Ambrose (the perspicuity of scripture, 5/1/03)
Ambrosiaster (eternal security, 4/5/03)
Ambrosiaster (eschatology, 5/3/03)
Amphilochius (the canon, 4/26/03)
Arnobius (the perspicuity of scripture, 4/8/03)
Augustine (sin, 4/9/03)
Augustine (penance, 4/12/03)
Augustine (eschatology, 4/15/03)
Clement of Alexandria (ecumenism, 5/7/03)
Council of Ancyra (penance, 5/9/03)
Council of Antioch (the papacy, 5/8/03)
Council of Carthage (the papacy, 5/14/03)
Council of Chalcedon (papal legitimacy, 5/16/03)
Council of Chalcedon (the papacy, 5/17/03)
Council of Constantinople (the papacy, 5/10/03)
Council of Constantinople (baptism, 5/11/03)
Council of Laodicea (baptism, 5/12/03)
Council of Laodicea (ecumenism, 5/13/03)
Cyprian (penance, 4/11/03)
Cyprian (ecumenism, 4/16/03)
Cyril of Alexandria (the sinlessness of Mary, 4/23/03)
Dionysius of Alexandria (ecumenism, 4/1/03)
Dionysius of Alexandria (succession of truth, 4/3/03)
Epiphanius (the Assumption of Mary, 5/2/03)
Eusebius (veneration of images, 4/10/03)
Gelasius (the eucharist, 4/20/03)
Gregory the Great (Mary's relationship with Jesus, 4/21/03)
Gregory Nazianzen (the canon, 4/25/03)
Gregory of Nyssa (sola scriptura, 4/6/03)
Hegesippus (succession of truth, 4/2/03)
Hilary of Poitiers (sola scriptura, 4/24/03)
Hilary of Poitiers (the sinlessness of Mary, 5/5/03)
Hippolytus (the church, 5/4/03)
Irenaeus (penance, 4/13/03)
Irenaeus (the eucharist, 4/29/03)
Jerome (eternal security, 4/4/03)
Jerome (sola scriptura, 4/7/03)
Lactantius (the Trinity, 4/27/03)
Leo I (doctrines and disciplines, 4/18/03)
Leo I (canon 6 of Nicaea, 4/19/03)
Origen (eschatology, 4/14/03)
Origen (the sinlessness of Mary, 4/22/03)
Origen (the resurrection, 4/30/03)
Origen (the eucharist, 5/6/03)
Peter of Alexandria (church discipline, 4/17/03)
Second Council of Nicaea (papal legitimacy, 5/15/03)
Tertullian (the eucharist, 4/28/03)
4/1/03
"'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.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 841)
"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)
"If then our faith urges us to have zeal for God and with our entire heart love him; and if we must regard as unclean only those who contemn the really one and only God, and Creator and Lord of heaven and earth and of all things, declaring that he is inferior to and less estimable than some other god; and they attribute wickedness to the all good, or they do not believe that his Beloved is our Saviour Jesus Christ, whatever else he be; but breaking up the marvellous economy and mighty mystery, they believe some of them that he is not God nor Son of God, but others, that he never became man nor came in the flesh, but say that he was a phantasm and shadow-all these John has rightly in his epistle called anti-Christs. Moreover of these the prophet also bore witness, saying: Thy hated ones, O Lord, I have hated, and because of thine enemies I have wasted away. With perfect hatred I have hated them; they are become mine enemies. And these are all they that have among us the appellation of heretics. If however we in the least let them have their way or side with them, then no longer will the precept to love God with our whole heart be observed in its entirety, though that it is which it ever profits us to foster and increase." - Dionysius of Alexandria (Letters, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_alexandria_letters.htm, 3)
4/2/03
Roman Catholicism teaches that all apostolic teaching has been passed down in unbroken succession throughout church history by an infallible denomination. When Protestants suggest that there may have been some departure from apostolic teaching among the church fathers, or that the church isn't infallible, they're often accused of denying Matthew 16:18 and having too low a view of the church. But Hegesippus agrees with Protestants that the purity of the apostolic era doesn't ensure the purity of later generations:
"Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching 'knowledge falsely so called.'...Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching." (Fragments, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-165.htm#P12176_3572817)
"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)
4/3/03
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)
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 Dionysius of Alexandria believed that past generations could err, and that we must go back to the original revelation given by God:
"For of a custom there is in any case a single period as cause, whereas of caprices all kinds of ages are the causes. And due causes must always pre-exist before the customs of the gentiles and before human laws. I say human, however, because God, as alone knowing all things before they come into being, can naturally also arrive at them by from the first enacting them as law. Men, however, when they have beforehand discerned something, and when they have first formed ideas of certain events, then and not before lay down laws, or make a beginning of customs. If then it was from the apostles, as we said above, that this custom took its beginning, we must adjust ourselves thereto, whatsoever may have been their reasons and the grounds on which they acted; to the end that we too may observe the same in accordance with their practice. For as to things which were written afterwards and which are until now still found, they are ignored by us; and let them be ignored, no matter what they are." (Letters, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_alexandria_letters.htm, 1)
4/4/03
"Saint Jerome, though an enemy of Origen, was, when it came to salvation, more of an Origenist than Ambrose. He believed that all sinners, all mortal beings, with the exception of Satan, atheists, and the ungodly, would be saved: 'Just as we believe that the torments of the Devil, of all the deniers of God, of the ungodly who have said in their hearts, 'there is no God,' will be eternal, so too do we believe that the judgment of Christian sinners, whose works will be tried and purged in fire will be moderate and mixed with clemency.' Furthermore, 'He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.'" (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 61)
"Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)
4/5/03
"Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith. Commenting on Paul, Ambrosiaster writes: 'He [Paul] said: 'yet so as by fire,' because this salvation exists not without pain; for he did not say, 'he shall be saved by fire,' but when he says, 'yet so as by fire,' he wants to show that this salvation is to come, but that he must suffer the pains of fire; so that, purged by fire, he may be saved and not, like the infidels [perfidi], tormented forever by eternal fire; if for a portion of his works he has some value, it is because he believed in Christ.'" (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 61)
"we find Ambrosiaster teaching that, while the really wicked, 'will be tormented with everlasting punishment', the chastisement of Christian sinners will be of a temporary duration." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)
4/6/03
"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings...And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?" - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)
4/7/03
"When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken." - Jerome (Letter 48:20)
"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)
"When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world's highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures" - Jerome (Letter 107:7)
4/8/03
"But they [the scriptures] were written by unlearned and ignorant ripen, and should not therefore be readily believed. See that this be not rather a stronger reason for believing that they have not been adulterated by any false statements, but were put forth by men of simple mind, who knew not how to trick out their tales with meretricious ornaments. But the language is mean and vulgar. For truth never seeks deceitful polish, nor in that which is well ascertained and certain does it allow itself to be led away into excessive prolixity. Syllogisms, enthymemes, definitions, and all those ornaments by which men seek to establish their statements, aid those groping for the truth, but do not clearly mark its great features. But he who really knows the subject under discussion, neither defines, nor deduces, nor seeks the other tricks of words by which an audience is wont to be taken in, and to be beguiled into a forced assent to a proposition. Your narratives, my opponent says, are overrun with barbarisms and solecisms, and disfigured by monstrous blunders. A censure, truly, which shows a childish and petty spirit; for if we allow that it is reasonable, let us cease to use certain kinds of fruit because they grow with prickles on them, and other growths useless for food, which on the one hand cannot support us, and yet do not on the other hinder us from enjoying that which specially excels, and which nature has designed to be most wholesome for us. For how, I pray you, does it interfere with or retard the comprehension of a statement, whether anything be pronounced smoothly or with uncouth roughness?" - Arnobius (Against the Heathen, 1:58-59)
