Hi Thomas, I am going to challenge your post on historical ground because it is not tenable.
Actually we agree. Except this catholic church isn't Roman. The name Roman Catholic itself is a contradiction. Its either Roman or its catholic, but it can't be both. I maintain it is Roman and not catholic and had been slowly becoming distinctive in her theology from about the fourth century forward. She is ancient, yes; just not ancient enough.
Yes, we do have his writings. Actually we have two versions of his writings; a Greek version and a Latin version. The later is much expanded an is highly annotated. To which version are you referring to and to what doctrines are you referencing that can be found in Ignatian writings?
That's because the Corinthians asked Clement to deal with the issue and not John. Probably because the Corinthians knew Clement (Phil 4:3). And there is more evidence that Linus and Cletus with Clement (that's who the
we are) were co-presbyters in Rome at that time. Recall that Ignatius of Antioch never address a single Episcopas or bishop of Rome but he does in other cities. Rather strange if there is so much authority bound up in the Bishop of Rome.
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury
Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 5). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Yes, do read Irenæus. He has a very high opinion of the bishops of Rome, but as I pointed out before, he gets off base on his traditions because he makes the assertion, with the same authority mind you that Jesus Christ was almost 50 years when he was crucified.
But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being5 of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.
Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 392). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
q
Yes, Christians should read the Didache. I have taught through it on several occasions in my Adult Sunday school class along with the writings of the Fathers. They should be read and have great insight on many topics. Then again, being fallible they can be out to lunch on other topics and we haven't even gotten to Augustine yet. Where you are going to struggle mightily is trying to prove modern Roman theology in their works. That's because you won't find the Fathers writing about things they know nothing about. That's also why there are not actual quotations from the fathers saying things that reinforce Roman doctrine in your post.
I agree that the catholic church does not change her doctrine but Rome most certainly has. That's why John Henry Cardinal Newman had to come up with the acorn theory because even he saw the difficulty in maintaining Rome's historicity especially in his day when the writings of the fathers were becoming more easily accessible. Examples of this are the Marian Dogmas, the Papacy, ideas around Merit, Purgatory, Sacerdotal clergy. That's not to say that Rome doesn't get things I right over and against the LDS but the way she does theology being there is no objective standard (sola Scriptura) she cannot help but list into error (sola ecclesia).
Yes, Ignatius writes about the Lord Supper, Eucharist menaing Thanksgiving. He does not write like a modern RC because he acknowledges that it is a gift from God and not a sacrifice which
not what the modern RCC teaches. Ignatius writing against the gnostics in his own words (sounding like a Lutheran):
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death.
Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 89). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Already addressed. No papacy for another couple hundred years.
What you are finding is the Refrigerium or refreshment of the soul. That is not Purgatory. Purgatory is not found anywhere in the earliest writings. The earliest I can find is Augustine but even he seems to waffle on the issue depending on when he is writing.
Not until the fourth century officially Unofficially the
Protoevangelium of James is highly influentially although condemned by at least one pope.
Yes, scripture clearly supports that saints in heaven along with angels pray for us but that's a far cry from one invoking the name of a saint. That comes in the later third century.
That's the acorn theory. That's because so much has been added to the faith that it is virtually unrecognizable to the earliest christians so this theory is the way out. And the Sadducees weren't trying to get clarification they were trying to trap Him in an untenable position as well was disprove the Resurrection of the Dead as a doctrine. Its because they didn't believe in the Resurrection of the dead to begin with.
Jesus had to explain it to them because they expected a secular ruler like David of even Judas Maccabeus to throw off the shackles of oppression. He wasn't given them clarification he was trying to correct them. As to the council of Nicaea, which Pope was in attendance? Wouldn't have been simpler for the Pope to settle the Arian matter once and for all? But that isn't what happened, rather it took a council to settle the matter. That's because there was councilor collegiality between the different parts of the church at that time. What's more is I can easily prove Nicene christianity from the pages of Scripture but you cannot do the same with the immaculate conception. Which is a doctrine that must be believed under pain of mortal sin. Which, I might add would make all those early church fathers we have been quoting damned because they did not believe in this doctrine.
(That's for @Marius, just kidding bro).
