Reading the Church Fathers discussion
This topic is about
Treatise I
Fathers of the Third Century
>
Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church
Kerstin wrote: "My intent was to be helpful. "Yes, I appreciate that. I wouldn't have read your quote carefully and responded if I didn't.
Mike Aquilina is an expert on the Church Fathers, I have no reason to doubt him when he makes assessments on how the words of 'father' or 'pope' has been used in the early Church. I don't understand why you would challenge a mere peripheral point intended for context.."
You have the free choice of will to trust his authority, in the same way, I have the free choice of will to question his claim, and ask for evidence. What is peripheral to you is of interest to me, as I'm interested in historical evidence.
Because we come from very different cultural and religious backgrounds, It is expected that what we believe and take for granted will be constantly challenged by others. However, I think this is nothing compared to the challenges put to Christians by atheists, Muslims and others. To some extent, this type of intense debate is a necessary exercise, though it does become tedious and frustrating at some points.
Anyway, all members are free to participate in or refrain from any discussion, and all suggestions as to how to make these discussions more enjoyable and productive are welcome. :)
Luke wrote: "OK I think we've lost sight of the purpose of this thread slightly. This is meant to be about unity and it feels as though we've become dis-unified by discussing it! .."Our little group is a microcosm of Christendom. :) We didn't become dis-unified, we were dis-unified to begin with, and it is not easy to attain Christian unity, being fallen as we are.
Well, to try and reel the discussion back on topic: from my understanding of Cyprian and his meaning of unity, there was an expectation that the congregation be in agreement with what the bishop taught (assuming he was teaching the accepted doctrine and not heresy), and that in turn, the bishop would be unified in doctrine with the other local bishops. This obviously would spread and network out across the whole world, thus creating a single, unified Church. This is why when Novitian broke away, Cyprian said he was no longer a part of the "true Church" because he was no longer in union with what was considered Orthodoxy and had become heretical.
Luke wrote: "Well, to try and reel the discussion back on topic: from my understanding of Cyprian and his meaning of unity, there was an expectation that the congregation be in agreement with what the bishop ta..."I thought they had a dispute over whether the "lapsed" should be received back into the Church, but Novatian wasn't teaching any heretical doctrine, at least Cyprian didn't mention any.
There was a dispute over the "lapsed" but there was also a discussion on how the real persecution is a subtle trick of the enemy disguising as a minister of light causing strife from within rather than from external events/forces. This is the case with Novitian. He came from within and drew people away. This is where Cyprian says that these people use scripture to sound legit but really are twisting it. The example given is from Matthew when Jesus says about "two or three are gathered" and how the heretics use this to justify their "church" being valid when they are really misapplying scripture to their own ends
Luke wrote: "Personally, in some sense, I think the RCC and EO are probably closest to the original structure of the early Church hierarchy than other types of church branches. But I wouldn't say either could..."
I would like to hear what is considered doctrines and teachings contrary to Scripture. Indulgences can certainly be misunderstood and they apparently were certainly abused by some, sadly....
Even if it was the early Church, unfortunately it doesn't mean it was/is a perfect Church, as although again, protected by the Holy Spirit to not teach error I think, it is run by fallible men - I guess even amongst Jesus' chosen, there was a Judas.....
I really look forward to learn more about the Orthodox.
It is all learning and interesting to me. I enjoyed reading Treatise I. We should continue to strive for unity though, because that is what Jesus wants....
6 - "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."23 - "I indeed desire, beloved brethren, and I equally endeavour and exhort, that if it be possible, none of the brethren should perish, and that our rejoicing Mother may enclose in her bosom the one body of a people at agreement."
I wonder when the image of the Church as mother began. Cyprian's language suggests that he is not talking about a new concept, but something very familiar.
Now he doesn't go into the Marian dimension of it, but then, this is not his focus. Yet the very mention of the Church as Mother brings her to mind.
Luke wrote: "Cyprian says that these people use scripture to sound legit but really are twisting it. The example given is from Matthew when Jesus says about "two or three are gathere.."The interpretation by Cyprian makes sense, that the "two or three" should be in agreement with "the universal brotherhood" first.
