Salvation without Christ

Faith & Science Conversation
121

Thank you.

Well they are natural religions so it stands to reason I guess that they evolve.

I understand what you mean, but the problem is that this seems to lead inevitably to fragmentation. The clearest proof of this is the fact that there are now around 47,000 different Christian denominations. Before the Reformation, there were only four main Christian blocs, and a large part of that division was already due to the schism at the beginning of the second millennium. After the Reformation, however, due to its tenets, we arrive at the present situation of roughly 47,000 distinct Christian denominations. Can such fragmentation, as a direct consequence of the principles of the Reformation, really be something that God positively willed?

But the life of Jesus Christ was a model of obedience to the Father, not of independence.

And how do you determine what is true and what is not? There are Christians who do not even believe in the existence of the soul, despite its being directly taught by Christ Himself in the Gospels. What are we to make of that? And this is not even to mention the fact that some Churches permit remarriage and even bless same-sex unions, while others do not. These are only two examples among many of the contradictory teachings now being advanced in many churches.

I would say many, not most, because Catholic and Orthodox Christians together number roughly 1.6 to 1.7 billion people. For that reason, I would argue that the majority of Christians in the world do not follow sola scriptura.But I do understand what you mean. I know the four Gospels, the Book of Revelation, and most of the Pauline Epistles by heart—in Italian, which is my native language—and I have also worked through the original texts several times. The problem is that they can be interpreted in a great variety of ways. And if we are going to appeal to Scripture, then in Matthew 7:17 Jesus tells us: ‘Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.’So is the continual fragmentation that has followed the Reformation, with the current existence of 47,000 different denominations, and with churches that continue to divide even now, a bad fruit or a good fruit? Just the other day, a user opened a thread because he was going through a spiritual crisis after his own church split. From which tree did these fruits come?

I would also add that, in the Early Church, what was valued was not so much the teaching of ‘wise men’ as the teaching of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Church possessed final authority not because she had wise men, but because the Holy Spirit, according to the words of Christ, preserves her from error, at least in definitive matters of faith. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, and also that He would remain with us until the end of the world. How is this compatible with the claim of some that, after the Apostles, there was no real apostolic succession, that it became a kind of “every man for himself”, and that sola scriptura, apart from the Church’s interpretation (a concept which, as has been shown, was historically absent from the Early Church) was all that ultimately mattered?

122

It is true that Irenaeus leaned heavily on the Apostolic teaching he thought was preserved faithfully from the times of Peter and Paul in Rome. From that viewpoint, it is understandable that he claimed that all must agree with that teaching.

But what was that teaching? He lists the key points of that teaching in more than one chapter and the list is so fundamental that all Christian churches would agree with it. He also writes that
”We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom
the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our
faith.”
Irenaeus clearly understood that the scriptures and the oral teachings that have been preserved within the churches were the same teaching. As long as the teachings of the churches did not deviate from the early Apostolic teaching that was also told in the scriptures, the teaching of the churches had authority.

When Irenaeus wrote about ‘the church’, he was referring to the network of ‘catholic’ churches, which means all the local churches that accept the teachings of all the Apostles. He also seems to have an opinion that all of these have the same teaching. He wrote this in comparison with the gnostic and comparable teachings that were seen as heresies. Ireneaus seemed to be talking about the listed fundamental teachings that are accepted by all the Christian churches but not by the heresies he fights against.

The writings of Cyprian of Carthage shows that there were at least some support for the primacy of Rome within the Latin churches of his time. Greek churches did not give that support. The claimed Libellus Hormisdae is referred to as the ‘Hormisdas sham’ by some Orthodox theologians. A clarification of that viewpoint can be read from the following link:

When reading the oldest Christian writers (pre-250), the reader gets the impression that there was an agreement of the most central teachings but a diversity of opinions in topics that were not considered as central. The wordings are often such that they leave much space for interpretations - they did not use the terms of the later theology.

The claims of the primacy of the church of Rome gets support in some writings but not in others. As I wrote, the supporting statements are based on the belief that what was taught in Rome came faithfully from what the Apostles had told to the leaders of the church. The same teaching that can be seen in the biblical scriptures.

