Apostolic Succession

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which claimant, among the many contending for the title, was the true Church. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. This simple procedure worked every time. (Why not try it yourself?)

___________________________________________

Clement of Rome

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

________________________________________

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about....Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]).

________________________________________

Irenaeus

"For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the apostles handed over the churches, and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in devious paths, and on this account the vestiges of their doctrines are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of those, however, who belong to the Church goes around the whole world, for it has the firm tradition of the apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same" (Ibid. 5:20:1).

________________________________________

Irenaeus

"Polycarp was instructed not only by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth, for he tarried a long time and when quite old departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he learned from the apostles and which the Church had handed down and which are true. To these things the churches in Asia bear witness, as do also the successors of Polycarp even to the present time" (Ibid. 3:3:4).

________________________________________

Irenaeus

"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles, those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession [of bishops] and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion....The true gnosis [knowledge] is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (Ibid. 4:26:2, 33:8).

________________________________________

Jerome

"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Epistle to Heliodorus 14:8 [inter A.D. 374-379]).

For more:  http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209frs.asp

God Bless

Nathan

Divinity of Christ

Evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Early Church Fathers
complied by Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D.

 

The DaVinci Code repeats the old claim, by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others, that no one believed in the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the early Church, but that this idea was invented and promulgated by the emperor Constantine who gained control of the Roman Empire in 312 AD.  This historical claim in absolute nonsense.  The following texts from Christian writers who lived between New Testament times and the reign of Constantine make abundantly clear that belief in Christ's divinity and equality with God the Father is an indisputable part of the Christian tradition from the beginning.  These quotes demonstrating belief in Jesus' divine as well as human nature are by no means exhaustive – they are just a very limited selection.  Most or all of the direct quotes below come from the collection edited by Cyril Richardson entitled Early Christian Fathers (NY: Macmillan, 1970), abbreviated here as ECF.

A.Ignatius of Antioch, on the Divinity of Christ, calls Jesus God 16x in 7 letters (ca. 110 AD)

 

1. “Jesus Christ our God” Eph inscr, Eph 15:3, Eph 18:2, Tral 7, Ro inscr 2x, Ro 3:3, Smyr 10:1.

2. He speaks of Christ’s blood as “God's blood” Eph 1:1

3.  He calls Jesus “God incarnate” Eph 7:2

4.  In Jesus “God was revealing himself as a man”  Eph 19:3

 

B. Epistle to Diognetus (ca. 125 AD) speaking of God the Father, he says:

1. Diognetus 7:2  "he sent the Designer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens and confined the sea within its own bounds" (ca. 125 AD)

2. Diognetus 7:4 “He sent him as God; he sent him as man to men."

 

C. Saint Justin Martyr on the Divinity of Christ (c. 155 AD)

1.   says that Christians adore and worship the Son as well as the Father.  1st Apology 6.

2.  says Christ, the Word incarnate, is divine 1 Apol 10 & 63

 

D. Irenaeus on Christ's Divinity (ca. 185) in his work Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies)

 

1. Of Jesus he says "He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him."  AH III.19.2 (Ante Nicene Fathers 1: 449).

2. "He, therefore who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared, 'No man knoweth the Father,' but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very [true] man, and that He was very [true] God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself."  AH, IV, 6,7 (ANF, 469).

Source:   https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com

 

God Bless
Nathan

The Constant Teaching of the Church

The Constant teaching of the Church

 

Individuals can make mistakes or misunderstand their teachers BUT the fact that we find a continuous and unbroken chain of believing in the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is extremely strong evidence that this belief was in existence from the very first moments of Christian history.

 

I mean, a follower of Jesus could reject what He taught but the others who were taught directly by Jesus would not teach the same error.

 

Let’s go back through time to find what Christians believed on the Real Presence. In our Catechism, the official teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, we find: the catechism quoting the council of Trent from 1551 that the belief in the real presence to have been at least from 1551 to today:

 

1551 AD

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again , that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

 

The Reformation brought on the need for the Council of Trent because many started teaching contrary to the Church on many matters including the Real Presence. But what about before that time?