What baffles me, however, is why Cyprian is so certain that God is on his side, so to speak. It takes two to disagree, and Cyprian was one of the people that Novatian disagreed with. He helped elect Cornelius as the Bishop of Rome, and Novatian was elected by other bishops. How can he be so certain that Novatian "contends against God's appointment"?
I suppose Novatian shouldn't have left the universal Church. But if he had stayed, what could he or Cyprian have done to reach an agreement between them? This type of disagreement-turned-schism seems quite common in Church history, and it plagues the Church even today. Cyprian doesn't offer any practical advice on how to address this problem.
Cyprian asserts that even martyrdom would not help schismatics like Novatian "attain unto the Kingdom". This is chilling to read, considering that Novatian and his followers may have been martyred. Surely the Church could have done better than that?!
Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "Cyprian says that these people use scripture to sound legit but really are twisting it. The example given is from Matthew when Jesus says about "two or three are gathere.."The interp..."
I think Luke's messages 54 and 56 are key, and tie into Nemo's 59. Maybe we should dwell on this a little somehow... how does one know if He is on God's side, or God is on His side?
1) So Sola Scriptura allows deferral to a "universal brotherhood"? In my limited experience I thought the Bible only mattered (which seems to bring up it's own problems..).
2)being consistent and in "union" with all the Bishops seems important and historical and I thought was the point with all the various councils that were held..
3)I don't know if "reaching an agreement" is as important as having fidelity to what Jesus taught.
What does your last comment "Surely the Church could have done better than that" mean Nemo?
Kerstin wrote: "6 - "He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother."23 - "I indeed desire, beloved brethren, and I equally endeavour and exhort, that if it be possible, none of t..."
Interesting...
Susan wrote: "2)being consistent and in "union" with all the Bishops seems important and historical and I thought was the point with all the various councils that were held..3)I don't know if "reaching an agreement" is as important as having fidelity to what Jesus taught."
The agreement among bishops Cyprian is referring to is really the magisterium, though I'm not sure exactly when the term was first used. The way I understand it, part of a bishop's function is as protector of the faith. When he and his fellow bishops have consensus on an issue, then the Church, especially in the form of the councils, can proclaim with certitude if a matter is consistent with apostolic teachings. Cyprian appeals to this type of consensus, even though the big councils take place after his lifetime. He is thinking in the right direction. Novatian strays from the consensus.
And you are right that sola scriptura doesn't fit into this model. For part of the definition of sola scriptura is that councils take a secondary authority over the primary authority of the bible. Yet in Church history it is the councils, all the bishops speaking with one voice, where fidelity to the faith is declared.
Fidelity to the faith is the primary task of the individual believer to assure salvation. Priests, bishops, the Church are the structures to assure the believer that what he believes is rightly ordered. Why else would you need a Church to begin with? Novatian as a person strayed from orthodoxy, and in his role of bishop this has magnified ramifications, for by his office he is leading his sheep astray. Cyprian has ample ground to be deeply concerned.
Kerstin wrote: "Yet in Church history it is the councils, all the bishops speaking with one voice, where fidelity to the faith is declared."I suppose this is where "the Church is the pillar of truth" comes in?
Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "Cyprian says that these people use scripture to sound legit but really are twisting it. The example given is from Matthew when Jesus says about "two or three are gathere....."There was no agreement among the bishops. There were disagreeing parties.
Cyprian quoted profusely from the Scripture to defend the unity, but he doesn't address the problem how the two disagreeing parties (one of which he belongs to) can be united in practice.
Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "2)being consistent and in "union" with all the Bishops seems important and historical and I thought was the point with all the various councils that were held..3)I don't know if "rea..."
I was trying to establish the Catholic precedent without using Catholic terms...but I agree.
Luke wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Yet in Church history it is the councils, all the bishops speaking with one voice, where fidelity to the faith is declared."I suppose this is where "the Church is the pillar of tr..."
