Question Concerning Tradition

[larry2]

Dear brethren, I am not locked into "sola scriptura" because of the following verse of scripture which Paul wrote. That which he preached was not of man but revealed to him by our risen Lord according to Galatians 1:11-12. There evidently were traditions preached, or taught to them not written at that time; what were they other than hearsay and keep in mind this was in 51 AD? Are there reliable texts Apocrypha or not revealing them for that time period?

2 Thessalonians 2:15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
 
In any of your opinions, does tradition ever negate the word of God or merely give understanding to it, and would you have examples?

Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Thank you in Jesus' name.

[winsome]

Dear brethren, I am not locked into "sola scriptura" because of the following verse of scripture which Paul wrote. That which he preached was not of man but revealed to him by our risen Lord according to Galatians 1:11-12. There evidently were traditions preached, or taught to them not written at that time; what were they other than hearsay and keep in mind this was in 51 AD? Are there reliable texts Apocrypha or not revealing them for that time period?

2 Thessalonians 2:15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
 
In any of your opinions, does tradition ever negate the word of God or merely give understanding to it, and would you have examples?

Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Thank you in Jesus' name.

Indeed there are several passages to indicate that oral teaching was passed on. Here is one example:

Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2Tim 1:13)
Paul has given Timothy sound teaching.

"Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.

[mclees8]

Dear brethren, I am not locked into "sola scriptura" because of the following verse of scripture which Paul wrote. That which he preached was not of man but revealed to him by our risen Lord according to Galatians 1:11-12. There evidently were traditions preached, or taught to them not written at that time; what were they other than hearsay and keep in mind this was in 51 AD? Are there reliable texts Apocrypha or not revealing them for that time period?

2 Thessalonians 2:15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
 
In any of your opinions, does tradition ever negate the word of God or merely give understanding to it, and would you have examples?

Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Thank you in Jesus' name.

It is true that the word was first preached by word of mouth but that was while the apostles were were still with us. They  were the direct witnesses of Christ and preached what he taught to the people of their day and time. but the Gospel was not to just to be for their time and there had to be a record of what they taught. Even the succeeding bishops needed this and must have understood the need for a written record that would preserve the gospel for all generations. These records are vital to our knowledge and understanding of Christ and a righteous Holy Life. The apostles are no longer with us and there is no other measure by which we can know the truth. I will not trust word of mouth that can be altered over time. Such was the case with the church of Rome when they were the sole holders of the epistles that  the population did not have access to. They made up their own brand of Christiantity. They became a religious  political Power of the Empire that did many things we do not see in scripture, now that we have it and can read it for ourselves.

god bless

[Ryan2010]

I agree with winsome but I'll take a more, er, mystical approach   


This is what baffled me when I was in the free-Methodist church.  I was studying to become a pastor and stumbled over a line in the bible about keeping the "tradition".  I looked in the NIV and they had translated "tradition" as "teaching".  So then I wanted to see why the NIV and other versions would translate it as teaching and found out that the word they translate into "teaching" is actually the same word they translate into "tradition".  Two different words used to translate the same word?  What's this all about?  

So I dig for every instance of this word and again, I found more verses wherein the word was translated sometimes as tradition and other times as teaching.  The only time they translated the word as "teaching" was when they were talking about "tradition" in a positive sense.  However, whenever they talked about "tradition" in a negative sense, like when Jesus zings the Pharisees, they translated the same exact word as, "tradition".  

Then the hunt for what these so-called traditions began.  I mean, surely there's a list of them somewhere.  Right?  




That's a goose egg, btw.  

I remember thinking, if there's not a list, then how on earth am I supposed to be able to tell what St. Paul was talking about when he said things like:

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.


That's when it sort of dawned on me.  It could have been anything.  It could have been something like, "when you pray, stand on one leg and every night at nine o'clock, find three multi-colored balls and do like this:  

Needless to say I was about as happy about my new found revelation as this guy:  


I mean, I was sooooo used to just going to the bible and looking up the "answer".  Even if I couldn't figure out how those "answer" verses fit into the equation, at least I still had the verses.  Without a written list of "traditions" I was lost.  

But let me just fast forward and spare you the biography.  

Let's say a man wrote a letter to a woman.  Oh, let's say her name is, Ms. Church.  Now, Ms. Church is engaged to be married but that's another story.  Anyway, let's say this man wrote a letter to Ms. Church and told her to do everything in the letter and also everything that she was shown to do when the man personally met with Ms. Church.  Now let's say that you intercepted this letter that was written to Ms. Church.  It would read like so:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Obviously you would have the letter so you would know what the man would have you do insofar as those things are in the letter.  Uh.  However.  How would you be able to learn what the man told Ms. Church when they met?  You can't go to the man for the answer and it's not written in the letter.  Where do you go to learn what it is that the man taught Ms. Church when they met face to face?


I won't ruin the fun in seeking out what those traditions are and you don't have to worry.  It's not like you can learn Holy Tradition by rote or anything boring like that.  It's much more fun.  You live it.  You experience it.  