1 Like
123

I think I have used my share of Forum space for a discussion that has deviated from the topic of this thread. It is time for me to stop. I try to not respond to further comments that have deviated from the topic.

124

I will reply to some historical points you made about the eastern Churches because there is something interesting to show about them and their interactions with Rome.

125

Not only within the Latin Churches. Far from it, actually.

Here are some eastern fathers.

St.Maximus of Constantinople CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Maximus of Constantinople : “After the Ecthesis had been withdrawn, and the Type, Typos, substituted by the Emperor Constans, St. Maximus was present at the great Lateran council held by St. Martin at his instance in 649. He wrote from Rome (where he stayed some years): “The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Celestine (ep. 11), paragraph 1 Fourth Century Christianity » Cyril’s (ep. 11) Letter to Celestine (CPG 5310/8636) : “If it were possible to stay silent, to avoid censure, and to escape the expected distress by not writing to your religiousness about everything which is set in motion despite such compelling circumstances, in which some are now undermining the orthodox faith, I would have said to myself, “Silence is good and free from danger; it is better to keep quiet than to be agitated.” But because God demands that we be level-headed in these circumstances and because long-standing custom of the churches convinces us to consult with your piety, I am again writing of necessity. “

And 6: “We are not publicly withdrawing from communion with him before communicating these things to your religiousness. **Therefore see fit to decree what you think is prope**r and whether anyone ought to commune with him or rather publicly renounce him on the grounds that no one should commune with one who believes and teaches such things. The decision of your perfection should be made clear through letters to the pious, God-loving bishops of Macedonia and all those in the East.”

John Chrysostom, Correspondence with Pope Innocent I, “From John to Innocent,” chapter 4 CHURCH FATHERS: Correspondence with Pope Innocent I (Chrysostom) : “Having considered therefore all these things, and having been clearly informed of all particulars by my lords, our most devout brethren the bishops, may you be induced to exert your zeal on our behalf; for in so doing you will confer a favour not upon ourselves alone but also upon the Church at large, and you will receive your reward from God who does all things for the peace of the Churches. Fare you well always, and pray for me, most honoured and holy master.”

Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos 20: CHURCH FATHERS: Apologia Contra Arianos, Part I (Athanasius) “Thus wrote the Bishops of Egypt to all Bishops, and to Julius, Bishop of Rome. Eusebius and his fellows wrote also to Julius, and thinking to frighten me, requested him to call a council, and to be himself the judge, if he so pleased.”

Theodoret of Cyrus, Letter 113 to Leo of Rome CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 113 (Theodoret) : “If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. Other cities are indeed adorned by their size, their beauty, and their population; and some which in these respects are lacking are made bright by certain spiritual boons. But on your city the great Provider has bestowed an abundance of good gifts. She is the largest, the most splendid, the most illustrious of the world, and overflows with the multitude of her inhabitants. Besides all this, she has achieved her present sovereignty, and has given her name to her subjects. She is moreover specially adorned by her faith, in due testimony whereof the divine Apostle exclaims your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. And if even after receiving the seeds of the message of salvation her boughs were straightway heavy with these admirable fruits, what words can fitly praise the piety now practised in her? In her keeping too are the tombs that give light to the souls of the faithful, those of our common fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul . This thrice blessed and divine pair arose in the region of sunrise, and spread their rays in all directions. Now from the region of sunset, where they willingly welcomed the setting of this life, they illuminate the world. They have rendered your see most glorious; this is the crown and completion of your good things; but in these days their God has adorned their throne by setting on it your holiness, emitting, as you do, the rays of orthodoxy. Of this I might give many proofs , but it is enough to mention the zeal which your holiness lately showed against the ill-famed Manichees, proving thereby your piety’s earnest regard for divine things. Your recent writings, too, are enough to indicate your apostolic character. For we have met with what your holiness has written concerning the incarnation of our God and Saviour, and we have marvelled at the exactness of your expressions.”

And when we get close to the ending of the letter: “But I await the sentence of your apostolic see. I beseech and implore your holiness to succour me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you, and prove to you that my teaching follows the footprints of the apostles.”