I would say exactly, which ultimately gets us to the infallibility issue (rightly understood) and the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "Cyprian says that these people use scripture to sound legit but really are twisting it. The example given is from Matthew when Jesus says about "two or three..."I think there was unity; certainly enough to be able to detect when all these heresies were occurring and calling them out on them.
Nemo wrote: "Cyprian quoted profusely from the Scripture to defend the unity, but he doesn't address the problem how the two disagreeing parties (one of which he belongs to) can be united in practice. "I think this particular piece is a mix of his reflection on what unity of the Church is and the pastoral solution to the situation.
To be in unity with the Church for him is synonymous with the love of Christ, and the love Christ has for his Church. Disunity shatters this love and provides an entry point for evil. The solution he provides is pastoral, confession. Confession in the sacramental form will bring a person back into right relationship with God. But he warns this has to be done with sincere humility, otherwise it is not valid, even if the person confessing holds the office of a bishop.
Re: CouncilI'm reminded of a scene in the classic movie "Chariots of Fire", where a meeting was held to decide whether Eric Liddell should run on Sunday. The situation became a deadlock...
Lord Cadogan: That's a matter for the committee!
Lord Birkenhead: We *are* the committee.
Imagine Cyprian, Novatian and other bishops in such a meeting...
Cyprian: That's a matter for the Council.
Novatian: We *are* the Council.
I wish the Church could have done a better job at resolving conflicts among her members than the British Olympic Committee. :)
Kerstin wrote: "Confession in the sacramental form will bring a person back into right relationship with God..."That presupposes the (other) person is in a wrong relationship with God. and therefore needs to confess. My question is, to put it more bluntly, how Cyprian knows that he himself is not such a person, for after all, he is personally involved in the disunity in the Church.
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Confession in the sacramental form will bring a person back into right relationship with God..."That presupposes the (other) person is in a wrong relationship with God. and theref..."
Can we articulate clearly exactly what the issue(s) was? From my quick search I saw 1) Novatian felt although God may possibly forgive those that lapsed under persecution, the 'church' should not and 2) he was incensed that Cornelius was chosen as Bishop of Rome,, so he convened a few other Bishops on his own and declared himself Bishop of Rome? Is that correct?
Nemo wrote: "That presupposes the (other) person is in a wrong relationship with God. and therefore needs to confess. My question is, to put it more bluntly, how Cyprian knows that he himself is not such a person, for after all, he is personally involved in the disunity in the Church."Fair question. I have about 50 pages to go in my book, where Bernard Green* goes into quite some detail on the entire situation and may shed some more light on it.
In the meantime I will base myself on what Mike Aquilina* wrote. He says that to be called a "Church Father" the person has to generally meet 4 criteria,
1) sound doctrine
2) holiness of life
3) Church approval
4) antiquity
These criteria apply regardless of whether the individual Church Father "belongs" more to the Eastern or Western tradition or both. These designations go back to the 5th century and St. Vincent of Lerins, for already at this time they felt the need to make distinctions of whether or not a person qualified as a reliable teacher. Cyprian is definitely part of this exalted roster. Those who do not meet these criteria are called ecclesiastical writers. My hunch is Novatian is considered an ecclesiastical writer rather than a Church Father because he died a schismatic.
* same books as before in the discussion
We've been reading this treatise with the assumption that it is written against Novatian, but Cyprian doesn't mention Novatian anywhere.As a general treatise on church unity that exhorts all Christians to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", I think it is alarming but not very instructive. Cyprian makes people pause with his rhetoric, but he doesn't clearly define or describe the Church, what are its characteristics and boundaries, if there are any, so that the readers might know whether or not they have been led astray from the Church.
As a treatise that deals specifically with the Novatian controversy, I find it unsatisfactory - I explained why in msg. 59. Cyprian believes that he is in the Church, and those who are not with him are separated from it. I suspect Novatian feels the same way. He doesn't give any reason for his belief, and the readers are again left without any criteria to make an independent judgment.