Ohhhh.  And something that I think is an important thing to consider as you quest for these "traditions".   Tradition doesn't change even though it does.  Paradox.  I know.  But here is a picture that illustrate (sort of) how I understand Holy Tradition:

These are both pictures of the same thing.  However, one picture just seems to be a "younger" or "newer" picture of the same thing that has always been:  




You know what that is?  It's harder to recognize because it's magnified but it is what it is.  



Table Salt.


Remember that.  Tradition is very much the same way.  You might do or experience something and you'll say to yourself, "what on God's green earth is this all about?"   And then you'll see that it's just a magnification of something that you THOUGHT you knew about until you got up close and personal.  Face to face even.  

Salt.  Light.  Magnification.  Continuity.  

In any of your opinions, does tradition ever negate the word of God or merely give understanding to it, and would you have examples?

No.  Tradition and or tradition should never negate the word of God (are you talking about Jesus or the bible?).  I mean, er, Jesus doesn't negate himself.  Jesus is the Word.  The Holy Bible, like all of creation, simply points to Christ.  I mean, you don't even have to know how to read in order to read God.  You can read God on the pages of creation (can't remember who said that but it's a good saying).  

The fact that anything points to God at all, makes the thing an invaluable treasure and if that person or thing that points to Christ is consecrated to the Lord, then, well, that person/thing is probably Holy.  Just wanted to address the "word of God" reference.  We have to remember that the only reason that the scriptures are Holy (a holy object!  wow!) is that it points to Christ.  

Three types of Tradition.  

1. God-made Tradition.  Obviously, God-made Tradition is Holy.

2. Bad Man-made tradition.  Obviously, bad man-made tradition isn't "holy".  

3. Good man-made tradition.  Obviously, it's good and can be used to help a person be the doxological creature they were created to be.  


Oh.  And yes.  Holy Tradition is like Holy Scripture in that it too, like anything God illumines, is LIVING.  

Living, breathing, real, active, ever-present. Can't stuff him in a laundry list or a test-tube and call it a day.  

Matthew 6:33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.






It's a gramophone!  For those with ears to hear and eyes to see.  



God bless

[winsome]

It is true that the word was first preached by word of mouth but that was while the apostles were were still with us.

What the apostles taught was passed on by others, who passed what they learnt onto others etc. This is recorded in scripture as I have shown.

They  were the direct witnesses of Christ and preached what he taught to the people of their day and time. but the Gospel was not to just to be for their time and there had to be a record of what they taught. Even the succeeding bishops needed this and must have understood the need for a written record that would preserve the gospel for all generations.

Eventually it was written down in the decisions of councils, the liturgies, the creeds, the writings of the early fathers. I covered this in my post and quotes from St. Basil and St. Cyril.

It seems to me you don't bother to read posts.

These records are vital to our knowledge and understanding of Christ and a righteous Holy Life.

And that is why they were faithfully preserved in Sacred Tradition.

The apostles are no longer with us and there is no other measure by which we can know the truth.

Yes there is. Jesus promised the Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

I believe Jesus' promises. I put my trust in them because I put my trust in Jesus.

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

I will not trust word of mouth that can be altered over time.

Then you have no faith in the promises of Jesus.

Such was the case with the church of Rome when they were the sole holders of the epistles that  the population did not have access to. They made up their own brand of Christiantity. They became a religious  political Power of the Empire that did many things we do not see in scripture, now that we have it and can read it for ourselves.

This is just Catholic bashing and has no place in this thread (IMO)

[larry2]

Dear brethren, I am not locked into "sola scriptura" because of the following verse of scripture which Paul wrote. That which he preached was not of man but revealed to him by our risen Lord according to Galatians 1:11-12. There evidently were traditions preached, or taught to them not written at that time; what were they other than hearsay and keep in mind this was in 51 AD? Are there reliable texts Apocrypha or not revealing them for that time period?

2 Thessalonians 2:15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
 
In any of your opinions, does tradition ever negate the word of God or merely give understanding to it, and would you have examples?

Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Thank you in Jesus' name.

It is true that the word was first preached by word of mouth but that was while the apostles were were still with us. They  were the direct witnesses of Christ and preached what he taught to the people of their day and time. but the Gospel was not to just to be for their time and there had to be a record of what they taught. Even the succeeding bishops needed this and must have understood the need for a written record that would preserve the gospel for all generations. These records are vital to our knowledge and understanding of Christ and a righteous Holy Life. The apostles are no longer with us and there is no other measure by which we can know the truth. I will not trust word of mouth that can be altered over time. Such was the case with the church of Rome when they were the sole holders of the epistles that  the population did not have access to. They made up their own brand of Christiantity. They became a religious  political Power of the Empire that did many things we do not see in scripture, now that we have it and can read it for ourselves.

Hi mclees, and I address this to Winsome also.

Well I am not worried concerning the truthfulness of scripture we have, and if God had not entrusted them for safe keeping by the Catholic Church we undoubtedly would not have much of it today. My reservations come when a doctrine conceived today all but denies previous scripture. At the time Paul wrote concerning tradition not written it was in 51 AD. Did Paul later write the traditions not formally written as we read in Colossians 1:25-26 below written in 60 ADE?  Paul was given the commission to fullfil or finish the word of God, and it even contained those things hidden from the other apostles throughout ages and generations.

Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Colossians 1:26.  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Thanks in Jesus' name.

[Ryan2010]

Hey, don't forget the Orthodox!  Please. 

lol.  Just sayin'. 





The Orthodox were there too. 


Jaroslov Pelikan has a neat book worth reading called, "Whose bible is it anyway?"


And if all the "traditions" mentioned by Paul were later "added" into the later books in the NT, then, er, where in the bible does it tell us this?  Wouldn't it read something like, "Here is a list of all the traditions that I spoke about and also a description of the things that we showed you how to do."

You can theorize that the bible now contains all those traditions and are no longer oral but then you will have to rely on something other than scripture to have faith in such a theory.  And that alone goes against the tenant of "sola scriptura". 

[winsome]

Hi mclees, and I address this to Winsome also.

Well I am not worried concerning the truthfulness of scripture we have, and if God had not entrusted them for safe keeping by the Catholic Church we undoubtedly would not have much of it today. My reservations come when a doctrine conceived today all but denies previous scripture. At the time Paul wrote concerning tradition not written it was in 51 AD. Did Paul later write the traditions not formally written as we read in Colossians 1:25-26 below written in 60 ADE?  Paul was given the commission to fullfil or finish the word of God, and it even contained those things hidden from the other apostles throughout ages and generations.

Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Colossians 1:26.  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Thanks in Jesus' name.

Are you suggesting that Paul's letter to the Colossians in 60 AD was the last of the books of the NT?

That would be a very unusual claim. It is generally (universally?) held that, for example, John, Revelation and 2Peter were written much later than that.

Irenaeus claims "Luke recorded the teachings of Paul, after the deaths of Peter and Paul. He wrote after the Hebrew Matthew, at around the same time as Mark, and before John."

[winsome]

Hey, don't forget the Orthodox!  Please. 

lol.  Just sayin'. 




The Orthodox were there too. 

I sometimes wish they would remember that when they keep putting the boot into the Catholic Church.   

[Ryan2010]

Hey, don't forget the Orthodox!  Please. 

lol.  Just sayin'. 




The Orthodox were there too. 

I sometimes wish they would remember that when they keep putting the boot into the Catholic Church.   

Well, there's only about 2 million Orthodox in the US so most US protestants sort of just ignore us.  Though we are the second largest (nominally speaking) Christian group in the world. 

The other thing is that a lot of protestants seem to think that we are still in the mid-fifteenth century.  Otherwise, they might realize that those are some old boots.  If they studied what protestantism looked like few hundred years ago, they wouldn't even recognize it.  And vice versa too.  Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli, you name the leader and they would probably protest against the very churches that now bare their names. 

I think the vast majority of people that hear the word, "Orthodox" have a mental picture of these ninjas:



Chai! (pronounced like, hi-ya! in Hebrew)

[larry2]

Hi mclees, and I address this to Winsome also.

Well I am not worried concerning the truthfulness of scripture we have, and if God had not entrusted them for safe keeping by the Catholic Church we undoubtedly would not have much of it today. My reservations come when a doctrine conceived today all but denies previous scripture. At the time Paul wrote concerning tradition not written it was in 51 AD. Did Paul later write the traditions not formally written as we read in Colossians 1:25-26 below written in 60 ADE?  Paul was given the commission to fullfil or finish the word of God, and it even contained those things hidden from the other apostles throughout ages and generations.

Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Colossians 1:26.  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Thanks in Jesus' name.

Are you suggesting that Paul's letter to the Colossians in 60 AD was the last of the books of the NT?

That would be a very unusual claim. It is generally (universally?) held that, for example, John, Revelation and 2Peter were written much later than that.

Irenaeus claims "Luke recorded the teachings of Paul, after the deaths of Peter and Paul. He wrote after the Hebrew Matthew, at around the same time as Mark, and before John."

Hi Winsome, no sir, Paul was not the last to write, but Jesus gave him the hidden things to complete the gospel as it were that we will be judged by. John certainly wrote later of the revealing of Jesus Christ, and Peter wrote of suffering, glory, and the last days but nothing added to doctrine that I'm aware of that wasn't previously said in some manner by Jesus.

Peter even goes as far as saying of Paul's writing in 2 Peter 3:16. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." The things Paul was bringing forth to the Church were new things directly revealed by Jesus Himself after He was already in heaven.

I know of no other writing or revelation, or tradition written having that claim as pertaining to our judgment by Jesus the righteous judge. We are at present on the judgment seat of Christ as God works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. That's what Jesus is doing at this present time walking among the candlesticks as told to us in Revelation Chapters Two and Three.

Thanks in Jesus' name.

[/quote]

[winsome]

Hi mclees, and I address this to Winsome also.

Well I am not worried concerning the truthfulness of scripture we have, and if God had not entrusted them for safe keeping by the Catholic Church we undoubtedly would not have much of it today. My reservations come when a doctrine conceived today all but denies previous scripture. At the time Paul wrote concerning tradition not written it was in 51 AD. Did Paul later write the traditions not formally written as we read in Colossians 1:25-26 below written in 60 ADE?  Paul was given the commission to fullfil or finish the word of God, and it even contained those things hidden from the other apostles throughout ages and generations.

Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Colossians 1:26.  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Thanks in Jesus' name.

Are you suggesting that Paul's letter to the Colossians in 60 AD was the last of the books of the NT?

That would be a very unusual claim. It is generally (universally?) held that, for example, John, Revelation and 2Peter were written much later than that.

Irenaeus claims "Luke recorded the teachings of Paul, after the deaths of Peter and Paul. He wrote after the Hebrew Matthew, at around the same time as Mark, and before John."

Hi Winsome, no sir, Paul was not the last to write, but Jesus gave him the hidden things to complete the gospel as it were that we will be judged by. John certainly wrote later of the revealing of Jesus Christ, and Peter wrote of suffering, glory, and the last days but nothing added to doctrine that I'm aware of that wasn't previously said in some manner by Jesus.

Peter even goes as far as saying of Paul's writing in 2 Peter 3:16. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." The things Paul was bringing forth to the Church were new things directly revealed by Jesus Himself after He was already in heaven.

I know of no other writing or revelation, or tradition written having that claim as pertaining to our judgment by Jesus the righteous judge. We are at present on the judgment seat of Christ as God works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. That's what Jesus is doing at this present time walking among the candlesticks as told to us in Revelation Chapters Two and Three.

Thanks in Jesus' name.

[/size]
[/quote]

John's revelation on Patmos came after Paul's death. Don't tell me there is no doctrinal content in that.

It's the most important part of scripture for some protestants. 

[larry2]

John's revelation on Patmos came after Paul's death. Don't tell me there is no doctrinal content in that.

It's the most important part of scripture for some protestants. 

Dear Winsome, in Apocalypse there is prophesy satisfied, blessings for reading it, and warnings issued, but we are not judged by it as we are with the personal message given to Paul when God will judge the secrets of men by that finished gospel. If we do not keep those doctrines we shall be found wanting as to our reward when we see our Savior.

God bless you and I won't consider that remark about protestants as harassment, but ain't it the truth. 

[winsome]

John's revelation on Patmos came after Paul's death. Don't tell me there is no doctrinal content in that.

It's the most important part of scripture for some protestants. 

Dear Winsome, in Apocalypse there is prophesy satisfied, blessings for reading it, and warnings issued, but we are not judged by it as we are with the personal message given to Paul when God will judge the secrets of men by that finished gospel. If we do not keep those doctrines we shall be found wanting as to our reward when we see our Savior.

God bless you and I won't consider that remark about protestants as harassment, but ain't it the truth. 

Larry,
Are you a dispensationalist that believes that only Pauls's teaching is relevant?

There is much scripture written, even by Paul, after Colossians. For example Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy (& probably Ephesians), John's Gospel, Acts, Revelation, the letters of Peter and John.

Incidentally I disagree with your interpretation of Collosians but it's not the point. The point is that there is much written after that, and much indication that not all revelation was written down by that point. There is plenaty of evidence, and I have given it, that much was passed on by the apostles that was not written down.

God bless

[larry2]

Winsome - Larry, Are you a dispensationalist that believes that only Pauls's teaching is relevant?

larry2 - I do believe dispensations to be a truth but unlike some, just because God does a new thing such as turning from the Jews to the Gentiles does not do away with what God has said in previous books. An example might be when the times of the Gentiles, and the fullness of the Gentiles come to fruition it will not close down all previous scripture, but God will start a new thing, or age as it were. 

Winsome - There is much scripture written, even by Paul, after Colossians. For example Paul's letters to Titus and Timothy (& probably Ephesians), John's Gospel, Acts, Revelation, the letters of Peter and John.

larry2 - Very good observation, but though Paul wrote of it in Colossians does not mean that is when Paul received those revelations that we will be judged by. For instance, Colossians was written in 60 AD, but Romans was written in 58 AD telling us of God's judgment by Jesus according to Paul's gospel in Romans 2:16. I don't know about your thoughts, but I want to be doing that which Jesus is going to judge us by.

Winsome - Incidentally I disagree with your interpretation of Colossians but it's not the point. The point is that there is much written after that, and much indication that not all revelation was written down by that point. There is plenty of evidence, and I have given it, that much was passed on by the apostles that was not written down.

larry2 - That's fair enough, though I believe those mysteries are written in the fulfilled gospel Jesus gave Paul. How would God judge us by them if He did not include all that we're to know?

God bless you too in Jesus' name.

[Ryan2010]

John Darby is the Father of dispensation(al)ism (also the Father of the "rapture").   He belonged to a denomination that calls themselves, the Plymouth Brethren.  Yes, they're still around.  

Darby: Born, 18 November 1800 – Died, 29 April 1882


Two-thousand and ten minus eighteen-forty-one equals one hundred and sixty nine years old.  Phew!  169?  That baby is brand spankin' new.  

[larry2]

John Darby is the Father of dispensation(al)ism (also the Father of the "rapture").   He belonged to a denomination that calls themselves, the Plymouth Brethren.  Yes, they're still around.  

Darby: Born, 18 November 1800 – Died, 29 April 1882


Two-thousand and ten minus eighteen-forty-one equals one hundred and sixty nine years old.  Phew!  169?  That baby is brand spankin' new.  