4/9/03
"And it is said, with much appearance of probability, that infants are involved in the guilt of the sins not only of the first pair, but of their own immediate parents. For that divine judgment, 'I shall visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children,' certainly applies to them before they come under the new covenant by regeneration. And it was this new covenant that was prophesied of, when it was said by Ezekiel, that the sons should not bear the iniquity of the fathers, and that it should no longer be a proverb in Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Here lies the necessity that each man should be born again, that he might be freed from the sin in which he was born. For the sins committed afterwards can be cured by penitence, as we see is the case after baptism. And therefore the new birth would not have been appointed only that the first birth was sinful, so sinful that even one who was legitimately born in wedlock says: 'I was shapen in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.' He did not say in iniquity, or in sin, though he might have said so correctly; but he preferred to say 'iniquities' and 'sins,' because in that one sin which passed upon all men, and which was so great that human nature was by it made subject to inevitable death, many sins, as I showed above, may be discriminated; and further, because there are other sins of the immediate parents, whichthough they have not the same effect in producing a change of nature, yet subject the children to guilt unless the divine grace and mercy interpose to rescue them." - Augustine (The Enchiridion, 46)
4/10/3
The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:
"The church historian Eusebius declared himself in the strongest manner against images of Christ in a letter to the empress Constantia (the widow of Licinius and sister of Constantine), who had asked him for such an image. Christ, says he, has laid aside His earthly servant-form, and Paul exhorts us to cleave no longer to the sensible; and the transcendent glory of His heavenly body cannot be conceived nor represented by man; besides, the second commandment forbids the making to ourselves any likeness of anything in heaven or in earth. He had taken away from a lady an image of Christ and of Paul, lest it should seem as if Christians, like the idolaters, carried their God about in images. Believers ought rather to fix their mental eye, above all, upon the divinity of Christ, and, for this purpose, to purify their hearts; since only the pure in heart shall see God. The same Eusebius, however, relates of Constantine, without the slightest disapproval, that, in his Christian zeal, he caused the public monuments in the forum of the new imperial city to be adorned with symbolical representations of Christ, to wit, with figures of the good Shepherd and of Daniel in the lion's den. He likewise tells us, that the woman of the issue of blood, after her miraculous cure (Matt. ix. 20), and out of gratitude for it, erected before her dwelling in Caesarea Philippi (Paneas) two brazen statues, the figure of a kneeling woman, and of a venerable man (Christ) extending his hand to help her, and that he had seen these statues with his own eyes at Paneas. In the same place he speaks also of pictures (probably Carpocratian) of Christ and the apostles Peter and Paul, which he had seen, and observes that these cannot be wondered at in those who were formerly heathen, and who had been accustomed to testify their gratitude towards their benefactors in this way." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch08.htm, section 110)
Here's the last passage Schaff mentions, in which Eusebius associates the making of the statues with heathenism and refers to it as "indiscriminate":
"Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers." (Church History, 7:18)
The historian Paul Maier, in his translation of Eusebius, renders the last part of the last sentence as follows:
"this is to be expected, since ancient Gentiles customarily honored them as saviors in this unreserved fashion." (Eusebius: The Church History [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999], p. 266)
In other words, Eusebius is referring to the making of statues as "indiscriminate" and "unreserved".
4/11/03
The Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly writes:
"In spite of the ingenious arguments of certain scholars, there are still no signs of a sacrament of private penance (i.e. confession to a priest, followed by absolution and the imposition of a penance) such as Catholic Christendom knows to-day. The system which seems to have existed in the Church at this time, and for centuries afterwards, was wholly public, involving confession, a period of penance and exclusion from communion, and formal absolution and restoration - the whole process being called exomologesis. The last of these was normally bestowed by the bishop, as Hippolytus's prayer of episcopal consecration implies, but in his absence might be delegated to a priest. There is plenty of evidence that sinners were encouraged to open their hearts privately to a priest, but nothing to show that this led up to anything more than ghostly counsel. Indeed, for the lesser sins which even good Christians daily commit and can scarcely avoid, no ecclesiastical censure seems to have been thought necessary; individuals were expected to deal with them themselves by prayer, almsgiving and mutual forgiveness. Public penance was for graver sins; it was, as far as we know, universal, and was an extremely solemn affair, capable of being undergone only once in a lifetime." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], pp. 216-217)
These historical facts are devastating to Roman Catholicism. This early system of penance, which was widespread, is significantly different from the modern Roman Catholic system. Despite these facts, the Council of Trent falsely claimed:
"If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema." (session 14, "Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance", canon 6)
Cyprian, however, describes the more *public* penitential system of his day:
"For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not yet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, 'Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'" (Letter 9:2)
4/12/03
Compare the teachings of the Council of Trent on confession of sins with the contrary teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Trent refers to private confession to a priest having *always* been practiced by the Christian church, while the Catechism acknowledges that the practice didn't develop until long after the death of the apostles:
"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." (Council of Trent, session 14, "Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance", canon 6)
"Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as 'the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace.' Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this 'order of penitents' (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the 'private' practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day. Beneath the changes in discipline and celebration that this sacrament has undergone over the centuries, the same fundamental structure is to be discerned. It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God's action through the intervention of the Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1446-1448)
In addition to the contradiction between Trent and the Catechism, notice that the Catechism appeals to what "the Fathers" said about penance in general, all the while rejecting the penitential system of those same fathers.
