|
Part II
The original apostles and disciples were barely cold in their graves when Catholic doctrine and structure began creeping into the church?
ON THIS PAGE
Emphasis Mine In Bible Verses
How Quickly The Rot Set In
The Ecumenical Councils
And The Evangelical Defense of The Earliest Councils
The Council of Nicaea... The First Ecumenical Council (AD 325)
How The Council of Jerusalem Arrived at Decisions
and How The Ecumenical Councils Did
The Decidedly Catholic Presence at The Council of Nicaea
The Canons
The First Council of Constantinople
The Second Ecumenical Council (AD 381)
The Council of Ephesus
The Third Ecumenical Council - (431 AD)
The Hierarchy - Bishops
The Absolute (And Unbiblical) Power of The Bishops
The First Official "Patriarchs"
Footnote I - How The New Testament Structured the Church
How Quickly The Rot Set In
The first century apostles would be aghast if not downright appalled at what we call church simply because when they were alive the church referred not to a building or organization but to small groups of local believers. At about the same time John was penning Revelation forces in the church were already reverting back to the Old Testament priesthood. The leaders, rapidly moving away from dependency on the Holy Spirit, sought to establish their own authority by claiming that they were legitimate successors to the apostles therefore what they taught was God's truth. In time, it was taken for granted that they were the only ones who could correctly interpret the Bible and hear what the Spirit was saying.
As the first century gave way to the second, and the second meandered its way into the third, it was somehow transformed into a huge organization with layer upon layer of rank each subordinate to the one above.
They got away with it because then as now, people tend to have a herd mentality almost blindly following those who seem to have authority. We rarely stop to ask whether that authority is God-given or self assumed. Obviously, the Lord had good reason to call us sheep.
What seems not to have been considered is that the original apostles NEVER once deviated from what the Scriptures said - teaching ONLY what the Scriptures say. They NEVER made up their own rules and regulations but ONLY enforced God's own Commandments. And they NEVER assumed any authority except that which was God given. See Footnote I - How The New Testament Structured the Church
As time went by the church strayed further and further away from the Gospel established by Christ and fought for by the first apostles. Historian and Methodist clergyman, Jesse Hurlbut, says of this time of transformation: (Emphasis Added)
"We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D. 'The Age of Shadows,' partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church's] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history... For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul". [01]
The Ecumenical Councils
The word "ecumenical" means universal, i.e. concerning the Christian church as a whole.
In early church history the Ecumenical councils or synods were meetings of the bishops of the church who met to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice. The first four of the seven ecumenical councils held between the fourth and eighth century were the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
All seven were convened by Christian Roman Emperors in the attempt to reach a consensus on various issues and establish a unified Christian theology. The emperors often enforced the decisions of those councils throughout the empire.
Unlike Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches Protestants do not accept the authority of these councils but accept their teachings - (especially regarding the nature of Christ and the Godhead) because they believe that the councils did not create new doctrine but merely clarified and formalized those already found in the Scriptures.
Evangelical Defense of The Earliest Councils
In fact, the first two (the First Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople) are held in great esteem by most modern day evangelicals. It is unfortunate that, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, so many hold that the common doctrines and beliefs of the Catholic Church were not prevalent in the church of the day. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries says, (Emphasis Added)
Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, the Council of Nicea stands above other early councils of the church as far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it "the most sacred of all councils" [02]
See Martin Luther
In our haste to put people on pedestals we have completely overlooked several facts. Although it is beyond dispute that Martin Luther's reforms helped empower peasants and gave rise to Protestantism as we know it however, not many Martin Luther devotees seem to be aware that his idea of Grace and Faith alone was quite different from what we imagine them to be and that several Catholic doctrines remained firmly entrenched in his belief system. Besides which Luther's vitriolic and vicious polemics against those he considered to Be 'enemies' of the faith are abhorrent. Additionally, misconceptions about the content of Luther's theses abound. In fact, historical accuracy has given place to popular legend and over simplification.
James White adds (All Emphasis Added)
For those who struggle with the idea that it was not "Roman Catholicism" that existed in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host's total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a "Roman Catholic" church? Of course not. Yet, the church of 325 had none of these beliefs, either. Hence, while they called themselves "Catholics," they would not have had any idea what "Roman Catholic" meant. [i03]
If this is true I wonder why Pope Gregory I (540 to 604 A.D.) said he venerated the "first four Ecumenical Councils equally with the Four Gospels (sicut quatuor Evangelia)" [04]. The point being (if one were to give it a modicum of thought) there had to be very good reason that a sixth century pope so approved of the first four councils.
And so there was.