126

And I was almost forgetting Theodore the Studite; he was about as Eastern as it gets

From here https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-Synchronized-EN/Theodorus_Studita__Epistulae.en.html;chunk.id=00000351 we can read the incipit of his letter to Pope Paschal I

“271” To Paschal, Pope of Rome}1 “To the all-holy in all things, great luminary, first high priest, our lord, master, apostolic pope, John, Theodosios, Athanasios, John, Theodore, the least presbyters and hegumens of Kathara, of Pikridion, of Paulopetrion, of Eukairia, of Stoudios. Surely by now your supreme blessedness has heard of the things which, on account of our sins, have come upon our church (for we have become a proverb and a tale among all the nations, to speak scripturally), but perhaps the report was not complete and by letter. Wherefore we, the least, although being perchance the last member of the body of Christ, nevertheless, since our head is restrained and the leaders in the brotherhood are scattered here and there, have been able in some way, being near and through mutual communication, to become one in spirit and in word, writing these things, even if boldly. Hear, apostolic head, God-appointed shepherd of Christ’s”

And on the next page he writes (I am only quoting excerpts, since the full text would be too long)https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-Synchronized-EN/Theodorus_Studita__Epistulae.en.html;chunk.id=00000353

“Come then from the West, O imitator of Christ, arise and do not cast us off forever; to you Christ our God has said, “and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Behold the time and the place; help us, you who have been appointed by God for this, stretch out a hand as far as it is possible; you have the power from God FROM BEING FIRST AMONG ALL, in which position you were also placed. Terrify, we pray, the heretical beasts with the pipe of your divine word; O good shepherd, lay down your life for the sheep of Christ, we beseech you.”

And also from the same page

“The dayspring from on high has visited us, Christ our God, having set your Blessedness in the West like some divinely-shining lamp for the illumination of the church under heaven upon the first apostolic throne. For we, who were held in darkness and the shadow of death by the wicked heresy, perceived the intelligible light, and we cast off the cloud of despondency and looked up to good hopes, having learned from our brothers and fellow servants whom we sent what great things your holy Eminence has both done and said, how you did not even admit the heretical apocrisiaries to your sacred presence, as if they were robbers, but justly sent them away while they were still far off, and how, imitating God, you were saddened and groaned over our afflictions upon hearing the letters and the account of those who were sent, as if over your own members. And truly we, the humble, recognized that a true successor of the chief of the apostles presides over the Roman church; truly we are convinced that the Lord has not completely forsaken our church, since the one and only assistance from you has been available to it from above and from the beginning in the present circumstances by the providence of God. You therefore are truly (then we have to go to the next page https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-Synchronized-EN/Theodorus_Studita__Epistulae.en.html;chunk.id=00000355 )the unpolluted and unadulterated spring of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole church, removed from every heretical storm, you the God-chosen city of refuge for salvation.”

Also, speaking of the acceptance of the papal primacy in the east before the schism

Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, pages 95 and 96 https://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/fdbrp/dvornik_byzantium_and_the_roman_primacy_1979.pdf :“Another courageous defender of the cult of images, Stephen the Younger, in 760 rejected the Iconoclast Council of 754. Naturally, he mentioned the patriarchs who had likewise rejected it. Speaking of the Pope, he says “according to the prescriptions of the canons, religious matters cannot be defined without the participation of the Pope of Rome.” The most eloquent and the most telling testimony on the Primacy of the Pope is given to us by the intrepid defender of the cult of images, the Patriarch Nicephorus. In his work Byzantium and the Roman Primacy in defense of the cult of images he exalts the importance of the decisions of the seventh ecumenical council when he says:“This Synod possesses the highest authority. 
 In fact it was held in the most legitimate and regular fashion conceivable, because according to the divine rules established from the beginning it was directed and presided over by that glorious portion of the Western Church, I mean by the Church of Ancient Rome. Without them [the Romans], no dogma discussed in the Church, even sanctioned in a preliminary fashion by the canons and ecclesiastical usages, can be considered to be approved, or abrogated; for they are the ones, in fact, who possess the principate of the priesthood and who owe this distinction to the leader of the Apostles.”

127

Read Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent.