Another example of a church father who advocated a different penitential system than that of Roman Catholicism is Augustine. He refers to three ways of forgiveness, and the penance is described as public:
"When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What hath the Prayer? 'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.' Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom ye have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance" (On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 15-16)
The Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly notes that Augustine was also among those who believed that there could be only one penance in a lifetime for some sins (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 438).
4/13/03
In contrast to the private system of penance in modern Roman Catholicism, Irenaeus describes the more public nature of the penance of his day. Notice that, in the second portion of this quote, Irenaeus suggests that public confession is something expected, something normative, something people should do to "attain to the life of God", the correct course among "two courses":
"Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God-a thing which frequently occurs-have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician....Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of attaining to the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, 'neither without nor within;' possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge....Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren." (Against Heresies, 2:13:5, 2:13:7, 3:4:3)
4/14/03
Premillenialism was the popular eschatology among the earliest church fathers, but there were some exceptions, such as Origen and Dionysius in Alexandria in the third century. But the fact that a church father rejected premillennialism doesn't necessarily mean that he agreed with the Roman Catholic view of eschatology. Origen is an example.
Though premillennialists are often criticized for setting or suggesting dates for the end of the world, amillennialists and other opponents of premillennialism have often done the same. Origen thought that he was living "in the last times, when the end of the world is already imminent and near, and the whole human race is verging upon the last destruction" (De Principiis, 3:5:6). As with other issues, Origen's eschatology is often difficult to understand or inconsistent. Jacques Le Goff writes:
"like many of his contemporaries - indeed, probably more than most - Origen believed that the end of the world was near: 'The consumption of the world by fire is imminent....The world and all its elements are going to be consumed in the heat of fire by the end of this century' (Sixth Homily of the Commentary on Genesis, PG 12.191)....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], pp. 56-57)
4/15/03
The RCC claims that all apostolic teaching has been passed down in unbroken succession throughout church history. Roman Catholic apologists often quote a church father agreeing with a Roman Catholic doctrine, then suggest that such a quote is evidence that the doctrine was always held by the Christian church.
In a previous segment in this series, I gave an example of how misleading that sort of reasoning can be. Though Augustine held to something similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, he explained that he was speculating. Rather than relaying an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church, he was describing his own speculative thoughts about what might happen in the afterlife.
Similarly, Augustine wrote about his eschatology:
"And this opinion [premillennialism] would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for I myself, too, once held this opinion." (The City of God, 20:7)
Augustine tells us not only that premillennialism can be acceptable, as long as it isn't too materialistic, but he also says that he was once a premillennialist. Roman Catholicism condemns premillennialism as a significantly dangerous false doctrine, yet Augustine tells us that, though he now rejects the doctrine, it's acceptable within orthodoxy and was the position he once held. Apparently, he didn't think that the RCC's eschatology was an apostolic tradition always held by the universal church.
4/16/03
"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)
"That we must not speak with heretics. To Titus: 'A man that is an heretic, after one rebuke avoid; knowing that one of such sort is perverted, and sinneth, and is by his own self condemned.' Of this same thing in the Epistle of John: 'They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would doubtless have remained with us.' Also in the second to Timothy: 'Their word doth creep as a canker.'" - Cyprian (Treatise 12, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, 3:78)
"But for the rest, let our most beloved brethren firmly decline, and avoid the words and conversations of those whose word creeps onwards like a cancer; as the apostle says, 'Evil communications corrupt good manners.' And again: 'A man that is an heretic, after one admonition, reject: knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.' And the Holy Spirit speaks by Solomon, saying, 'A perverse man carrieth perdition in his mouth; and in his lips he hideth a fire.' Also again, he warneth us, and says, 'Hedge in thy ears with thorns, and hearken not to a wicked tongue.' And again: 'A wicked doer giveth heed to the tongue of the unjust; but a righteous man does not listen to lying lips.'...no commerce should be entered into with such; that no banquets nor conferences be entertained with the wicked; but that we should be as much separated from them, as they are deserters from the Church; because it is written, 'If he shall neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.' And the blessed apostle not only warns, but also commands us to withdraw from such. 'We command you,' he says, 'in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.' There can be no fellowship between faith and faithlessness. He who is not with Christ, who is an adversary of Christ, who is hostile to His unity and peace, cannot be associated with us." - Cyprian (Letter 54:21)
4/17/03
One of the many differences between the early church and Roman Catholicism is the higher standard of discipline practiced by the earliest Christians. While the RCC allows murderers, bribers, and such to maintain church offices, even to *attain* offices by means of such sins, the early fathers took the apostolic standards of church discipline more seriously. I've cited some examples in previous segments. Peter of Alexandria is another one:
"Whence it is not right either that those of the clergy who have deserted of their own accord, and have lapsed, and taken up the contest afresh, should remain any longer in their sacred office, inasmuch as they have left destitute the flock of the Lord, and brought blame upon themselves, which thing did not one of the apostles. For when the blessed apostle Paul had undergone many persecutions, and had shown forth the prizes of many contests, though he knew that it was far better to 'depart, and to be with Christ,' yet he brings this forward, and says, 'Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.' For considering not his own advantage but the advantage of many, that they might be saved, he judged it more necessary than his own rest to remain with the brethren, and to have a care for them; who also would have him that teacheth to be 'in doctrine' an example to the faithful. Whence it follows that those who, contending in prison, have fallen from their ministry, and have again taken up the struggle, are plainly wanting in perception. For how else is it that they seek for that which they have left, when in this present time they can be useful to the brethren? For as long as they remained firm and stable, of that which they had done contrary to reason, of this indulgence was accorded them. But when they lapsed, as having carried themselves with ostentation, and brought reproach upon themselves, they can no longer discharge their sacred ministry; and, therefore, let them the rather take heed to pass their life in humility, ceasing from vainglory." (The Canonical Epistle, 10)
In contrast, the Roman bishop Marcellinus remains on the RCC's list of an unbroken succession from Peter, despite his apparent lapse, which occurred the year before the date assigned to the end of his pontificate:
"By contrast [to an earlier Roman bishop who had been martyred], in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifice to the gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him." (Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997], p. 14)
And later:
"Even the papal chair was desecrated by heresy during this Arian interregnum; after the deposition of Liberius, the deacon Felix II., 'by antichristian wickedness,' as Athanasius expresses it, was elected his successor. Many Roman historians for this reason regard him as a mere anti-pope. But in the Roman church books this Felix is inserted, not only as a legitimate pope, but even as a saint, because, according to a much later legend, he was executed by Constantius, whom he called a heretic. His memory is celebrated on the twenty-ninth of July. His subsequent fortunes are very differently related. The Roman people desired the recall of Liberius, and he, weary of exile, was prevailed upon to apostatize by subscribing an Arian or at least Arianizing confession, and maintaining church fellowship with the Eusebians. On this condition he was restored to his papal dignity, and received with enthusiasm into Rome (358). He died in 366 in the orthodox faith, which he had denied through weakness, but not from conviction....The apostasy of Liberius comes to us upon the clear testimony of the most orthodox fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, Sozomen, &c., and of three letters of Liberius himself, which Hilary admitted into his sixth fragment, and accompanied with some remarks." (Philip Schaff, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm, section 121 and footnote 1342)
"Deprived of the support of empire, the papacy became the possession of the great Roman families, a ticket to local dominance for which men were prepared to rape, murder and steal. A third of the popes elected between 872 and 1012 died in suspicious circumstances - John VIII (872-82) bludgeoned to death by his own entourage, Stephen VI (896-7) strangled, Leo V (903) murdered by his successor Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28) suffocated, Stephen VIII (939-42) horribly mutilated, a fate shared by the Greek antipope John XVI (997-8) who, unfortunately for him, did not die from the removal of his eyes, nose, lips, tongue and hands. Most of these men were manoeuvred into power by a succession of powerful families - the Theophylacts, the Crescentii, the Tusculani. John X, one of the few popes of this period to make a stand against aristocratic domination, was deposed and then murdered in the Castel Sant' Angelo by the Theophylacts, who had appointed him in the first place....Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside. The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility, and election to the chair of Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter." (Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997], pp. 82-83, 87)
4/18/03
Roman Catholics argue that their denomination can change its disciplines, as long as it doesn't change its doctrines. They even claim that the RCC can require a work for salvation one year, then not require it another year, such as not eating meat on Fridays. One wonders what the apostle Paul would have thought if the Judaizers had argued that adding circumcision to the gospel was a matter of discipline, not doctrine.
Be that as it may, the Roman bishop Leo I apparently didn't agree with Roman Catholicism on this issue. The Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno wrote:
"Tradition made the Roman bishops fear novelty above all else. They were bound by the decisions of their predecessors, above all by the Apostles who had decided all issues and handed them on. This was the chief duty of bishops: to pass things on unchanged, intact, adding nothing and subtracting nothing. This was the fixist ideal of Antiquity....Stand by antiquity, Leo told the ill-fated Chalcedonian bishop Proterius of Alexandria, not just in doctrine but in discipline, too (ep. 129.3)....If the church has accepted some disciplinary or devotional usage, it must come from the apostolic tradition and the instruction of the Holy Spirit (sermo 79.1). Leo expressed his disgust with Dorus, bishop of Beneventum, who apparently had spent time at Rome, but now in his own see, followed different practices (ep. 19.1)." (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], pp. 111, 113-114)
In contrast, Roman Catholics tells us that there are many church traditions and matters of discipline that can be changed. They tell us that other churches need not follow all of the traditions and disciplines of the Roman church. And they tell us that the Roman church need not be consistent in its own traditions and disciplines from one generation to another.
To add to the comments above by Robert Eno, here are some examples of what Leo I taught on this subject:
"For you and we ought to be at one in thought and act, so that as we read, in us also there may be proved to be one heart and one mind. For since the most blessed Peter received the headship of the Apostles from the Lord, and the church of Rome still abides by His institutions, it is wicked to believe that His holy disciple Mark, who was the first to govern the church of Alexandria, formed his decrees on a different line of tradition: seeing that without doubt both disciple and master drew but one Spirit from the same fount of grace, and the ordained could not hand on aught else than what he had received from his ordainer. We do not therefore allow it that we should differ in anything, since we confess ourselves to be of one body and faith, nor that the institutions of the teacher should seem different to those of the taught. That therefore which we know to have been very carefully observed by our fathers, we wish kept by you also, viz. that the ordination of priests or deacons should not be performed at random on any day: but after Saturday, the commencement of that night which precedes the dawn of the first day of the week should be chosen on which the sacred benediction should be bestowed on those who are to be consecrated, ordainer and ordained alike fasting. This observance will not be violated, if actually on the morning of the Lord's day it be celebrated without breaking the Saturday fast: for the beginning of the preceding night forms part of that period, and undoubtedly belongs to the day of resurrection as is clearly laid down with regard to the feast of Easter. For besides the weight of custom which we know rests upon the Apostles' teaching, Holy Writ also makes this clear, because when the Apostles sent Paul and Barnabas at the bidding of the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel to the nations, they laid hands on them fasting and praying: that we may know with what devoutness both giver and receiver must be on their guard lest so blessed a sacrament should seem to be carelessly performed. And therefore you will piously and laudably follow Apostolic precedents if you yourself also maintain this form of ordaining priests throughout the churches over which the Lord has called you to preside: viz. that those who are to be consecrated should never receive the blessing except on the day of the Lord's resurrection, which is commonly held to begin on the evening of Saturday, and which has been so often hallowed in the mysterious dispensations of God that all the more notable institutions of the Lord were accomplished on that high day. On it the world took its beginning. On it through the resurrection of Christ death received its destruction, and life its commencement. On it the apostles take from the Lord's hands the trumpet of the gospel which is to be preached to all nations, and receive the sacrament of regeneration which they are to bear to the whole world. On it, as blessed John the Evangelist bears witness when all the disciples were gathered together in one place, and when, the doors being shut, the Lord entered to them, He breathed on them and said: 'Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye have remitted they are remitted to them: and whose ye have retained, they shall be retained.' On it lastly the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the Apostles by the Lord came: and so we know it to have been suggested and handed down by a kind of heavenly rule, that on that day we ought to celebrate the mysteries of the blessing of priests on which all these gracious gifts were conferred....that our usage may coincide at all points...your carefulness also should not neglect what has become a part of our own usage on the pattern of our fathers' tradition, so that in all things we may agree together in our beliefs and in our performances" (Letter 9:1-3)
"Accordingly, both in the rule of Faith and in the observance of discipline, let the standard of antiquity be maintained throughout" (Letter 129:3)
Leo I not only disagreed with some of the disciplines of Roman Catholicism, but also its doctrines. He rejected the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived, for example, as we saw in a previous segment in this series. According to Leo, the RCC has departed from apostolic tradition by departing from his doctrines and disciplines.