You make some interesting points Nemo. Maybe we have been looking at this with too many assumptions. I find it strange though that if this is the case, why this treatise is considered Cyprian's greatest work
Nemo wrote: "We've been reading this treatise with the assumption that it is written against Novatian, but Cyprian doesn't mention Novatian anywhere.As a general treatise on church unity that exhorts all Chri..."
They are good points Nemo, but possibly we are looking at this with modern eyes...I think in his times, the Church knew who they were and the people who started to have other ideas knew who they were, and who they were speaking against in order to try to change things (which meant there had to be a set of 'set' beliefs to stray from). Cyprian seems to be mentioning that it was confusing to the flock because those that strayed were still calling themselves Christians and then the poor flock didn't know what to believe, what the real (with fidelity to what Jesus taught) Christian set of beliefs were. Everything I have ever read is completely in line with the Catholic Faith I know, so I honestly never thought about it. It is an interesting angle to look at things, "What if the Church Fathers were wrong" or "What makes the Church Fathers right?"
Luke wrote: ".... I find it strange though that if this is the case, why this treatise is considered Cyprian's greatest work"It is also strange to me that I find this treatise of Cyprian unsatisfactory, unlike the writings of the other Fathers I've read. But, it may be because I am not spiritual and therefore don't appreciate spiritual teaching.
Why would you say you're not spiritual?
Luke wrote: "Why would you say you're not spiritual?"The Scripture clearly describes the characteristics of a spiritual man. When I read Gal. 5:22-23 and 1 Cor. 13:4-7, if doesn't take much reflection to know that I fall far short of that standard.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law
Galatians 5:22-23
It is perhaps the same type of self-reflection that led Chesterton to write that Original Sin is "the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved".
Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "Why would you say you're not spiritual?"The Scripture clearly describes the characteristics of a spiritual man. When I read Gal. 5:22-23 and 1 Cor. 13:4-7, if doesn't take much refle..."
I thought you might be referring to something like this. But none of us will perfectly act this way or live out these characteristics -- we are human after all, as much as the Spirit may guide us towards these goals.
I understand what you're saying. Yet I think we are fallen humans. Jesus is human, or rather, what a human ought to be. Anyway, back to Cyprian, I meant that the Father might see things more clearly because he is more spiritual than I.
Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: ".... I find it strange though that if this is the case, why this treatise is considered Cyprian's greatest work"It is also strange to me that I find this treatise of Cyprian unsatisf..."
I wouldn't consider myself 'spiritual' and I didn't think the Treatise was particularly 'spiritual'. Maybe I don't know really what you mean by that.
Nemo said, "As a treatise that deals specifically with the Novatian controversy, I find it unsatisfactory - I explained why in msg. 59. Cyprian believes that he is in the Church, and those who are not with him are separated from it. I suspect Novatian feels the same way. He doesn't give any reason for his belief, and the readers are again left without any criteria to make an independent judgment."The complete absence of any mention of Novatian, which you have correctly identified, is a huge sign about what Cyprian is or is not trying to do in the document. Assume that he knows what he is doing and is clear about it. Dwell upon what he says and what he does not say.
For Cyprian on Novatian and another heretic Felicissimus take a look for instance at
To Antonianus About Cornelius and Novatian
To the People, Concerning Five Schismatic Presbyters of the Faction of Felicissimus
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "As a treatise that deals specifically with the Novatian controversy, I find it unsatisfactory - I explained why in msg. 59. Cyprian believes that he is in the Church, and those who are ..."Interesting, thanks for posting.
I am watching lecture 3 of Hillsdale's free online course Theology 101: Western Civilization, and it is about the Gospel of Mark. In it the lecturer states, the Jews that reject Jesus, " saw in their Scriptures what they wanted to see", promises that this Messiah was going to come in power, and solve their problems, restore their status in the world, Mark shows that they have a 'blindness'...they turn a blind eye to verses like Isaiah chapter 53......I just found it interesting in the light of what we are saying, those that use/claim Scripture to prove their points etc.
This whole point is linked with the blind man in Mark....