Although James White denies that basic Catholic doctrine was alive and well at the time of Nicea, an examination of the writings of early church leaders and many of the decisions the councils came to show that well before the fourth century the church had already acquired a decidedly Roman Catholic slant and most basic Catholic doctrine was flourishing. See PART II For Details
The Council of Nicaea... The First Ecumenical Council (AD 325)
The council of Nicaea (now Iznik, a town in northwest Turkey) had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture but was called solely to establish the exact relationship of Christ to the Father
Although the Bible literally abounds with evidence of the deity of Jesus Christ Arius, an Alexandrian priest, questioned the full divinity of Christ because, unlike God, Christ was born and had a beginning. What began as an academic theological debate spread to Christian congregations throughout the empire, threatening a schism in the early Christian church.
Emperor Constantine, who was aware that serious divisions in the church would go a long way towards destabilizing his empire, was determined this would not happen. He decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to convene an ecclesiastical council that he probably hoped would come to a consensus. It did
See The Deity of Jesus Christ. Was He Lord, Liar Or Lunatic?
Although it is more than likely that each of the disagreeing parties thought the other guilty of heresy, one has to wonder at the political maneuvering and other machinations behind the councils. In referring to the Council of Nicaea, John Mcguckin (a priest of the Orthodox Church, professor of early church history at Union Theological Seminary and Professor of Byzantine Christianity at Columbia University in New York) made the following rather telling statement .
After the council, many of the same bishops who had signed its creed appeared at other councils, often reversing their previous decisions according to the way the winds of preferment were blowing. They found themselves less in a domain of monumental clarity and more in a swamp of confusing arguments and controversies that at times seemed to threaten the very continuity of the Christian church. [04]
Changing one's mind according "according to the way the winds of preferment were blowing" is not exactly how one goes about determining God's truth and His will and was certainly not how the first council held by contemporaries of Jesus in Jerusalem around 50 A.D. arrived at their decision.
How The Council of Jerusalem Arrived at Decisions
and How The Ecumenical Councils Did
The Council of Jerusalem - God's Words
The Council of Jerusalem, knowing full well that God's truth including His laws and commandments do not originate with ANY human agency but come from God alone i.e He is the only source of truth, These truths were conveyed to man through the prophets and other authors of the books of the Bible - all of whom God Himself chose, and all of whom spoke and wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Thus the Council of Jerusalem based their decisions solely on His word.
Acts 15 tells us about a crisis in the first century church that came about when some men from Judea began to teach that no one could be saved unless they were circumcised. However, because they were willing that the matter be decided by the church leaders Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to meet with the elders.
This meeting is counted by many historians as the first church council.
In Jerusalem, Peter testified that it was God who had decided that the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel from his (Peter's) mouth and that the Father had given the Holy Spirit to Jews and Gentiles alike with no distinction between them. Paul then related the miracles God had done among the Gentiles which were exactly the same as when Jesus authenticated His message to the Jews with miracles. Finally James, who was head of the Jerusalem church, cited Amos 9:11-12 which confirmed that the Gospel would be taken to the non Jew. The verse reads
On that day I will raise up the fallen shelter of David, And wall up its gaps; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; So that they may possess the remnant of Edom And all the nations (Heb. gôy ) who are called by My name,” Declares the LORD who does this. (Amos 9:11-12 NASB
The Hebrew gôy means nations, Gentiles, heathens
James' decision that the Gentiles need not be circumcised (but did have to observe three commands V.20) was unanimous. Without exception, the whole church including all the apostles and elders was of "one mind" (Acts 15:22-23, 25). Is it any wonder that they could say "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...." (Acts 15:28).
In summary, the Jerusalem council was guided by the unassailable evidence of God's workings.They made note of the signs and wonders they saw God doing among the Gentiles, then compared what they saw with the miracles performed by Jesus Himself. Finally they ensured that this evidence conformed to the Scriptures.
It is indeed unfortunate that this pattern was not followed by any of the succeeding councils
The Ecumenical Councils - Democratic Vote and Tradition
Majority Vote
The decisions the various councils came to were based on 'the yeas and the nays.' Ramsay MacMullen, emeritus professor of history at Yale University, has a book out entitled "Voting About God" that shows how Christian doctrine came to be decided by the democratic votes of bishops. In his words... (Emphasis Added)
How did Christians agree on their definition of the Supreme Being, Triune? It was the work of the bishops assembled at Nicaea in AD 325, made formal and given weight by majority vote and supported after much struggle by later assemblies, notably at Chalcedon (451) likewise by majority vote. Such was the determining process. Thus agreement was arrived at, and became dogma widely accepted down to our own day." [05]
The site gotquestions.org, says (Emphasis Added)
Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council to make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the "Nicene Creed." This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. [06]
Note: A "creed" goes beyond stating a belief. It is essentially an authoritative statement of a particular position (or positions) to which others are expected to assent. (Incidentally, the Apostles' creed was not formulated by the apostles but 500 years or so after the New Testament was completed. See The Problem With Creeds
If that isn't bad enough, the arguments made at the various councils were based on
The Traditional Teachings of The Church
Philip Schaff (Who?) opens a very disturbing window calling the attention of the reader to the fact that in the Nicaean council (All Emphasis Added)
"... as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes.