4/19/03
The Roman bishop Leo I argued that it would be unacceptable to change the order of apostolic churches listed in canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch):
"Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God's right hand, long enjoy your clemency's rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of God's Spirit at the Synod of Nicaea for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the Lord's whole house." (Letter 104:3)
"Accordingly, both in the rule of Faith and in the observance of discipline, let the standard of antiquity be maintained throughout, and do thou, beloved, display the firmness of a prudent ruler, that the church of Alexandria may get the benefit of my earnest resistance to the unprincipled ambition of certain people in maintaining its ancient privileges, and of my determination that all metropolitans should retain their dignity undiminished, as you will ascertain from the tenor of my letters, which I have addressed, whether to the holy Synod or to the most Christian Emperor, or to the Bishop of Constantinople; for you will perceive that I have made it my special care to allow no deviation from the rule of Faith in the Lord-churches, nor any diminution of their privileges through any individual's unscrupulousness." (Letter 129:3)
But as time went on:
"It is true that in times of tension Rome continually repeated its protest against the ecclesial rank of Constantinople (for the last time in the eleventh century under Leo IX), and recalled the unalterable and eternal ordering of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch....Constantinople finally achieved apostolic status." (Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 48-49)
"Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth" (Fourth Lateran Council, canon 5, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html)
4/20/03
The Roman bishop Gelasius rejected transubstantiation:
"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." (cited in Philip Schaff, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm, 95)
4/21/03
Many people don't realize the extent of the RCC's claims about Mary. For example, while many people are aware of doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, it seems that relatively few are aware of claims such as the following:
"Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. 'This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death'; it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion: Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: 'Woman, behold your son.'...By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity....This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect....By pronouncing her 'fiat' at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 964, 967, 969, 973)
According to the RCC, Mary *completely* adhered to the Father's will, following *every* prompting of the Holy Spirit. She was the spiritual mother of us all *uninterruptedly*, from the annunciation onward. She was *always* in union with Jesus.
One wonders how such things could be true in light of the fact that Mary didn't even understand a simple statement Jesus made about His own identity after living with Mary for twelve years (Luke 2:49-50). Apparently, she was following *all* of the Father's will and *every* prompting of the Spirit, while she was the spiritual mother of all believers, yet, at the same time, she didn't even understand what Jesus said in Luke 2:49. She also was among the kinsmen who thought Jesus was insane (Mark 3:20-35), and she didn't honor Jesus as He should have been honored (Mark 6:3-4).
It seems that the Roman bishop Gregory the Great didn't agree with the Roman Catholic view of Mary. Concerning John 2:4, he wrote:
"when the Virgin Mother said that wine was wanting, He replied, Woman, what have to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come (Joh. ii. 4). For it was not that the Lord of the angels was subject to the hour, having, among all things which He had created, made hours and times; but, because the Virgin Mother, when wine was wanting, wished a miracle to be done by Him, it was at once answered her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? As if to say plainly, That I can do a miracle comes to me of my Father, not of my Mother. For He who of the nature of His Father did miracles had it of His mother that He could die. Whence also, when He was on the cross, in dying He acknowledged His mother, whom He commended to the disciple, saying, Behold thy mother (Joh. xix. 27). He says, then, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet came.-That is, 'In the miracle, which I have not of thy nature, I do not acknowledge thee. When the hour of death shall come, I shall acknowledge thee as my mother, since I have it of thee that I can die.'" (Letter 10:39)
The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll writes:
"On Mt 12:48-50, [Gregory the Great] thinks that Mary momentarily represented the Synagogue, which Christ no longer recognized." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 159)
4/22/03
"While if by those 'who were without sin' he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who 'did no sin.'...God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin...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." - Origen (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)
"Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon's prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)
4/23/03
"In this commentary, C. [Cyril of Alexandria] uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' He tries to imagine the thoughts that passed through Mary's mind. Had Jesus been mistaken when he said he was the Son of Almighty God? Why was he crucified who said he was the life? Why did he who had brought Lazarus back to life not come down from the Cross? Then he recalls what had been written of the Lord's Mother: Simeon's sword, 'the sharp force of the Passion which could turn a woman's mind to strange thoughts.' The word woman is significant, for C. thought that the frailty of the female sex was a factor in what he then thought was collapse." (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)
4/24/03
"Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter....We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning....I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word." - Hilary of Poitiers (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)
4/25/03
"Let not other books seduce your mind: for many malignant writings have been disseminated. The historical books are twelve in number by the Hebrew count, [then follow the names of the books of the Old Testament but Esther is omitted, one Esdras, and all the Deutero-Canonical books]. Thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament which correspond to the Hebrew letters. The number of the books of the New Mystery are Matthew, who wrote the Miracles of Christ for the Hebrews; Mark for Italy; Luke, for Greece; John, the enterer of heaven, was a preacher to all, then the Acts, the xiv. Epistles of Paul, the vii. Catholic Epistles, and so you have all the books. If there is any beside these, do not repute it genuine." - Gregory Nazianzen (From the Metre Poems of St. Gregory Theologus, Specifying Which Books of the Old and New Testament Should Be Read., http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-196.htm#P11653_2183629)
4/26/03
"We should know that not every book which is called Scripture is to be received as a safe guide. For some are tolerably sound and others are more than doubtful. Therefore the books which the inspiration of God hath given I will enumerate. [Then follows a list of the proto-canonical books of the Old Testament, Esther alone being omitted. All the, deutero-canonical books are omitted. He then continues] to these some add Esther. I must now show what are the books of the New Testament. [Then follow all the books of the New Testament except the Revelation. He continues,] But some add to these the Revelation of John, but by far the majority say that it is spurious. This is the most true canon of the divinely given Scriptures." - Amphilochius (From the Iambics of St. Amphilochius the Bishop to Seleucus, on the Same Subject., http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-197.htm#P11660_2184756)
4/27/03
Jerome tells us that Lactantius held a heretical view of the Trinity:
"Lactantius in his books and particularly in his letters to Demetrian altogether denies the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and following the error of the Jews says that the passages in which he is spoken of refer to the Father or to the Son and that the words 'holy spirit' merely prove the holiness of these two persons in the Godhead." (Letter 84:7)
4/28/03
Tertullian rejected transubstantiation:
"Will not your [unbelieving] husband know what it is which you secretly taste before taking any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that bread which it is said to be?" (To His Wife, 2:5)
"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life." (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)
"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Against Marcion, 1:14)
