"The development of the orthodox Mariology and Mariolatry originated as early as the second century in an allegorical interpretation of the history of the fall, and in the assumption of an antithetic relation of Eve and Mary, according to which the mother of Christ occupies the same position in the history of redemption as the wife of Adam in the history of sin and death [Rom 5:12 ff., 1 Cor 15:22] . . . Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a "mother of all living" in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she became through her obedience the mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race, as Eve by her disobedience was the fountain of sin and death.[Footnote: "Even St. Augustine carries this parallel between the first and second Eve as far as any of the fathers . . . "]" - Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600)
Now Philip Schaff is one of the most reverenced Ecclesiastical Historians around (in the Protestant Tradition) but I have to say that I laughed out loud when reading this on Dave Armstrong's blog.
I mean if the early church (2nd century = REALLY early Church) fell into the 'heresy' of 'mariolatry' then just give up. Burn your bibles, throw out your crosses, sell your churches, because if God in all his sovereignty couldn't preserve the church before the new testament was even assembled, then he's the weakest god in history, or the strangest God. I could never tell a Mormon he wasn't a Christian if I agreed with Schaff, both agree (the mormon, and in this statement Schaff) to the ridiculous idea of 'the great apostasy'.
Chesterton writes on the early church that, it's strange how those who were motivated only by love for him (Jesus) would rush off and immediately do all those things he hated.
I know it's just one statement, and that Schaff is pretty solid, and I'm not trying to rub salt in the wound, but even the Anabaptists give the church till Constantine sanction, and let it not be said now or ever that the Lutherans stray further from the Christian history than the Anabaptists.
There you have it the "heresy" of Mariolatry taught by such degenerates as Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Augustine and the other so-called "Early Church Fathers".
Showing posts with label Philip Schaff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philip Schaff. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Church According to Nicea, why St. Edmund Campion died
On a bit of a mix of personal and theological I thought I'd just write a few things down on the unity, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church as well as the development of doctrine.
I still remember reading Dominus Iesus or whatever Benny 16 put out as his encyclical that non-Catholic churches were merely "ecclesial communities" and being horrified. At the time I thought "Catholics aren't even Christians and they're telling us we aren't!?" ... I guess I didn't realize that Catholics probably thought they were Christians, but that would've saved me some confusion.
It was that document and the Catholic-Protestant Debate which I visited around that time which led me to what is (in my opinion) one of the most important points in Church History. As I looked for which Church I wanted to join I still had my unbiblical concept of the invisible church but then I read these words in the Nicene Creed, which J.N.D. Kelly, and Philip Schaff said was considered early on to be an infallible pronouncement in the eyes of the primitive Church (the Nicene Creed that is).
"We/I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" . The next line about baptism scared me as well. I knew there were only 3 churches applying for that job description and so I began studying Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism. While I still like all 3 of those, I've chosen the last because I believe it meets those standards best.
While reading the story of St. Edmund Campion the other day it reminded me of this phrase. I'm still looking for a confirmation saint and while Augustine and Aquinas have been the steady tie, 2 others have come up recently. St Edmund Campion and St. Thomas More. I want one of them because they lived in what I call "the era of complicated Christianity" (or after the Reformation). It was an utter mess, and I want to be able to identify with someone who wasn't just a Western Christian but was specifically faithful to Catholicism and was killed for his strength of conviction.
I'm really thinking it's going to be one of the English martyrs who died for the primacy of the Holy See that ends up being my patron saint. I LOVE what St. Edmund Campion said at his trial where he defended himself vehemently against all the charges of those English martyrs: His beautiful words:
That almost gives me goosebumps. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered, which is really horrific, if you don't know what that entails, read about it on wikipedia. I think about St. Edmund and St. Thomas More and how they died for that phrase, that jewel of dogmas of Ancient Christendom "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church".
St. Edmund Campion pray for us!
St. Thomas More pray for us!
I still remember reading Dominus Iesus or whatever Benny 16 put out as his encyclical that non-Catholic churches were merely "ecclesial communities" and being horrified. At the time I thought "Catholics aren't even Christians and they're telling us we aren't!?" ... I guess I didn't realize that Catholics probably thought they were Christians, but that would've saved me some confusion.