Well, dispensations didn't exactly begin with Darby, because we see them in the following scripture.

Ephesians 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25  Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God.

Through the ages God has done different things with different believers. For instance the things told to Adam of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not given to me. There was judgment for disobeying, and there was a new beginning just as much as there is today as God has come to the Gentiles which is know as the Church Age by many dispensationalists, or the fullness of the Gentiles.

God was working with Israel where we read in Jeremiah 3:8, "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her (Israel) away, and given her a bill of divorce," but this was not the same as Jesus taking out from among the Gentiles a people for His name that will become the bride of the Lamb. Yes I believe in certain dispensations.

My thoughts in Jesus' name.
 

[winsome]

John Darby is the Father of dispensation(al)ism (also the Father of the "rapture").   He belonged to a denomination that calls themselves, the Plymouth Brethren.  Yes, they're still around.  

Darby: Born, 18 November 1800 – Died, 29 April 1882


Two-thousand and ten minus eighteen-forty-one equals one hundred and sixty nine years old.  Phew!  169?  That baby is brand spankin' new.  

Well, dispensations didn't exactly begin with Darby, because we see them in the following scripture.

Ephesians 3:2  If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25  Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God.

Through the ages God has done different things with different believers. For instance the things told to Adam of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not given to me. There was judgment for disobeying, and there was a new beginning just as much as there is today as God has come to the Gentiles which is know as the Church Age by many dispensationalists, or the fullness of the Gentiles.

God was working with Israel where we read in Jeremiah 3:8, "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her (Israel) away, and given her a bill of divorce," but this was not the same as Jesus taking out from among the Gentiles a people for His name that will become the bride of the Lamb. Yes I believe in certain dispensations.

My thoughts in Jesus' name.
 

Dispensationalism takes one word from the KJV translation and builds a theology on it. It's a house built on sand.

Dispensation occurs in two verses in the whole Bible (in the KJV).

Covenant occurs in hundreds of verse in many books of the Bible, both OT & NT but dispensationalists ignore it.

It is very clear from the Bible that God dealt with man through several covenants. But the idea that God dealt with man through many dispensations is not in the Bible but only in Darby's imagination.

Just my thoughts

[larry2]

Dispensationalism takes one word from the KJV translation and builds a theology on it. It's a house built on sand.

Dispensation occurs in two verses in the whole Bible (in the KJV).

Covenant occurs in hundreds of verse in many books of the Bible, both OT & NT but dispensationalists ignore it.

It is very clear from the Bible that God dealt with man through several covenants. But the idea that God dealt with man through many dispensations is not in the Bible but only in Darby's imagination.

Just my thoughts

That's good enough for me. Being judged at this time according to our walk with Christ we all must make our choices as how to do that. I have always found for myself that to know what was for Israel, what was for today, and what will be future helpful in sorting out scripture.

God bless you in Jesus' name.

[mclees8]

It is true that the word was first preached by word of mouth but that was while the apostles were were still with us.

What the apostles taught was passed on by others, who passed what they learnt onto others etc. This is recorded in scripture as I have shown.

They  were the direct witnesses of Christ and preached what he taught to the people of their day and time. but the Gospel was not to just to be for their time and there had to be a record of what they taught. Even the succeeding bishops needed this and must have understood the need for a written record that would preserve the gospel for all generations.

Eventually it was written down in the decisions of councils, the liturgies, the creeds, the writings of the early fathers. I covered this in my post and quotes from St. Basil and St. Cyril.

It seems to me you don't bother to read posts.

These records are vital to our knowledge and understanding of Christ and a righteous Holy Life.

And that is why they were faithfully preserved in Sacred Tradition.

The apostles are no longer with us and there is no other measure by which we can know the truth.

Yes there is. Jesus promised the Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

I believe Jesus' promises. I put my trust in them because I put my trust in Jesus.

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

I will not trust word of mouth that can be altered over time.

Then you have no faith in the promises of Jesus.

Such was the case with the church of Rome when they were the sole holders of the epistles that  the population did not have access to. They made up their own brand of Christiantity. They became a religious  political Power of the Empire that did many things we do not see in scripture, now that we have it and can read it for ourselves.

This is just Catholic bashing and has no place in this thread (IMO)

Not so winsome. First and as i have pointed out many times The Lord himself stood upon the written word when tempted  by Satan who tried to tempt Him with the word of God. Satan used scripture Because he knows The word also. Jesus withstood him saying in all three temptations " It is also written" 

Surely you played the game in school where the class is arranged in a large circle and the teacher tells the one next to her a secret then they one by one they pass that secret to the other until they come back to the teacher. in most all cases the original message was altered or different. You cannot trust word of mouth over hundreds of years. Even the Vatican knows this. just go to the archives.

