Early Church

[megamattman1]

I posted this earlier with no substantial responses and wanna try again.

The two events prior to Constantine normally cited by Catholics and non-Catholics alike are the events regarding Bishop Victor and Bishop Stephen both of Rome. Usually Catholics use the fact that an authority has been issued by these bishops as "proof" of the authority of the Church. Non-Catholics use the fact that other churches did not submit as "proof" of the non-authority of the Church. Catholics don't usually mention this as if it is lethal but rarely one may relay the fact that the non-submission actually reflects that authority can only be resisted only if it actually exists.

Below are some texts found ironically by writers trying to refute the Catholic claim. My question is why does not the idea that an authority must have existed in order to be resisted not hold water? I am well aware of the theory that the Church started out giving advice based on its superior civil position and size but started giving orders and claiming more frivilous power.

So perhaps they were being arrogant or more likly taking their position to far after all. What should we say to someone who says this?

Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "

As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:

I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).

How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).

Also I've been meaning to look into events after Constantine's conversion and the conversion itself, so if ayone knows a good place to begin that I may not know of other than typing in constantine, sun, conversion, cross, etc into google, thanx.

[Anna]

megga,

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking...I'm having a blonde day!

Please provide me with the sources for your quotes, so that I can get a handle on your perspective...

Thanks.

Pax Christi. <><

[Aloysius]

looks like a couple of insubordinate bishops to me. my, now doesn't that look like a familiar country's bishops... :cough::cough:USA :cough::cough:

well at least it prooves there were ppl back then claiming to be Peter's successor. it also prooves that other people disputed it. and retrospect prooves that the Holy Spirit was on the side of those claiming Peter's authority :cool:

[Pio Nono]

looks like a couple of insubordinate bishops to me. my, now doesn't that look like a familiar country's bishops... :cough::cough:USA :cough::cough:

The first part of that statement was fair and legitimate. The second part.....

Pray for the shepherds of Christ's Holy Church; as St. Josemaria Escriva said, there are no bad priests, only those for whom we do not pray enough.

Yours,

Pio Nono

[megamattman1]

Well... maybe I should rephrase my question.

What should we say to someone who disagrees with certain issues of the Church and then cite those quotes as "proof" that the bishop of rome took his position to far?

I reailze we can say that the bishops back then were human and didn't want to believe, but beyond that, does anyone know of any evidence I could start with at least where I could give a good response? Does it simply come down to I believe and he doesn't because we both interpret history itself differently?

[Anna]

Do those quotes prove that the Bishop of Rome took his position too far?

And we can always point to our first pope, St. Peter, who three times denied Christ to show that popes are not perfect people.

Christ never promised that we would live perfect lives on this earth, nor that our leaders would. His promise was that the Holy Spirit, Who is perfect would guide the Church, and that is where we place our faith--in Christ's promise, and in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church, no matter what we humans do to It to mess things up.

Yes, I think that people do even interpret history according to their own insights and opinions. This may lead some to see the Church as 'full' while others see her as 'empty.' Same history, but different perspectives.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited January 14, 2004 by Anna

[Ellenita]

Anna, you are wonderful...... :wub:

[megamattman1]

well since my posts are the ones that don't seem to get any substanitive responses. (but don't they all say that! lol) I'll try rephrasing one more time.

Given the fact that people interpret history that way, what can we say? Moreover shouldn't we be able to point to where the pope did proclaim as pope the way we understand it? I've found nothing before the year 300 that's been substantially full proof. I realize that it is not necessarily the case (as Newman would say too) that it would be as full blown as today so I will look into Constantine and such, but, again, if anyone has any information I'd be very grateful.

[jrndveritatis]

Well, here is a quote of Cyprian of Carthage from AD 250. I guess that moves it forwards 50 years for ya. I think its pretty conclusive at least the the argument for the supremacy of Rome was well-established by this time.

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Although not quite as explicit I think this quote from St. Ireneus makes it clear that the early Church recognized that from Rome comes true doctine, which is at least an indication of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. This is from the year AD 189.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

What think you, megamattman?

Also, just as it took hundreds of years for the formal doctrine of the Trinity to develop and be defined, I don't see why it couldn't have taken a similar amount of time to recognize that in the Bishop of Rome is the supreme authority in the Church. I say I don't see why not, but in fact it seems as though this was recognized at least implicitly in many of the Church Fathers.

[cmotherofpirl]

What about when Pope Clement wrote his letter to Corinth?