It was that document and the Catholic-Protestant Debate which I visited around that time which led me to what is (in my opinion) one of the most important points in Church History. As I looked for which Church I wanted to join I still had my unbiblical concept of the invisible church but then I read these words in the Nicene Creed, which J.N.D. Kelly, and Philip Schaff said was considered early on to be an infallible pronouncement in the eyes of the primitive Church (the Nicene Creed that is).
"We/I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" . The next line about baptism scared me as well. I knew there were only 3 churches applying for that job description and so I began studying Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism. While I still like all 3 of those, I've chosen the last because I believe it meets those standards best.
While reading the story of St. Edmund Campion the other day it reminded me of this phrase. I'm still looking for a confirmation saint and while Augustine and Aquinas have been the steady tie, 2 others have come up recently. St Edmund Campion and St. Thomas More. I want one of them because they lived in what I call "the era of complicated Christianity" (or after the Reformation). It was an utter mess, and I want to be able to identify with someone who wasn't just a Western Christian but was specifically faithful to Catholicism and was killed for his strength of conviction.
I'm really thinking it's going to be one of the English martyrs who died for the primacy of the Holy See that ends up being my patron saint. I LOVE what St. Edmund Campion said at his trial where he defended himself vehemently against all the charges of those English martyrs: His beautiful words:
"In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors, all our ancient bishops and kings, all that was once the glory of England -- the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter" - St. Edmund Campion
That almost gives me goosebumps. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered, which is really horrific, if you don't know what that entails, read about it on wikipedia. I think about St. Edmund and St. Thomas More and how they died for that phrase, that jewel of dogmas of Ancient Christendom "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church".
St. Edmund Campion pray for us!
St. Thomas More pray for us!
Monday, September 1, 2008
Pope as Anti-Christ or the Church as God's Instrument?
"Surely anybody's commonsense would tell him that enthusiasts who only met through their common enthusiasm for a leader whom they loved, would not instantly rush away to establish everything that he hated." - G.K. Chesterton on the History of the Catholic Church (critique of Evangelical theory of the universal apostasy of the Church)
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" - St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
"The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final. Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever." The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: "The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council." Pope Leo speaks of an "irretractabilis consensus" of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm." - Philip Schaff endorsing conciliar infallibility (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [error] to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)
Many Protestants accuse the Roman Catholic (and every other rite of the Catholic Church) Church of giving the Pope 'too much power' and as "Anti-Christ" for he usurps the position of Christ. However what if Christ GAVE St. Peter this role. What if Christ said "On this rock will I build my Church", what if Christ said "Peter feed my Lambs", what if Christ gave him authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), to lead and teach the Church (acts 2)... He did say and do those things. So to put up a dichotemy between Christ and the Roman Catholic Church is impossible, he promised both of them would work together.
The Church Fathers taught and died for the Church, the ONE Church, the Catholic faith. How on earth can I desert that just because John Calvin came along and thought the Church read Romans wrong? What kind of logic is that?
Let me end with this:
"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" -St. Irenaeus(Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).
So is the Catholic Church usurping Christ's role to distribute all grace? or are Calvinist's denying Christ's claim to establish a Church which distributes all grace? The Fathers side with Catholicism.
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" - St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).
"The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final. Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever." The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: "The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council." Pope Leo speaks of an "irretractabilis consensus" of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm." - Philip Schaff endorsing conciliar infallibility (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [error] to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)
Many Protestants accuse the Roman Catholic (and every other rite of the Catholic Church) Church of giving the Pope 'too much power' and as "Anti-Christ" for he usurps the position of Christ. However what if Christ GAVE St. Peter this role. What if Christ said "On this rock will I build my Church", what if Christ said "Peter feed my Lambs", what if Christ gave him authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), to lead and teach the Church (acts 2)... He did say and do those things. So to put up a dichotemy between Christ and the Roman Catholic Church is impossible, he promised both of them would work together.
The Church Fathers taught and died for the Church, the ONE Church, the Catholic faith. How on earth can I desert that just because John Calvin came along and thought the Church read Romans wrong? What kind of logic is that?
Let me end with this:
"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" -St. Irenaeus(Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).
So is the Catholic Church usurping Christ's role to distribute all grace? or are Calvinist's denying Christ's claim to establish a Church which distributes all grace? The Fathers side with Catholicism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)