As for the Vatican changing Christianity and played upon the ignorance of the people. I cannot recant.  Five hundred years had passed and only the papacy  held the original writings. It is no secret today they invented much that is not scriptural.
Yet they gave themselves the power to create doctrine. Why? because they were the power of the Empire. and who could challenge them.  This is just a fact

You know the Vatican  Authority was not by word of Mouth but by using letter passed on from bishop to bishop. still the church was altered and the authority that stood on this became its own authority

[winsome]

Not so winsome. First and as i have pointed out many times The Lord himself stood upon the written word when tempted  by Satan who tried to tempt Him with the word of God. Satan used scripture Because he knows The word also. Jesus withstood him saying in all three temptations " It is also written"  

Jesus stood on his own authority, given to him by the Father, not on scripture. As Paul says to Timothy, scripture is useful for refuting error, and this was what Jesus was doing, using scripture to refute Satan's errors. But when it came to teaching he taught on his own authority (Amen, amen I say to you......).

When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Mt 7:28-29).

Had Jesus been quoting scripture when they said this about him? No, he had been preaching on his own authority.

In scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself.

Surely you played the game in school where the class is arranged in a large circle and the teacher tells the one next to her a secret then they one by one they pass that secret to the other until they come back to the teacher. in most all cases the original message was altered or different. You cannot trust word of mouth over hundreds of years. Even the Vatican knows this. just go to the archives.

Actually I didn't play it. But in any case such a passing on wouldn't have been guaranteed by Christ. As I said before:

Jesus promised the Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

I believe Jesus' promises. I put my trust in them because I put my trust in Jesus.

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

Eusebius, writing of St. Hegesippus (c110 - c170 AD) says:
Now, Hegessippus, in the five memoirs which have come down to us, has left a very complete record of his personal views. And in his Memoirs he tells us that on a journey as far as Rome he associated with many bishops, and that he had received the same teaching from all.

All the bishops taught the same

Origen (185 – 254) writes:
Seeing that there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly procession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churhes to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as the truth, which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic traditions.

It is the teaching of the Church that is to be accepted as the truth.

As for the Vatican changing Christianity and played upon the ignorance of the people. I cannot recant.  Five hundred years had passed and only the papacy  held the original writings. It is no secret today they invented much that is not scriptural.
Yet they gave themselves the power to create doctrine. Why? because they were the power of the Empire. and who could challenge them.  This is just a fact

You know the Vatican  Authority was not by word of Mouth but by using letter passed on from bishop to bishop. still the church was altered and the authority that stood on this became its own authority

This is complete unsubstantiated garbage.

[winsome]

As for the Vatican changing Christianity and played upon the ignorance of the people. I cannot recant.  Five hundred years had passed and only the papacy  held the original writings. It is no secret today they invented much that is not scriptural.
Yet they gave themselves the power to create doctrine. Why? because they were the power of the Empire. and who could challenge them.  This is just a fact

The Vatican was the power of the Empire in around 500 AD?  "This is just a fact?"

You need to learn some real history, not your fantasy stuff.

In 410 Alaric of the Visigoths sacked Rome. The western Empire had fallen. Barbarians ruled the western empire.

In 500 AD Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths ruled Italy. The eastern Church was spilt in half - half Monophysite and the other half in schism with the west.

What power do you think the Pope had?

By 496, nowhere but in Ireland did Catholics obey a Catholic monarch. The Emperor (living in the East) was a Monophysite.

In 496 Clovis, King of the Franks became a Catholic, but that was only in part of France.

Soon after this St. Benedict and his monks began the slow re-conversion of Europe from the south, and in the 7th century the great Celtics saints, like Aiden and Cuthbert began the re-conversion of Scotland and England.

This is real history

[Ryan2010]

This will help.  Has to do with Constantine (one of the protestants favorite scapegoats, used to make it look like the RCC was "invented" by him).

God bless

[larry2]

Constantine known as Constantine the Great or Constantine the First was the first Emperor of Rome to become a Christian. Prior to him there was awful persecution of the Church, but then he brought about a peace between Church and state making sort of a marriage between them. Did he have an influence in Catholicism? Didn't he build the first great Christian cathedral which is the Lateran Basilica in Rome still remaining Catholic?

[winsome]

Constantine known as Constantine the Great or Constantine the First was the first Emperor of Rome to become a Christian. Prior to him there was awful persecution of the Church, but then he brought about a peace between Church and state making sort of a marriage between them. Did he have an influence in Catholicism? Didn't he build the first great Christian cathedral which is the Lateran Basilica in Rome still remaining Catholic?

Constantine and Christianity

There seems to be a belief among some Christians that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine in the 4th century, that he was head of that Church; that he combined it with paganism or made it basically pagan; that real Christianity was abandoned by Christ and disappeared until it was recovered some 1200 years later by the reformers. This is despite Christ's promise to the apostles, and hence to their successors that:
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth

[winsome]

This will help.  Has to do with Constantine (one of the protestants favorite scapegoats, used to make it look like the RCC was "invented" by him).

God bless

Unfortunately my broadband is slow tonight and the video is a bit stuttery. I watched some of it and that was very good. I'll watch the rest tomorrow.

From what I saw it is well worth watching for those who think Christianity went pagan with Constantine.