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure....In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes' -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." (Against Marcion, 4:40)
4/29/03
Irenaeus believed that the eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, not a sacrifice in the sense that Roman Catholicism teaches:
"Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to the declaration of Malachi the prophet. For, 'from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;' as John also declares in the Apocalypse: 'The incense is the prayers of the saints.' Then again, Paul exhorts us 'to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.' And again, 'Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.' Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God 'in spirit and in truth.' And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom." (Fragments, 37, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-64.htm#P9437_2768575)
4/30/03
The Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott wrote that "The material identity of the body after the resurrection with the body which was on earth was disputed by Origen." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 490) The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote that Origen's view was a "denial of a material resurrection" (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch13.htm, 187:2). Origen criticizes Christians who hold to a high view of the correspondence between the body that dies and the body that rises:
"Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body....Those, however, who receive the representations of Scripture according to the understanding of the apostles, entertain the hope that the saints will eat indeed, but that it will be the bread of life, which may nourish the soul with the food of truth and wisdom, and enlighten the mind, and cause it to drink from the cup of divine wisdom, according to the declaration of holy Scripture: 'Wisdom has prepared her table, she has killed her beasts, she has mingled her wine in her cup, and she cries with a loud voice, Come to me, eat the bread which I have prepared for you, and drink the wine which I have mingled.'" (De Principiis, 2:11:2-3)
"We now turn our attention to some of our own (believers), who, either from feebleness of intellect or want of proper instruction, adopt a very low and abject view of the resurrection of the body. We ask these persons in what manner they understand that an animal body is to be changed by the grace of the resurrection, and to become a spiritual one; and how that which is sown in weakness will arise in power; how that which is planted in dishonour will arise in glory; and that which was sown in corruption, will be changed to a state of incorruption. Because if they believe the apostle, that a body which arises in glory, and power, and incorruptibility, has already become spiritual, it appears absurd and contrary to his meaning to say that it can again be entangled with the passions of flesh and blood, seeing the apostle manifestly declares that 'flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, nor shall corruption inherit incorruption.' But how do they understand the declaration of the apostle, 'We shall all be changed?' This transformation certainly is to be looked for, according to the order which we have taught above; and in it, undoubtedly, it becomes us to hope for something worthy of divine grace; and this we believe will take place in the order in which the apostle describes the sowing in the ground of a 'bare grain of corn, or of any other fruit,' to which 'God gives a body as it pleases Him,' as soon as the grain of corn is dead. For in the same way also our bodies are to be supposed to fall into the earth like a grain; and (that germ being implanted in them which contains the bodily substance) although the bodies die, and become corrupted, and are scattered abroad, yet by the word of God, that very germ which is always safe in the substance of the body, raises them from the earth, and restores and repairs them, as the power which is in the grain of wheat, after its corruption and death, repairs and restores the grain into a body having stalk and ear. And so also to those who shall deserve to obtain an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, that germ of the body's restoration, which we have before mentioned, by God's command restores out of the earthly and animal body a spiritual one, capable of inhabiting the heavens" (De Principiis, 2:10:3)
5/1/03
Roman Catholics often argue that Trinitarian doctrine is absent from or unclear in scripture. But:
"God, then, is One, without violation of the majesty of the eternal Trinity, as is declared in the instance set before us. And not in that place alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the Name of the Godhead; but both in many places, as we have said also above, and especially in the epistles which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he most clearly set forth the Godhead and sovereignty of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....But if you require the plain statement of the words in which Scripture has spoken of the Spirit as Lord, it cannot have escaped you that it is written: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit.' Which the course of the whole passage shows to have been certainly said of the Holy Spirit....So he not only called the Spirit Lord, but also added: 'But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. So we all with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are formed anew into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord the Spirit;' that is, we who have been before converted to the Lord, so as by spiritual understanding to see the glory of the Lord, as it were, in the mirror of the Scriptures, are now being transformed from that glory which converted us to the Lord, to the heavenly glory." - Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit, 3:14:94, 3:14:101-102)
5/2/03
Pope Pius XII, in his decree Munificentissimus Deus, refers to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary as "a matter of such great moment and of such importance". He says to people who oppose the doctrine, "let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith". The Pope refers to the Assumption doctrine as "this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times".
In contrast, the Protestant historian Philip Schaff writes:
"It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm, section 83)
The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll explains that Epiphanius, a church father of the fourth century, lived near where Mary had lived, yet he denies that anybody has any apostolic tradition regarding the end of Mary's life:
"In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed - as a martyr. 'Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.'...A Palestinian with opportunity for some research, E. does not speak of a bodily resurrection and remains noncommittal on the way Mary's life ended. He nowhere denies the Assumption, or admits the possibility of Assumption without death, for he has found no sign of death or burial. He suggests several different hypotheses and draws no firm conclusion." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 135)
5/3/03
It's often suggested, incorrectly, that premillennialism was just the briefly held view of some of the earliest church fathers, something rejected by later fathers as they matured in their beliefs and broke their ties with Judaism. While it's true that premillennialism was much more popular in the earliest centuries than it was in the later centuries of the patristic era, it was still held by some even after the time of Constantine. As I mentioned in an earlier segment, Augustine was once a premillennialist, though he later rejected the doctrine. For example, the bishop Quintus Julius Hilarianus, a colleague of Augustine in Africa, was a premillennialist and wrote in favor of the doctrine (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 240). J.N.D. Kelly writes of Ambrosiaster:
"For Ambrosiaster, however, the collapse of the Roman empire was the sign of the approaching end of the world. Antichrist would then appear, only to be destroyed by divine power, and Christ would reign over His saints for a thousand years." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 479)
This later support for premillennialism is significant for a number of reasons. For one thing, it refutes the claim that the patristic support for the doctrine was only brief. It also refutes the suggestion that the later rejection of the doctrine was universal or the result of some ruling by a worldwide denomination that had authority over all of the fathers. The truth is that premillennialism was the popular view among the earliest fathers and continued to be held by some people, even church leadership, after it ceased to be the majority view. If premillennialism is a significantly dangerous false teaching, as Roman Catholicism claims, and the Roman Catholic view of eschatology is an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church, why was premillennialism held so widely and so long among the fathers?