They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect-to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, what do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture but, what have I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others? [07]
That this was a common practice in the early church is seen in the writings of some of the church leaders of the time
Tertullian (c. 155/160 - 220 A.D.) in describing various practices in the church, said (All Emphasis Added)
If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down?.... If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. [08]
Gregory Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395). In a letter entitled Not Three Gods written to Ablabius (a Christian convert and possibly a high official of the Roman Empire) Gregory spoke of the problem of the trinity not being three separate Gods. (Emphasis Added)
".... even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably. [09]
In other words, doctrine was now determined by tradition with barely a nod given to what the Scriptures clearly tell us.
In less than three hundred years the church had turned aside from the pattern established by the council of Jerusalem and the example set by the "noble-minded" Bereans who examined the Scriptures daily to see whether the things they were being told were true (Acts 17:11).
And this pattern continued through the centuries in the Catholic church. In an an encyclical or papal letter addressed to the bishops of the Church, Pope Pius IX asked them for their opinion on the definition of a dogma on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. That the vast majority of the 604 Bishops gave a positive response to the question led directly to the 1854 Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, which officially defined the dogma.
Meet The Cappodocian Fathers
(Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea (mentioned below), Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa)
Along with the other two Gregory of Nyssa was a Catholic mystic and trained Greek philosopher who were largely responsible for the doctrine of the trinity. A scholar, he wrote many theological, mystical, and monastic works in which he balanced Platonic and Christian traditions. What is truly abhorrent is that Gregory found the key to the trinity in the triple nature of our soul stating that you learn "the secret of God" from the things within yourself... a "testimony above and more sure than that of the Law and the Gospel".
He added we would have no content for our thoughts about Father, Son, and Spirit, if we did not find an outline of their nature within ourselves.
The Decidedly Catholic Presence at The Council of Nicaea
At the time of Nicea most basic Catholic doctrine such as purgatory and transubstantiation was well established in the church and being taught by many of the so called "fathers".
'Pope' Silvester, the then bishop of Rome, was represented two presbyters, Vitus and Vincentius at the Council of Nicæa. Hosius (Ossius) the Bishop of Cordova and ecclesiastical advisor to Constantine is said to have presided although in what capacity is not certain.
What is known is that Hosius and the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius were the first signatures on the decrees issues by the council followed by St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria. Neither a bishop nor a priest should have signed before a Patriarch. Apparently Hosius, Vitus and Vincentius held more eminent status at the council
Additionally, Alexander - bishop of Alexandria - one of the chief players in the council -was accompanied by his deacon Athanasius who acted as his spokesman. Athanasius who along with Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory is considered as one of the four Great Doctors of the Eastern Church was ordained bishop in 328 AD after Alexander died. He referred to Rome as "the Apostolic throne", and was an early believer in the Real Presence, which means that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration.
All of which makes it very difficult to deny that the council of Nicaea was attended and influenced by men who had decidedly Roman Catholic ideas prevalent at the time.
The Canons of The Council of Nicaea
The word canon can be used in several ways. For example, it can mean
1. A list of writings (particularly sacred writings) officially recognized as genuine. See The Canon of Scripture and the Apocrypha
2. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
3. One of the members of certain Roman Catholic religious orders.
However, in the context of this article canon refers to 'An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council."
Although it was the focal point, the resolution reached regarding the Person of Christ was not all that was achieved at the council. Twenty canons dealing with various disciplinary issues were established that set an unfortunate precedent. As historian John Mcguckin points out... (Emphasis Added)
These 20 canons have never attracted as much attention as the doctrines of Nicaea but actually had immense importance, as they were the reference point around which all future collections of church law were modeled and collated. [10]
Thereafter it fell to various councils to decide not only matters of doctrine that became accepted creeds, but they also made decisions regarding other more practical matters in the church. These decisions became canon law for the government of the Christian organization and its members.