He is writing as the head of the Church to tell them to stop fighting.

http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/chur.../1stclement.cfm

[phatcatholic]

i'm uncertain as to how the quote pertains to ur questions, and even your questions--which you have rephrased many times--are somewhat vage. but i shall attempt to tackle it nonetheless

first off, i'm not sure if i agree w/ ur statement that authority can only be resisted if it actually exists. for example, i could go to my ex-girlfriend's pentecostal church, which attempts to weild authority over its congregation by stating that if u do not belief exactly what that pastor believes then u are going to hell. i resist that pastor's authority for the very fact that it does NOT exist in my eyes. this example seems to counter ur claim that athority must exist to be rejected......but, i may not be digging deep enough into the logical implications of ur claim.

that said, on to ur quotes concerning victor and stephen. first, victor:

Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "

i'm operating under the assumption that neither bishop is the bishop of rome aka the pope. now, u seem to be suggesting that anti-catholics could use this exerpt for two reasons:

1. that bishops abuse their power, or...

2. bishops have too much power

the sentence "Victor tried to change the stance of Asia Minor" could be proof that a bishop is abusing his power. if he is using his apostolic authority (to which, as a bishop he is rightfully granted) to lead the flock astray, he is indeed abusing his power. however, you could easily counter in two ways.

1. a bishop is only infallible when he is in communion w/ the pope. the fact that Polycrates "met with the brethren throughout the world" and searched thru Scripture shows that Polycrates has the opinion of the communion. and since Polycrates is contradicting Victor, one can say that Victor has the fallible opinion. this leads to the second counter....

2. if a bishop propagates a belief that is contrary to that of the pope and the bishops in communion w/ the pope, then it is the obligation of the faithful to dissent from the bishop on this particular matter.

so, even if bishops have too much power or abuse their power, this does not hinder the true role of authority--which is to lead the faithful. neither does it diminish the infalllible authority of the pope and the bishops in communion with him.

now on to Stephen:

As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:

I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).

How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).

in this case, Firmilian is basically affirming what i said earlier about Victor: if a bishop speaks contrary to "the communion of ecclesiastical unity" then he is not to be followed on this topic, nor is his opinion on this topic an infallible one.

this is essentially the claim that Firmillian is making against Stephen. Firmilian is accusing Stephen of propagating (spreading) beliefs on "rocks" other than the "one rock" upon which the magisterium stands. Stephen is abusing his power by claiming that one is excommunicated who does not share his opinioin, when in fact Stephen excommunicates himself when he holds to doctrine that is contrary to the magisterium. in doing so, Stephen becomes fallible and is not to be followed on this matter.

in neither case is the infallibility of the church ever weakened.

is this "substantitive" enough of a response? let me know if u need any more help.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[megamattman1]

As far as Clement goes I'll assume you mean this:

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

And as far as the Polycrates quote too they both aren't very explicit and I could see someone arguing that the church of Rome was just large and influential and a good start since it was started by peter and paul.

As far as Cyprian's quote. That's the very quote that got me started in this little charade!

Because the websites show he's the one that resisted Pope Stephen in the baptism deal. I guess I never really did figure out how to harmonize the two seemingly contradicting quotes. It's like he could go either way the way he's made out.

Of course Cyprian could have just been voicing his opinion but it's been said he was excommnicated... maybe it was bad relations with the pope. And didn't have communion again until the next pope. What exactly is the significance of that communion is left to be said. That quote that he saw the folly in stephan's boasting of his postion really shakes things up for using cyprian.

I think the only thing I can really do at this point is toughen up and go into post 300ish territory. The quotes at catholic.com in that section are very compelling if I can refute any arguments against those.

[Tom]

In understanding Cyprian, I think it's useful to realise (if you didn't already, that he published two editions of De Unitate. The first, referenced by jrndveritatis and published in250/1 clearly acknowledges Petrine primacy. The second edition published in 257 (subsequent to his rebaptism quarrel with Stephen) plays down the role of Peter and instead highlights the principal role of all the Apostles as Bishops. Stephen's use of the Petrine text (Mt 116:18) to support his authority is the first use of this as proof text. Until 250s bishop of Rome had some pre-eminence because of the apostolicity of the Roman see (Ireneaus shows respect for Rome). From 250s the Petrine text was increasingly used as proof of primacy. Hope this is of some help.

Isn't Church history wonderful :)

Edited January 15, 2004 by Tom