5/4/03
Roman Catholics often criticize the concept of an invisible church, a church consisting only of believers, and they suggest that the church fathers never defined the church in such a way. In past segments, I've given examples of church fathers supporting the concept of the invisible church. Hippolytus is another example:
"Behold the words of a chaste woman, and one dear to God: 'I am straitened on every side.' For the Church is afflicted and straitened, not only by the Jews, but also by the Gentiles, and by those who are called Christians, but are not such in reality. For they, observing her chaste and happy life, strive to ruin her." (On Susannah, 22, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-17.htm#P2633_854182)
Hippolytus describes the church as a chaste, faithful bride of God, one who is opposed by the world, including those who falsely claim to be Christians. J.N.D. Kelly writes:
"Indeed, as we shall see in a later section, the prevailing view at this time was that the graver sins were incapable of remission, and it is obvious that the conception of the Church's nature and function corresponding to this must have been equally strict. We find a strong expression of it in Hippolytus, who, while picturing the Church as Christ's bride, or again as a ship sailing East through the billows of the world, envisages it as 'the holy society of those who live in righteousness'. There is no place in it for heretics or sinners, as is demonstrated by its Old Testament type, Susannah, who preferred death to defilement. Rather the Church is the earthly Eden from which the backslider who plunges into sin is extruded." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], pp. 200-201)
5/5/03
"On the incident of Mary and the brothers waiting outside for Jesus [Matthew 12:46-50], H. [Hilary of Poitiers] proposes a novel exegesis: 'But since he came unto his own and his own did not receive him, in his mother and brothers the Synagogue and the Israelites are foreshadowed, refraining from entry and approach to him.'" (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 171)
5/6/03
Origen didn't believe in transubstantiation. He refers to Christians consuming bread in communion, explains that the bread itself doesn't profit those who consume it, and contrasts that bread with the person of Christ:
"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (On Matthew, 11:14)
5/7/03
"He says, 'If any come unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.' [2 John 10] He forbids us to salute such, and to receive them to our hospitality. For this is not harsh in the case of a man of this sort. But he admonishes them neither to confer nor dispute with such as are not able to handle divine things with intelligence, lest through them they be seduced from the doctrine of truth, influenced by plausible reasons. Now, I think that we are not even to pray with such, because in the prayer which is made at home, after rising from prayer, the salutation of joy is also the token of peace." - Clement of Alexandria (Fragments, 1:4, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-74.htm#P9993_2824767)
"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)
5/8/03
In previous segments in this series, I've given examples of councils, regional and ecumenical, contradicting Roman Catholicism. I'll be giving more examples over the next several days.
Roman Catholics often cite the council of Sardica in support of the doctrine of the papacy. But the council doesn't have the significance they suggest, as the Protestant historian Philip Schaff explains:
"Much more important than the opinions of individual fathers are the formal decrees of the councils. First mention here belongs to the council of Sardica in Illyria (now Sofia in Bulgaria) in 343, during the Arian controversy. This council is the most favorable of all to the Roman claims. In the interest of the deposed Athanasius and of the Nicene orthodoxy it decreed: (1) That a deposed bishop, who feels he has a good cause, may apply, out of reverence to the memory of the apostle Peter, to the Roman bishop Julius, and shall leave it with him either to ratify the deposition or to summon a new council. (2) That the vacant bishopric shall not be filled till the decision of Rome be received. (3) That the Roman bishop, in such a case of appeal, may, according to his best judgment, either institute a new trial by the bishops of a neighboring province, or send delegates to the spot with full power to decide the matter with the bishops. Thus was plainly committed to the Roman bishops an appellate and revisory jurisdiction in the case of a condemned or deposed bishop even of the East. But in the first place this authority is not here acknowledged as a right already existing in practice. It is conferred as a new power, and that merely as an honorary right, and as pertaining only to the bishop Julius in person. Otherwise, either this bishop would not be expressly named, or his successors would be named with him. Furthermore, the canons limit the appeal to the case of a bishop deposed by his comprovincials, and say nothing of other cases. Finally, the council of Sardica was not a general council, but only a local synod of the West, and could therefore establish no law for the whole church. For the Eastern bishops withdrew at the very beginning, and held an opposition council in the neighboring town of Philippopolis; and the city of Sardica, too, with the praefecture of Illyricum, at that time belonged to the Western empire and the Roman patriarchate: it was not detached from them till 379. The council was intended, indeed, to be ecumenical; but it consisted at first of only a hundred and seventy bishops, and after the recession of the seventy-six Orientals, it had only ninety-four; and even by the two hundred signatures of absent bishops, mostly Egyptian, to whom the acts were sent for their approval, the East, and even the Latin Africa, with its three hundred bishoprics, were very feebly represented. It was not sanctioned by the emperor Constantius, and has by no subsequent authority been declared ecumenical. Accordingly its decrees soon fell into oblivion, and in the further course of the Arian controversy, and even throughout the Nestorian, where the bishops of Alexandria, and not those of Rome, were evidently at the head of the orthodox sentiment, they were utterly unnoticed. The general councils of 381, 451, and 680 knew nothing of such a supreme appellate tribunal, but unanimously enacted, that all ecclesiastical matters, without exception, should first be decided in the provincial councils, with the right of appeal-not to the bishop of Rome, but to the patriarch of the proper diocese. Rome alone did not forget the Sardican decrees, but built on this single precedent a universal right. Pope Zosimus, in the case of the deposed presbyter Apiarius of Sicca (a.d. 417-418), made the significant mistake of taking the Sardican decrees for Nicene, and thus giving them greater weight than they really possessed; but he was referred by the Africans to the genuine text of the Nicene canon. The later popes, however, transcended the Sardican decrees, withdrawing from the provincial council, according to the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, the right of deposing a bishop, which had been allowed by Sardica, and vesting it, as a causa major, exclusively in themselves." (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch05.htm, section 62)
Prior to the council of Sardica, there was a council in Antioch:
"The 25 (mainly disciplinary) 'Canons of Antioch' preserved in many of the ancient collections, both Greek and Latin, were long thought to have been the work of this Council [an Arian council held in Antioch in 341] but are now generally held to belong to a Council held at Antioch in 330." (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 78)
This council in Antioch in 330, not to be confused with the Arian council of Antioch in 341, repeatedly contradicts the doctrine of the papacy. The canons of the council say nothing of papal authority, but instead repeatedly assign regional authority to every bishop and condemn any attempt of any bishop to interfere in other regions. Notice that the canons refer to the authority of metropolitans, synods, and the emperor, but say nothing of appealing to papal authority:
"If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defence, and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different sentence. And let this decree apply to the laity, and to presbyters and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the clergy-list." (canon 6, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-44.htm#P2391_454142)
"IT behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain prebysters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others." (canon 9)
"If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with letters from them." (canon 11)
"If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have an opportunity of defence, nor any hope of future restoration." (canon 12)
"No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod." (canon 13)
"IF any bishop, lying under any accusation, shall be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict concerning him, he shall not be again judged by others, but the unanimous sentence of the bishops of the province shall stand firm." (canon 15)
5/9/03
The canons of the council of Ancyra give us another example of the more severe, more public nature of penance in the early church, as compared to the less severe, more private system of Roman Catholicism:
"Let those who have been or who are guilty of bestial lusts, if they have sinned while under twenty years of age, be prostrators fifteen years, and afterwards communicate in prayers; then, having passed five years in this communion, let them have a share in the oblation. But let their life as prostrators be examined, and so let them receive indulgence; and if any have been insatiable in their crimes, then let their time of prostration be prolonged. And if any who have passed this age and had wives, have fallen into this sin, let them be prostrators twenty-five years, and then communicate in prayers; and, after they have been five years in the communion of prayers, let them share the oblation. And if any married men of more than fifty years of age have so sinned, let them be admitted to communion only at the point of death....Concerning wilful murderers let them remain prostrators; but at the end of life let them be indulged with full communion." (16, 22)
Though the Council of Trent falsely claimed that private confession of sins to a priest was *always* practiced by the Christian church, the recent Catechism acknowledges that a change occurred:
"During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the 'private' practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day." (1447)
One wonders how Roman Catholicism determines which traditions it must maintain and which it can change and contradict.