Thanks Ryan

[mclees8]

Not so winsome. First and as i have pointed out many times The Lord himself stood upon the written word when tempted  by Satan who tried to tempt Him with the word of God. Satan used scripture Because he knows The word also. Jesus withstood him saying in all three temptations " It is also written"  

Jesus stood on his own authority, given to him by the Father, not on scripture. As Paul says to Timothy, scripture is useful for refuting error, and this was what Jesus was doing, using scripture to refute Satan's errors. But when it came to teaching he taught on his own authority (Amen, amen I say to you......).

When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Mt 7:28-29).

Had Jesus been quoting scripture when they said this about him? No, he had been preaching on his own authority.

In scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself.

Surely you played the game in school where the class is arranged in a large circle and the teacher tells the one next to her a secret then they one by one they pass that secret to the other until they come back to the teacher. in most all cases the original message was altered or different. You cannot trust word of mouth over hundreds of years. Even the Vatican knows this. just go to the archives.

Actually I didn't play it. But in any case such a passing on wouldn't have been guaranteed by Christ. As I said before:

Jesus promised the Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

I believe Jesus' promises. I put my trust in them because I put my trust in Jesus.

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

Eusebius, writing of St. Hegesippus (c110 - c170 AD) says:
Now, Hegessippus, in the five memoirs which have come down to us, has left a very complete record of his personal views. And in his Memoirs he tells us that on a journey as far as Rome he associated with many bishops, and that he had received the same teaching from all.

All the bishops taught the same

Origen (185 – 254) writes:
Seeing that there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly procession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churhes to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as the truth, which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic traditions.

It is the teaching of the Church that is to be accepted as the truth.

As for the Vatican changing Christianity and played upon the ignorance of the people. I cannot recant.  Five hundred years had passed and only the papacy  held the original writings. It is no secret today they invented much that is not scriptural.
Yet they gave themselves the power to create doctrine. Why? because they were the power of the Empire. and who could challenge them.  This is just a fact

You know the Vatican  Authority was not by word of Mouth but by using letter passed on from bishop to bishop. still the church was altered and the authority that stood on this became its own authority

This is complete unsubstantiated garbage.

True Jesus is the authority. Do you no consider the Old Testament and the writing s of Moses also the word of God. Satan tried to fool Jesus with the word but Jesus also overcame with the written word. You don't think the Old testament survived by just word of mouth do. Ask why then Jesus used the written word to resist.  Satan He did not  say I am the authority even though he was. No! he stood on scripture. You don;t think all this was just word of mouth passed down since Moses do you.

What I said about the vatican is true anyway. They were drunk with the idea Power and wanted to be sole authority of Christianity  so much so the lied about Constantine giving it to them as a gift, and that my friend is substantiated.

God bless 

[mclees8]

As for the Vatican changing Christianity and played upon the ignorance of the people. I cannot recant.  Five hundred years had passed and only the papacy  held the original writings. It is no secret today they invented much that is not scriptural.
Yet they gave themselves the power to create doctrine. Why? because they were the power of the Empire. and who could challenge them.  This is just a fact

The Vatican was the power of the Empire in around 500 AD?  "This is just a fact?"

You need to learn some real history, not your fantasy stuff.

In 410 Alaric of the Visigoths sacked Rome. The western Empire had fallen. Barbarians ruled the western empire.

In 500 AD Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths ruled Italy. The eastern Church was spilt in half - half Monophysite and the other half in schism with the west.

What power do you think the Pope had?

By 496, nowhere but in Ireland did Catholics obey a Catholic monarch. The Emperor (living in the East) was a Monophysite.

In 496 Clovis, King of the Franks became a Catholic, but that was only in part of France.

Soon after this St. Benedict and his monks began the slow re-conversion of Europe from the south, and in the 7th century the great Celtics saints, like Aiden and Cuthbert began the re-conversion of Scotland and England.

This is real history

You real history here does not change any thing. We were discussing how the Vatican changed Christianity, an about its power they had it even in the mist of opposition . don't kid your self.

[winsome]

True Jesus is the authority. Do you no consider the Old Testament and the writing s of Moses also the word of God. Satan tried to fool Jesus with the word but Jesus also overcame with the written word. You don't think the Old testament survived by just word of mouth do. Ask why then Jesus used the written word to resist.  Satan He did not  say I am the authority even though he was. No! he stood on scripture. You don;t think all this was just word of mouth passed down since Moses do you.

Of course I accept the Old Testament as scripture. The point I was making, that you are trying to evade, is that Jesus rebuked Satan using scripture because as Paul said to Timothy scripture is useful for refuting and correcting error. But Jesus did not teach from scripture. He taught on his own authority.

As I said in scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself. The idea that we derive our doctrine personally from scripture alone is unscriptural.

And incidentally the Jews had an oral torah as well as the written one.

What I said about the vatican is true anyway. They were drunk with the idea Power and wanted to be sole authority of Christianity  so much so the lied about Constantine giving it to them as a gift, and that my friend is substantiated.

God bless  

No, it's not true. You provide no evidence for such an accusation and ignore the history I gave you which showed how little power the Pope had. Yes Constantine was generous to the Church.
As I said in my post responding to Larry "Constantine was generous to the Christian Church and restored buildings that had been confiscated.