To put it another way, the body of Christ was well on its way to becoming something it was never intended to be... an enormous organization, governed by men who put dozens of man-made rules and regulations into place. (What is tremendously sad is that we abide by said rules and regulations, yet consistently pretend certain instructions in the New Testament do not exist)
For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, Paul warned the faithful not to have anything to do with (not even eat with) so called believers who were immoral, covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunks, or swindlers. See Fraternizing With The Enemy
Even a cursory reading of the canons of the Council of Nicaea (the so called disciplinary issues) shows many of the tenets of the Catholic church coming through, loud and clear. For example...
Canon 3 said any and all members of the clergy were forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
The New Testament church was looked after by only two groups of people - the elders and the deacons both of which Paul stated were to be the "husband of one wife". Titus 3:2 and 12. See Church Leaders... Then and Now
Canon 4 speaks of the "ordination" of bishops. It says a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, at least three should meet together, and the assent of the absent bishops communicated in writing. After which the ordination could take place.
Canons 11 and 12 speak of various types of penance imposed for certain sins. For example, Canon 11 says if those who denied Christ during the persecution "heartily repent", they shall pass three years among the hearers; shall be prostrators (penitents, who could not receive communion in penance for something they did) for seven years, and shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation for two years. In other words, the church determined that the penalty was 12 years long if the person repented.
This was the basis of "indulgences" in their original form" [11] However, verses like Acts 2:38 say you can repent, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit with no mention of any time delay).
Canon 13 speaks of last rites. "Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum (the Eucharist )".
Canon 18 explicitly states that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ and, not only reminds deacons that they are "inferiors of the presbyters" and cannot even sit among them, but also warns them that they have no right to touch the Eucharist nor administer it to the presbyters. In other words, only bishops and priests can consecrate the Eucharist. The first part of the canon 18 says
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, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer.
In his notes made on Canon 18, Zeger Bernhard van Espen who specialized in canon law, said (All Emphasis Added)
From this canon we see that the Nicene fathers entertained no doubt that the faithful in the holy Communion truly received "the body of Christ." Secondly, that was "offered" in the church, which is the word by which sacrifice is designated in the New Testament, and therefore it was at that time a fixed tradition that there was a sacrifice in which the body of Christ was offered. Thirdly that not to all, nor even to deacons, but only to bishops and presbyters was given the power of offering. And lastly, that there was recognized a fixed hierarchy in the Church, made up of bishops and presbyters and deacons in subordination to these. [12]
The First Council of Constantinople... The Second Ecumenical Council (AD 381)
This council was a local gathering of only about one hundred and fifty bishops, none of whom represented the see of Rome. It is considered the Second Ecumenical Synod because it's creed was universally accepted.
The council of Nicaea held some 50 plus years earlier was so was focused on the person and nature of Christ that it omitted to make any definite statement concerning the Holy Spirit. Reformed Theologian Loraine Boettner (1901-1990), an ardent Calvinist outlined the situation. See Calvinism
... so absorbed had the Council been in working out the doctrine concerning the Person of Christ that it omitted to make any definite statement concerning the Holy Spirit...The defect of the Nicene Creed was remedied, however, by the Second Ecumenical Council, which met at Constantinople in 381, and included in its creed the statement: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, who is the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who, with the Father and Son, together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets." [13]
As said by Melinder Penner, co-founder of Stand to Reason
"Once they demonstrated the Biblical and philosophical possibility of two persons of the divine substance, it was a small step to demonstrate the third person". [14]
And this "small step" was taken at The Second Ecumenical Council, that put the official stamp on the 'third person of the trinity', a doctrine that is considered to be so sacred and so foundational a part of the Christian faith, that many use it as a litmus test for defining who is or isn't a true Christian. In other words, although the Bible says no such thing, they consider a person cannot be saved if they don't believe in one God, who exists as three distinct, but equal, Persons.
The problem being that although the Bible definitively points to a plurality in the Godhead and Acts 5:3-4 is more than enough to clinch the issue of the Holy Spirit being God, there is absolutely no evidence that the Holy Spirit is the 'third person of the trinity'. In fact there is much that contradicts it.
As this topic is way too long and involved to go into here, it has been dealt with in a separate article. See Is God A Trinity?]
The Council of Ephesus... The Third Ecumenical Council - (431 AD)
was held in in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey). It was called by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II after
"Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria appealed to Pope Celestine I (bishop of Rome) to condemn Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople for heresy due to Nestorius' refusal to use the term theotokos (Mother of God) in relation to the Virgin Mary".