What leads to fragmentation is the principle inherited from Rome that “Only we are right and the rest are outside the church”.

The tree of Rome, which had the arrogance to excommunicate the east.

In other words, his point cannot be construed to authorize the accumulation of new doctrines and imposition of them on other churches.

128

I have, in fact, cited both the Church Fathers and modern historians who study them. I have also spent a great deal of time gathering the relevant evidence. And that evidence is very clear: they didn’t hold anything even remotely resembling sola scriptura. The idea that the individual layman must determine the correct interpretation of Scripture is a concept that emerged in the sixteenth century; it didn’t exist in the early Church.

A few days ago, you made the following claim: “The Fathers had one, called Scripture; they referred to it as the canon, the guide, the umpire.” That claim is contradicted by the Fathers themselves, by what they actually wrote, and by the way they actually lived.

This is not to say that they did not regard Scripture as profoundly important. Rather, it is to say that they did not consider either the layman or themselves to be the final arbiters of its interpretation. Again, I have provided patristic and historical evidence to support this, beginning here : Salvation without Christ - #103 by 1Cor15.54

I was referring to the 47,000 different denominations. They certainly did not emerge from Rome; rather, they are a consequence of the Protestant schism and of the doctrines of free examination of Scripture and sola scriptura.

From the schism of 1054 to 2026, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church has given rise to thousands of different denominations with conflicting doctrines and ecclesiologies.

In other words, sola Scriptura and private interpretation (concepts that didn’t exist at all in the early Church, either in theory or in the way early Christians and bishops actually lived out the faith, and that were introduced 1,500 years later) are ok, while the beliefs of the Fathers in the early Church are dismissed as “new doctrines”?

Well, ok I guess, but I have actually cited the verbatim words of the fathers and of many modern historians and the historical reality (I’m not making theological claims of any kind now) seems to be quite different.

The excommunication was reciprocal. It’s not historically correct to portray it as a unilateral act (on either side). Also they didn’t mean to break communion, they were directed at specific persons Conclusion of the II Vatican Council: Joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration, approved by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople (7 December 1965)

Citing from the JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION : “Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

3. One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.”

Also

As I’ve shown in this post Salvation without Christ - #125 by 1Cor15.54 and also in this Salvation without Christ - #126 by 1Cor15.54 one, the primacy and authority of Rome was accepted even in the east during the first millennium.

The Patriarch Nicephorus couldn’t have been cleared when he talked about the seventh ecumenical council: “This Synod possesses the highest authority. 
 In fact it was held in the most legitimate and regular fashion conceivable, because according to the divine rules established from the beginning it was directed and presided over by that glorious portion of the Western Church, I mean by the Church of Ancient Rome. Without them [the Romans], no dogma discussed in the Church, even sanctioned in a preliminary fashion by the canons and ecclesiastical usages, can be considered to be approved, or abrogated; for they are the ones, in fact, who possess the principate of the priesthood and who owe this distinction to the leader of the Apostles.”

Not even the most fundamentalist Catholic would describe the Church of Rome in these terms, nowadays (hyperbole but you get what I mean). And the Patriarch Nicephorus was very much eastern.

How does he simply override the actual words of the Fathers and of the historians I have cited?

129

That claim comes right out of several Fathers – I was citing their words.

Sure they did – they suffer from the same disease, as I already noted. As one noted church historian put it, the radicals (I reject them as reformers) replaced one pope with many, each sure of his own infallibility.

Rome didn’t really start heaping up new doctrines till after the period of the Fathers.

He cites the Fathers broadly, better than anyone else at the time, to show that Trent was not in fact catholic.

130

I cited the words of Fathers who affirmed the exact opposite, namely that the interpretation belonged to the Church, I even linked them, for transparency. And they were extremely clear in affirming things very different from sola Scriptura (they didn’t “deny” sola Scriptura because they couldn’t deny something not yet invented)

That’s a nice way of putting it, i’m not sure it works though.

No dogmatic and definitive doctrines have been “created” that weren’t there at least in nuce during the period of the Fathers. I have quoted the Fathers on some specific issues but I could quote them on many others,

Let’s examine his theories then.

131

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.