Jesus wasn't fully successful on the first attempt (of curing the blind man), the blind man doesn't see 'clearly, completely' at first.....
Now Jesus is not limited in any way., so....this is possibly showing, 1) we are not ready to be disciples... and/or 2) Jesus chooses to work in stages...
Peter initially thinks like that too...He is just about getting, 'seeing' who Jesus is, and he is called Satan by Jesus! He doesn't want Jesus to have to die, and Mark says Jesus starts to teach for the second time in his Gospel and He goes into the Passion predictions, and Peter finally gets it....very interesting I thought
(I just edited that a little, sorry, didn't realize how confusing it was....just an interesting take on Mark's Gospel I thought.)
Susan wrote: "..... In it the lecturer states, the Jews that reject Jesus, " saw in their Scriptures what they wanted to see..."St. Augustine writes, "For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel." (Contra Faustum, Book XVII)
Jesus pointed out the errors of the Jews by quoting and interpreting the Scripture, demonstrating from the Scripture that He is from God. Jesus upholds the Scripture, whereas the Jews abuse it by using it to serve themselves.
Sola Scriptura is aimed at keeping people from setting themselves against and above the Scriptures. In other words, it is a countermeasure against tyranny.
Nemo wrote: "Sola Scriptura is aimed at keeping people from setting themselves against and above the Scriptures. In other words, it is a countermeasure against tyranny."I'm having real trouble with this logic. My biggest disconnect with sola scriptura is that it is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Bible itself doesn't claim sola scriptura. So why should I accept it as the sole authority?
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Sola Scriptura is aimed at keeping people from setting themselves against and above the Scriptures. In other words, it is a countermeasure against tyranny."I'm having real trouble wi..."
Jesus upholds the Scripture. Why not you?
There's upholding the Scripture, and then there's saying that God cannot/does not speak anymore in any way except via text.
Luke wrote: "There's upholding the Scripture, and then there's saying that God cannot/does not speak anymore in any way except via text."This topic belongs to the sola scriptura thread.
As I mentioned in that thread, my understanding of sola scriptura came from reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Bk. 1. Ch.7-9.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/insti...
Calvin acknowledges that the Holy Spirit teaches the believer interiorly, so God doesn't speak only "via text", but what sola scriptura emphasizes is that the Holy Spirit does not and cannot teach anything that contradicts the Scripture.
When Jesus lived on earth, he always quoted from the Scriptures to teach the disciples, and nobody could prove that He contradicted the Scripture.
Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "There's upholding the Scripture, and then there's saying that God cannot/does not speak anymore in any way except via text."This topic belongs to the sola scriptura thread.
As I me..."
Yeh true enough, and with that definition, I'd agree. But generally with people I've spoken to, it's defined as "no revelation" meaning that what the Holy Spirit says/teaches is literally just rephrasing the text that's already written. Nothing "new" (or different) can be said even if it agrees with Scripture.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "..... In it the lecturer states, the Jews that reject Jesus, " saw in their Scriptures what they wanted to see..."St. Augustine writes, "For to believe what you please, and not to b..."
Nemo, how do you combine what you write in this answer with anything that has happened since the Protestant break (for one)? I honestly don't understand. How is what all the varying denominations are saying, 'not' doing what your answers seems to speak against?
Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Sola Scriptura is aimed at keeping people from setting themselves against and above the Scriptures. In other words, it is a countermeasure against tyranny."I'm having..."
Nemo, doesn't everyone say they uphold the Scripture? That is exactly the point, isn't it? The Jewish people certainly always said they go by Scripture...I am very confused about the consistency in your train of thought.
Luke wrote: "There's upholding the Scripture, and then there's saying that God cannot/does not speak anymore in any way except via text."And saying Scripture says, whatever one says it says.....
Nemo wrote: "Luke wrote: "There's upholding the Scripture, and then there's saying that God cannot/does not speak anymore in any way except via text."This topic belongs to the sola scriptura thread.
As I me..."