 

431 AD

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

 

c.400 AD

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ." (Marcus the Magnesian)

 

c. 370 AD

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. " (St Augustine)

 

325 AD

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] s hould give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it] " (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

 

212 AD

The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. (Tertullian)

 

c.180 AD

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.  When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ , and from these the substance of our body is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life. (Ireaneus of Lyons)

 

c. 150 AD

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (St Justin Martyr)

 

c.110

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ , who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible . (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Or

 

They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Now consider this, Ignatius learned from the Apostles themselves. Did he misunderstand them? Isn’t it much more likely that he remembered what he was taught and taught others who would succeed him as Justin Martyr did, and Irenaeus, Augustine even councils speaking for the whole church teaching as the first followers of the original Apostles taught and all speaking with one voice on the matter?

 

God Bless

Nathan

Call no Man Father

One of the first times that a religious individual tried to show me that the Catholic Church was wrong was by pointing out that we call our priest ‘Father’ even though Christ Himself said not to call anyone by that name.  In this article I shall try to explain why it is not against Christ to call our priests ‘father’.

 

I acknowledge that Jesus did say:  “And give no man the name of father on earth: because one is your Father, who is in heaven ” (Mat 23:9).  Was Jesus saying an all-encompassing statement?  Did He leave any room for exceptions?  This verse seems to indicate that the Catholic Church is wrong in calling Her priests ‘father’.

 

After being barraged with questions mostly to trick Jesus into saying something unscriptural, Jesus turned to the people who were following Him and said: “The scribes and the Pharisees have the authority of Moses; All things, then, which they give you orders to do, these do and keep: but do not take their works as your example, for they say and do not.”  Jesus was condemning their actions for they may be teaching correctly but they were not doing what was taught…they were being hypocrites.

 

But Jesus also said in the next few verses: “But all their works they do as to be seen by men…and the things desired by them are the first places at feasts, and chief seats at Synagogues, and the words of respect in the market-places, and to be named by men, Teacher.”  Jesus was denouncing their egos, he was telling everyone that these priests were in it for the fame and not for the Glory of God.   And so, our Lord wanted to make sure that the people knew because he did not wish it to continue.

 

And so, in this context did Jesus say in Matt 23:8 : “But you may not be named Teacher: for one is your teacher, and you are all brothers.  And give no man the name father on earth: because one is your Father, who is in heaven.”  It seems as if Jesus was trying to condemn what the Pharisees and Saduccees were doing.  They were, in effect, misusing the title of Father.  It is this misuse that Jesus is condemning.

If Jesus was condemning all uses of the title father then surely His disciples would have understood it that way.  But you can see many different instances where Jesus’ apostles use the title father.  In the book of Acts St Stephen addresses the rabbis and his fellow jews as “Men, brothers and fathers, listen”(Acts 7:2).  Also in Acts 4:25 we find Peter and John Glorifying God saying with one accord: “Sovereign Master, You are the One who has made heaven and earth and the sea and all things in them, Who, through the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, has said, ‘Why, did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise vain things?’” And once more in Acts we find the apostle Paul talking to the elders of Jerusalem saying: “Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense which I now make to you.”

 

With these past verses we find that Peter, John, Paul and Stephen all use the title ‘father’.  Would it surprise you that even Jesus himself used that title?  He uses it when referring to Abraham in his parable of the suffering rich man.  Being a parable Jesus is unrestrained in using any and all terms allowable to Him for describing this story and He still chooses to use the term ‘father’ when referring to the rich man by addressing Abraham in Luke 16:24: “…Father Abraham, have mercy on me…”  and again in verse 30: “…No, Father Abraham; but if someone risen from the dead would go to them, they will repent.”  If Jesus was making an all-encompassing statement when He said to call no man Father, then He either made a mistake (which I don’t believe) or He is not the perfect example of man (which I believe He is the perfect example to follow).  Therefore, there is no other conclusion to come of this other than Jesus was denouncing the misuse of the title and not of the word itself.  Anything else would deny the deity of Christ.

 

This little study also points out that to take anything on its own, that is not to use the whole of the scriptures to compare what is said about a certain subject is to possibly bring you to some very wrong beliefs which Christ never intended.  Some of what is said in one verse of scripture cannot be all-inclusive statements.  It needs to be interpreted in light of other passages that refer to the same subject matter in order to have a clear picture of what the Word of God is trying to teach you.

 

God Bless