To this Pope Celestine "replied on 11 August, 430, by charging St. Cyril to assume his authority and give notice in his name to Nestorius that, unless he recanted within ten days of receiving this ultimatum, he was to consider himself excommunicated and deposed" [15] Emphasis Added
One cannot imagine that Celestine who was bishop of Rome September from 422 to August 432 A.D. would threaten to depose the Patriarch of Constantinople unless he had the power to do so. However, Nestorius persuaded the emperor to summon a general council to decide between Cyril and himself.
Again, it was all about political maneuvering. Nestorius was said to be studious and eloquent but apparently lacked the political skills that the emperor's sister seemed to have had in abundance
"... the emperor's sister Pulcheria hated Nestorius and favored Cyril's theology. She managed to have the venue changed to the city of Ephesus, the greatest center of devotion to Mary the Mother of God in the whole Mediterranean world. Oral tradition claimed Ephesus as the place where Mary lived for many years with John the beloved disciple.
Nestorius should have seen trouble coming.
Nestorius expected a small meeting of bishops and theologians to resolve the issue, so he brought along sixteen bishops. But Cyril decided to take no chances. He was accompanied by fifty bishops, and his ally Archbishop Memnon of Jerusalem brought another forty. The Antiochenes, who leaned towards Nestorius, were about forty in number as well, but arrived late. [16]
The council eventually formalized the idea of the Virgin Mary as theotokos (Mother of God) and condemned Nestorius' teaching that Virgin Mary may be called the Christotokos, "Birth Giver of Christ" but not the Theotokos, "Birth Giver of God".
In summary, the council was a battle over a single word, held in a city that venerated Mary, thus skewed from the beginning. With Cyril's 'victory' the Council of Ephesus issued several anathemas against Nestorius
"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, 'The Word was made flesh': let him be anathema." Council of Ephesus, Anathemas Against Nestorius, I. [17]
They also ordered that any Metropolitans, provincial bishops, or city or country clergy who publicly or privately maintained the doctrines of Nestorius in any way would be removed from office. Laymen would be excommunicated. Nestorius himself was eventually exiled to the monastery of the Great Oasis of Hibis in Thebaid, Egypt.
However, what I find truly interesting is why emperor's sister Pulcheria was keen on the council being held in the city of Ephesus. that, at the time, was already devoted to Mary. How this veneration came about is an interesting story. See Footnote III -
The Hierarchy - Bishops
There is not the slightest hint in the New Testament of one bishop ruling cities or even regions. Yet, as early as the late 1st - early 2nd century the First Epistle of Clement (one of the earliest of extant Christian documents) describes the hierarchy already in place.
There is the high priest to whom Christ's "own peculiar services" are assigned. There are other subordinate priests and a group called "Levites". [18]
Canon 18 of Nicaea emphasized this already established hierarchy that had Bishops at the top of a man made institution. (Emphasis Added)
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] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them.
Additionally, Canon 4 of the Council of Nicaea says a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, at least three should meet together - the assent of the absent bishops communicated in writing. After which the ordination could take place.
It also added that in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan, who was bishop or archbishop of a metropolis. (the chief city of a historical Roman or ecclesiastical province).
Which brings up the question of exactly how powerful these bishops were.
The Absolute (And Unbiblical) Power of The Bishops
Church leaders claim that it wasn't until the fifth or sixth century that a Roman Bishop became head of the church however, although it is true that it took a while for Rome to have almost universal 'rule' the foundations was already being laid as early as the latter part of the first century.
In referring to Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea (that reads in part "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges".) James White says
This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. [19]
There may not have been a "single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else" at the time. However, Canon 6 of Nicaea formally acknowledged the first official patriarchs (plural) who had power and authority over the churches in their provinces. And, even at this very early stage, there was a very definite hierarchy among them. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the patriarch of Constantinople as a leader of Eastern Christianity represented a clear challenge to the universalist claims of Rome". [20]
In support of this, Canon 3 of the second Ecumenical Council held in 381 AD said "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome", of which Schaff wrote., (Emphasis Added)
"the intention doubtless was to exalt the see of Constantinople, the chief see of the East, to a position of as near equality as possible with the chief see of the West". [21]
The power and authority of even the first and early second century bishops is clearly seen in the writings of Ignatius bishop of Antioch who was executed around 110 A.D. He stated that without the threefold ministry of bishop, presbytery, and deacons a group cannot be called a church and went as far as to compare the bishop with Christ.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. Chapter 3. Honour the deacons, etc. (Emphasis Added)
In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.
Note: This is VERY far removed from what the New Testament deemed a church, the word usually translated from the Greek ekklesia that means "called out" (Christians are called out from the world which is the very definition of holiness) and thus can only apply to people not a building or organization.