5/10/03
"The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers." (Council of Constantinople, canon 2)
5/11/03
"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)
"Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation of their errors and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, 'The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.' But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and the partisans of all other heresies-for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:-all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them." (Council of Constantinople, canon 7)
5/12/03
"Persons converted from the heresy of those who are called Phrygians, even should they be among those reputed by them as clergymen, and even should they be called the very chiefest, are with all care to be both instructed and baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the Church." (Council of Laodicea, 8)
5/13/03
"It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy....The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received....It is unlawful to receive the eulogiae of heretics, for they are rather a0logi/ai [i.e., fol-lies], than eulogiae [i.e., blessings]. No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics....It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them." (Council of Laodicea, 6, 9, 32-33, 37)
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
5/14/03
"Presbyters, deacons, or clerics, who shall think good to carry appeals in their causes across the water shall not at all be admitted to communion. IT also seemed good that presbyters, deacons, and others of the inferior clergy in the causes which they had, if they were dissatisfied with the judgments of their bishops, let the neighbouring bishops with the consent of their own bishop hear them, and let the bishops who have been called in judge between them: but if they think they have cause of appeal from these, they shall not betake themselves to judgments from beyond seas, but to the primates of their own provinces, or else to an universal council, as has also been decreed concerning bishops. But whoso shall think good to carry an appeal across the water shall be received to communion by no one within the boundaries of Africa." (Council of Carthage, 28, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-146.htm#P7933_1617170)
5/15/03
"That it does not pertain to princes to choose a Bishop. Let every election of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, made by princes stand null, according to the canon which says: If any bishop making use of the secular powers shall by their means obtain jurisdiction over any church, he shall be deposed, and also excommunicated, together with all who remain in communion with him. For he who is raised to the episcopate must be chosen by bishops, as was decreed by the holy fathers of Nice in the canon which says: It is most fitting that a bishop be ordained by all the bishops in the province; but if this is difficult to arrange, either on account of urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, three bishops at least having met together and given their votes, those also who are absent having signified their assent by letters, the ordination shall take place. The confirmation of what is thus done, shall in each province be given by the metropolitan thereof." (Second Council of Nicaea, canon 3)
"Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside. The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility" (Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997], p. 87)
5/16/03
"IF any Bishop should ordain for money, and put to sale a grace which cannot be sold, and for money ordain a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyters, or deacons, or any other of those who are counted among the clergy; or if through lust of gain he should nominate for money a steward, or advocate, or prosmonarius, or any one whatever who is on the roll of the Church, let him who is convicted of this forfeit his own rank; and let him who is ordained be nothing profited by the purchased ordination or promotion; but let him be removed from the dignity or charge he has obtained for money. And if any one should be found negotiating such shameful and unlawful transactions, let him also, if he is a clergyman, be deposed from his rank, and if he is a layman or monk, let him be anathematized." (Council of Chalcedon, 2)
"election to the chair of Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter...Benedict IX (1032-48), whose election was the result of a systematic campaign of bribery by his father, the Tusculan grandee Count Alberic III, was as bad as any of the popes of the preceding 'dark century'. Like his uncle and immediate predecessor John XIX, Benedict was a layman, and was still in his twenties at the time of his election. He was both violent and debauched, and even the Roman populace, hardened as they were to unedifying papal behaviour, could not stomach him. He was eventually deposed in favour of Silvester III (1045). With the help of his family's private army, he was briefly restored in 1045 amid bloody hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Rome. He was evidently tired of the struggle, however, for he accepted a bribe to abdicate in favour of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian....The spread of nepotism and of venal appointments to the cardinalate, in return for money or favours, made the outcome of elections towards the end of the century even less likely to reflect a simple search for 'God's candidate'. In the 1484 conclave which elected Innocent VIII (1484-92) there were a record twenty-five cardinals present, many of them scandalously secular men. Proceedings were stage-managed by Giuliano della Rovere, nephew of the dead Pope. When it became clear that he himself was unelectable, he saw to it that a manageable nonentity was chosen. The successful candidate, Cardinal Cibo, bribed electors by countersigning petitions for promotion brought to him in his cell the night before the decisive vote. Roderigo Borgia's election as Alexander VI in 1492 was accompanied by even more naked bribery." (Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997], pp. 87, 149)
5/17/03
In its 28th canon, the Council of Chalcedon said that the Roman church had a primacy *given* to it by the fathers, and the council elevated Constantinople to the same primacy, with Constantinople being second only in chronology and honor, not jurisdiction:
"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her"
The bishop of Rome at the time, Leo I, opposed this canon of the council, but the canon was passed and widely accepted anyway. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno wrote:
"The easterners seemed to attach a great deal of importance to obtaining Leo's approval of the canon, given the flattering terms in which they sought it. Even though they failed to obtain it, they regarded it as valid and canonical anyway." (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 117)
The Roman Catholic scholar William La Due:
"Pope Leo's victory in the doctrinal arena was frustrated by the setback he suffered through canon 28." (The Chair of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 301)
Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz:
"Rome's opposition to the canon was a complete failure" (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 48)
In his own writings after the council, Leo I acknowledged that canon 28 was widely accepted in spite of his rejection of it (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-106.htm#P5374_1107913).