I don't think ANY of us think that the Holy Spirit or Jesus would/could ever contradict Scripture....I don't know how that applies to Sola Scriptura, that is just common sense to every Christian, Catholic or otherwise I would think, or there are issues... I must be missing something......none of this explains what to do when people differ as to what the Scripture says (which needs to be in line with what Jesus taught/what the early Church taught)....which is what I thought this thread was about....when there is not union as to what Scripture/early Church says.....Nemo tried to explain I think why, stating multiple times about our immaturity in our understanding etc....but that does not get to the point and danger of heresy, of people continuing to call themselves Christian when based in the Scripture or not, they start claiming and saying things that are not what Jesus taught and peeling off people to follow them.... Nemo, do you think it is all innocent misunderstanding or some people are very proud, and refuse to follow a hierarchical system and feel they know better than how Jesus instituted His Church? Do you think this is an element in history at all? How do you define heresy? Again, I think I am missing something, sorry...
Susan wrote: "I am very confused about the consistency in your train of thought. "The feeling is mutual. :)
I've tried my best to explain my understanding of sola scriptura, and I don't think I've made any inconsistent or self-contradictory statements. However, if you can point them out, I'd be very grateful. Otherwise, if you simply disagree with me, that's perfectly fine. Let's agree to disagree and move on.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I am very confused about the consistency in your train of thought. "The feeling is mutual. :)
I've tried my best to explain my understanding of sola scriptura, and I don't think I'..."
Hahahaha.
I think it is a crucial point that I am misunderstanding..so sorry to try to clarify....
Your quote from St. Augustine....I take it you agree with it, or wouldn't post it...do you think the person Augustine is writing about, someone who is actually believing in themselves not the Gospel, backed up what they were thinking with the Gospel? I think the person he is directing his quote against, most likely does back themselves up with the Gospel, so when he says they are believing themselves, not the Gospel, I think he is saying they are reading into the Gospel what they want to believe....(like the Jews that I spoke about earlier, and it seems like a lot of denominations do in the current age).... Then you write Sola Scriptura is aimed at keeping people from setting themselves against and above the Scriptures....but again, no disrespect intended, is that not what every Protestant has done when they have used Scripture to counter what was believed for what, 1500 years? Sola Scripture has a vulnerability it seems, when Scripture can be used by two different people to say two different things....which happens a lot apparently....how do Sola Scriptura people resolve that? I know you said 'why' or 'how' it might happen....but where do Sola Scriptura people go from there? How do Sola Scriptura people decide who is right? Does one just say "the Holy Spirit told me interiorly, so I know what I am saying has got to be true?"
Well that's where you can hit a stalemate in discussions, from my experience. I've had debates she discussions with people on topics of scripture and have explained and expounded on something, brought out historical context etc only to be told that they believe the holy spirit told them otherwise and that's that. It's kinda like a trump card.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I am very confused about the consistency in your train of thought. "The feeling is mutual. :)..."
I answered that in the Sola Scriptura thread.
Nemo wrote: "Jesus upholds the Scripture. Why not you?"I can see where you might get the impression.
Jesus established his Church, he didn't hand us the Bible. I firmly believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But Jesus is not dependent on the Bible. The scriptures he is talking about is the Old Testament, he lived the New Testament and this is penned by his Apostles, the very same Apostles who formed his Church. So the Bible does have authority, but not independently of the Church, the very Church who created the New Testament.
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Jesus upholds the Scripture. Why not you?"I can see where you might get the impression.
Jesus established his Church, he didn't hand us the Bible. I firmly believe the Bible is the..."
I can't believe I'm reading these logically inconsistent statements from you.
Jesus upheld the Old Testament, which the Church didn't create, and which existed before the Church. So obviously the Scriptures, which include the Old Testament have authority independently of the Church, the authority which you apparently reject.
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (other topics)Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols (other topics)
The Fathers of the Church: An Introduction to the First Christian Teachers (other topics)
Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries (other topics)
Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church (other topics)
Maybe we need a summary of points made so far so we can tackle them properly or leave them alone and move on?