The ekklesia met in homes - their spiritual welfare looked after by "elders" - mature men elected on the basis that they were qualified to handle the duties and responsibilities of small churches that were in effect extended families. There were literally only two groups of people who were in a position of responsibility in the New Testament church - the elders (Gk. presbuteros) and the deacons (Gr. diakonos) See The Church... Then and Now - Chapter V - The Leaders
Chapter 7. The same continued (Emphasis Added)
He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience. [22]
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop (Emphasis Added)
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop... Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude (of the people) also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. [23]
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop (Emphasis Added)
He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does (in reality) serve the devil. [24]
And he wasn't the only one to so exalt the bishops.
Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon (c. 125/130 - 202 AD) (Emphasis Added)
...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. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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.” [25]
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 215)
Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel” (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).
In Clement's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians he wrote, (Emphasis Added)
But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger," [26]
The First Official "Patriarchs"
According to New Advent, when Diocletian organized the Roman Empire, the most important cities in the East were Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Syria (now in Turkey) the third largest city of the Roman Empire in size and importance.
"So the Bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all Egyptian bishops and metropolitans; the Bishop of Antioch held the same place over Syria and at the same time extended his sway over Asia Minor, Greece and the rest of the East". The Bishop of Rome was "Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy". [27]
In fact, even today the designated bishops of the various jurisdictions mentioned in the canon of Nicaea (Alexandria and Antioch) are heads of various orthodox churches who have retained similar powers to the Roman pontiff, although on a smaller scale. In fact, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church is also called a pope.
The Patriarch of Alexandria: It has been estimated that there are 17 or 18 million Copts in Egypt. The Coptic Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria holds the title of Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, in the Holy See of St. Mark the Apostle. His name in Greek is Theodoros, which translates to Tawadros in Coptic. Pope Tawadros II is "Pope of Alexandria & Patriarch of All Africa". When he met with Pope Francis, "bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church" in Vatican City, in May 2013, it was said to be only the second papal gathering in Italy in 1,500 years. [Wikipedia]. See on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozcnatCjhPA
Patriarch of Antioch : It is believed that Peter established a church at Antioch in AD 37 and was therefore, the first bishop of Antioch. On September 14, 1980, Mor Severius was consecrated the Patriarch of Antioch under the name Ignatius Zakka I. He resides at the Mor Ephrem monastery near Damascus. [28]
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
The Patriarch of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox church). Patriarch Bartholomew, the 270th holder of the title, claims to be the direct successor of the Apostle Andrew and is the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians around the world. However, "Turkey's once-flourishing Greek community is fading away. The country is predominantly Muslim and led by a secular government that's had a complicated relationship with the patriarchate. If Turkish laws, demographics and attitudes aren't changed, Bartholomew could ultimately be the last Patriarch of Constantinople... [29]
And, quite a few other patriarchates have been added in the centuries since Nicaea. For example we now have the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem who ranks fourth of nine Patriarchs in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also the Patriarchate of Moscow (the Russian Orthodox Church ) which was established in 1589 and ranks fifth - right after the ancient Greek Patriarchates of: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
And on and on... ad infinitum.
Footnote I - How The New Testament Structured the Church
The almost universal love of pomp and show, rituals and ceremonies, ranks and titles, led to a bunch of local extended families turning into a huge organization, with layer upon layer of rank, each subordinate to the one above. The temptation to import some facets of the Old Testament priesthood must have been overwhelming to the early leaders, who imposed them on New Testament Christianity.
In summary,
The Church Itself:
To begin with, most Christians assume "church" means the organization run by ordained clergy that conducts religious ceremonies in brick and mortar buildings down the road. In fact, the situation is so bad that should all the ranked clergy and buildings disappear tomorrow, most Christians would assume they had lost their "church". However, in New Testament times, there was no building that was set aside as a "church", and the entire proceedings were never supposed to be designed and led by the "clergy". The ekklesia, or called out group of believers met in homes - their spiritual welfare looked after by "elders". These were mature men generally elected on the basis that they were qualified to handle the duties and responsibilities of small churches that were in effect extended families.
The Services:
Virtually inactive, mute believers gathered together to listen to a sermon and do nothing else but sit and stand on cue and sing pre-determined hymns would have been totally foreign to the early church. The New Testament clearly showed that gathering together with other Christians was a participatory and interactive event, each person using his God given spiritual gifts for the benefit or building up of the congregation as a whole. But as the church became more and more of a very large hierarchal organization, the believer's God given freedom to contribute to the church meetings was drastically curtailed. No! I take that back. The church meetings became formal liturgical services set in stone by the higher-ups - the believer's God given freedom to contribute to them entirely done away with.
