that father Bacchus can give a good vintage, but cannot give relief from sickness; if you believe that Ceres can give good crops, Aesculapius health, Neptune one thing, Juno another, that Fortune, Mercury, Vulcan, are each the giver of a fixed and particular thing,-this, too, you must needs receive from us, that souls can receive from no one life and salvation, except from Him to whom the Supreme Ruler gave this charge and duty. The Almighty Master of the world has determined that this should be the way of salvation,-this the door, so to say, of life; by Him alone is there access to the light: nor may men either creep in or enter elsewhere, all other ways being shut up and secured by an impenetrable barrier. So, then, even if you are pure, and have been cleansed from every stain of vice, have won over and charmed those powers not to shut the ways against you and bar your passage when returning to heaven, by no efforts will you be able to reach the prize of immortality, unless by Christ's gift you have perceived what constitutes this very immortality, and have been allowed to enter on the true life." - Arnobius (Against the Heathen, 2:65-66)
3/31/03
"About the time of this man, bishops, priests, and deacons, who had been twice married, and thrice married, began to be allowed to retain their place among the clergy. If also, however, any one who is in holy orders should become married, Callistus [a bishop of Rome] permitted such a one to continue in holy orders as if he had not sinned." - Hippolytus (The Refutation of All Heresies,
9:7)