The Leaders:
There were literally only two groups of people who were in a position of responsibility in the New Testament church - 1.) The Elders (Also Known as the Overseers or Shepherds) who were ordinary but wise and mature men whose function was to shepherd or tend the sheep. 2.) The Deacons (Gr. diakonos) were those who served. (The word has been translated "servant" in the NT) Their job was to take care of the practical needs of the church, freeing the elders to focus on their primary calling.
Two! That's it. Period!
And, as a by the way, none of the people who held these offices wore expensive embroidered robes and fancy headgear.
Many of the terms we use (bishop, pastor, etc.) originate with the original two or three Greek words. For example, bishops came from overseer i.e. the elder. However, the concept behind the words has changed to a very large degree.
Finally, if you consider that the New Testament Christians meetings were never called a "worship service", simply because they did not gather together for corporate worship (nor to hear a sermon), one is forced to the tragic conclusion that much of the modern church has little or no idea why it exists at all, or what it is meant to do. Much less how the meetings are supposed to be structured and who they are supposed to be led by. See The Church... Then and Now
{PLACE IN TEXT}
Footnote II - Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893),
well known for his History of the Christian Church, was a Swiss-born German-educated Protestant theologian and Church historian. He was professor at Union Theological Seminary, NY. and served as president of the committee that translated the American Standard Version of the Bible.
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church is a set of books containing translations of early Christian writings into English. It was published in two series of fourteen volumes each between 1886 and 1900. The First Series was edited by Philip Schaff . The Second Series by him and Henry Wace, Principal of Kings College, London. Philip Schaff was also editor of the 10 volumes of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (to A.D. 325). {PLACE IN TEXT}
Footnote III - The City of Ephesus... From Diana To Mary
Ephesus was home to a Greek temple considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and dedicated to the goddess Artemis, one of the most widely venerated of the ancient Greek deities. Acts 19:23-31 describes the riot that took place because Paul's preaching was threatening the livelihood of the silversmiths who made shrines and statues of Artemis to sell to the public. The account also tells us that she was worshipped in all of Asia and the world. (Emphasis Added)
"Not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship will even be dethroned from her magnificence." (Acts 19:27 NASB)
Artemis was the Greek goddess of the hunt, wild animals, the Moon and chastity. Diana, the Roman equivalent of Artemis was also the goddess of the hunt, the moon and birthing, but was also one of the three maiden goddesses along with Minerva and Vesta who swore never to marry. In other words she was a virgin goddess, something that even Shakespeare wrote about more than once
The original temple of Artemis/Diana in Ephesus was built in the 8th century BC, but was destroyed more than once - by flood and arson etc. It's final destruction came in a raid by the Goths somewhere around the second half of the third century (some sources date the event to 401 AD).
Apparently, the conversion to Christianity left a void in people that had worshipped a female deity for centuries, which was probably enhanced when the city was also suddenly bereft of her temple.
The Council of Ephesus was held in 431 AD, anywhere from 30-60 years after the destruction of the temple of Diana. So it is hardly surprising that, although many in Ephesus had converted to Christianity, the concept of a divine mother still held a strong attraction. However, the Bible is very patriarchal, describing the Creator as "Father", and Jesus as His "Son", which left little room for a mother image. Since other deities could not be assimilated into Christianity, the veneration of Mary provided an outlet for what, even now, seems to be a common desire for a divine mother.
In fact, the Biblical account of the virgin birth of Christ tied in very nicely with the story of Diana as a maiden goddess. Mary was considered the new Eve who, in complete contrast to the first Eve who brought death into the world, was the instrument of hope for mankind. It is little wonder that the people demanded she be called "Mother of God" and that, from then on, countless statues, paintings and hymns would be devoted to her. Particularly interesting is one of the Spanish painter Diego Velázquez's earliest known works, The Immaculate Conception (1618-19) shows Mary standing on the moon or earth with a small image of a temple in the bottom left hand corner. the question of why there is a temple at all in the painting may be answered by the fact that it bears some resemblance to the temple of Diana.
Ephesus simply transferred it's affection from the goddess Diana, to Mary.
An Important Step In Mariology
Roman Catholic Mariology is the systematic study of Mary and of her place in God's plan for salvation. The Council of Ephesus was called in A.D. 431 just 50 years after the Council of Constantinople. Tom Perna, Director of Adult Evangelization and Catechesis at Saint Mary Magdalene Catholic Church in Gilbert, Arizona, lists three areas in which the council is said to have succeeded, his third point being...
The council not only clearly defined Christology, but also defined an important step in Mariology. [30]
Technically, the church denied Mary as divine but in effect, because it conveys a sense of holiness, the title 'Mother of God' implies that Mary had a role in creating divinity. It bestows on Mary a position that she does not hold - mother of "God" Himself. Which is why so many in the Catholic church have elevated her to a position beyond that of mere mortals.
It was but a short and very easy step from "Mother of God" to the many doctrines that have been since invented, none of which are even hinted at in the Scriptures.
1) The Immaculate Conception, which teaches Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless all her life.
2) Mary's perpetual virginity was proclaimed a doctrine at the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils in 553 and 680.
3) Her physical ascension into heaven, which means she never experienced physical death.
4) Her role as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.
5) Her right to receive prayer and veneration due to her role in redemption and as an intermediary.
6) Queenship of Mary, established in an encyclical of Pope Pius XII (The Ad Caeli Reginam), on the 11th of October, 1954, which said
"It may be legitimately concluded that as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam.” As our queen and our Mother in heaven, her intercession on behalf of the Church carries a unique efficacy before her divine Son. [31]
A perfect example of men making it up as they went along is seen in Ambrose archbishop of Milan's writings on Mary. His elaborate, pretentious ideas and inane flights of fancy trumped Biblical truths. See Mary... Queen of Heaven? HERE
{PLACE IN TEXT}
End Notes
[01] Jesse Lyman Hurlbut. The Story of the Christian Church, Zondervan; Reprint edition (September 17, 1967). Pg. 33
[02] James White. What Really Happened At Nicea?
http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea/#christian-books-2
[03] bid.
[04] John Anthony McGuckin. The Road to Nicaea. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/road-to-nicaea
[05] Ramsay MacMullen. Voting About God in Early Church Councils. Yale University Press; 1 edition (October 10, 2006) Pg 7
[06] What occurred at the Council of Nicea? http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html
[07] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Volume 14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Historical Introduction. Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor). Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.ii.html or http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.pdf
[08] Tertullian. De Corona. Chapter III and IV. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm
[09] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Volume 5 (NPNF2-05). Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises On "Not Three Gods.” To Ablabius. Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor). Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.v.html
[10] John Anthony Mcguckin. The Road to Nicaea. Christian History Institute.
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/road-to-nicaea/
[11] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Volume 14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor). Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xviii.html
[12] Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers Of The Christian Church. NPNF2-14 (Volume XIV). The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Second Series Edited By Philip Schaff, D.D., Ll.D. And Henry Wace, D.D. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xxvii.html
[13] Loraine Boettner. The Trinity... Historical Aspects of the Doctrine.
http://www.theoldtimegospel.org/message3/trin_09.html
[14] Melinda Penner. The Doctrine of the Trinity at Nicaea and Chalcedon.
http://www.str.org/articles/the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-at-nicaea-and-chalcedon#.Un5oFtLTmCi
[15] Chapman, J. (1909). Council of Ephesus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm.
[16] Mary, Mother of God: The Origin of the Dogma Proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Ancient Christian Writings Seminar. April 29, 2008 Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn, OP. http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blessed-sacrament.org%2Facw%2Fmarymotherofgodlect.doc. Document is no longer available
[17] The XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ix.i.html
[18] Clement Of Rome, First Epistle. Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Ch. 40.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html
[19] James White. What Really Happened At Nicea?
http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea/#christian-books-1
[20] Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178827/Ecumenical-Patriarchate-of-Constantinople.
[21] Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers Of The Christian Church. Volume XIV (NPNF2-14). The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Canon III. Second Series Edited By Philip Schaff, D.D., Ll.D. And Henry Wace, D.D.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
[22] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm
[23] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm
[24] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm>
[25] Irenaeus. Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
[26] Clement of Alexandria. 1st Epistle to the Corinthian 0:1, 59:1.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
[27] Fortescue, Adrian. "Patriarch and Patriarchate." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 8 Jan. 2014 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm>
[28] Syriac Orthodox Resources. HH Patriarch Mor Ignatios Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Supreme Head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church. http://sor.cua.edu/ChMon/DamascusMEphrem/index.html
[29] Bill Wunner, The last Orthodox patriarch in Turkey? CNN August 27, 2010 3:13 p.m.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/26/wus.patriarch/index.html
[30] Tom Perna. The Declaration of the Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus.
http://tomperna.org/2013/12/31/the-declaration-of-the-theotokos-at-the-council-of-ephesus/
[31] Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. https://franciscanmissionaries.com/our-lady-is-the-queen-of-peace
|