[winsome]

As for the Vatican changing Christianity and played upon the ignorance of the people. I cannot recant.  Five hundred years had passed and only the papacy  held the original writings. It is no secret today they invented much that is not scriptural.
Yet they gave themselves the power to create doctrine. Why? because they were the power of the Empire. and who could challenge them.  This is just a fact

The Vatican was the power of the Empire in around 500 AD?  "This is just a fact?"

You need to learn some real history, not your fantasy stuff.

In 410 Alaric of the Visigoths sacked Rome. The western Empire had fallen. Barbarians ruled the western empire.

In 500 AD Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths ruled Italy. The eastern Church was spilt in half - half Monophysite and the other half in schism with the west.

What power do you think the Pope had?

By 496, nowhere but in Ireland did Catholics obey a Catholic monarch. The Emperor (living in the East) was a Monophysite.

In 496 Clovis, King of the Franks became a Catholic, but that was only in part of France.

Soon after this St. Benedict and his monks began the slow re-conversion of Europe from the south, and in the 7th century the great Celtics saints, like Aiden and Cuthbert began the re-conversion of Scotland and England.

This is real history

You real history here does not change any thing. We were discussing how the Vatican changed Christianity, an about its power they had it even in the mist of opposition . don't kid your self.

You are wrong here mclees. You claimed "they were the power in the empire" and I showed you quite clearly they were not.

As to changing Christianity, your claim is an empty one. You haven't provided a shred of evidence just wild claims.

[mclees8]

True Jesus is the authority. Do you no consider the Old Testament and the writing s of Moses also the word of God. Satan tried to fool Jesus with the word but Jesus also overcame with the written word. You don't think the Old testament survived by just word of mouth do. Ask why then Jesus used the written word to resist.  Satan He did not  say I am the authority even though he was. No! he stood on scripture. You don;t think all this was just word of mouth passed down since Moses do you.

Of course I accept the Old Testament as scripture. The point I was making, that you are trying to evade, is that Jesus rebuked Satan using scripture because as Paul said to Timothy scripture is useful for refuting and correcting error. But Jesus did not teach from scripture. He taught on his own authority.

As I said in scripture the teaching of truth is done by those with the authority to do so. It is not derived by individuals from scripture itself. The idea that we derive our doctrine personally from scripture alone is unscriptural.

And incidentally the Jews had an oral torah as well as the written one.

What I said about the vatican is true anyway. They were drunk with the idea Power and wanted to be sole authority of Christianity  so much so the lied about Constantine giving it to them as a gift, and that my friend is substantiated.

God bless  

No, it's not true. You provide no evidence for such an accusation and ignore the history I gave you which showed how little power the Pope had. Yes Constantine was generous to the Church.
As I said in my post responding to Larry "Constantine was generous to the Christian Church and restored buildings that had been confiscated.

[winsome]

Mclees,

If you just want to do cut and past here is my reply from the Catholic  Encyclopedia

The Pope
(Ecclesiastical Latin papa from Greek papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas — Juvenal, "Satires" 6:633).
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.
Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St. Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched on here.
The present article is divided as follows:
I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ
II. Primacy of the Roman See
III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power
IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope
V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia
Institution of a supreme head by Christ
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.
Matthew 16:17-19
In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:
Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church.
The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see THE CHURCH, I).
"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.
The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.
He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.
"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One:
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.
"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:
And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.
In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.
"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" — words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.
Objections
The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Some Anglican controversy tends to the view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than primus inter pares among the Apostles. It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's promise.
John 21:15-17
The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock — the sheep and the lambs alike — in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".
The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these"? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.
The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:
He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.
[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].
Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria ("In Joan." 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.
Conclusion
The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band — not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see THE CHURCH, III).
If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution. None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder.
The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle.
Thus an analysis of Christ's words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.
Contd....

[winsome]

Primacy of the Roman See
We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts:
•   that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
•   that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.
St. Peter was Bishop of Rome
It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city (e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point.
St. Cyprian
In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3).
Firmilian of Caesarea
Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Epistle 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor.
Tertullian
In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.
Hippolytus
About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" — "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.
"Adversus Marcionem"
We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077).
St. Irenaeus
These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate.
Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In III:4:3, the Latin version, it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos.
Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt.
Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), that it had its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, III:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome — an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period. He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus.
Those who succeed Peter in Rome succeed him also in the supreme headship
History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries.
St. Clement
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towardspapal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.
St. Ignatius of Antioch
A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love".
St. Irenaeus
The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes:
Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].
He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage of its importance by translating the word convenire "to resort to", and thus understanding it to mean no more than that the faithful from every side (undique) resorted to Rome, so that thus the stream of doctrine in that Church was kept immune from error. Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the construction of the argument, which is based entirely on the contention that the Roman doctrine is pure by reason of its derivation from the two great Apostolic founders of the Church, Sts. Peter and Paul. The frequent visits made to Rome by members of other Christian Churches could contribute nothing to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by the context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing any real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J. Chapman in "Revue Benedictine", 1895, p. 48).
St. Victor
During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.
Inscription of Abercius
Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hierapolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the Roman Church: "To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See.

[winsome]

Tertullian
Tertullian's bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia" (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks "the peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops", has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic.
St. Cyprian
The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion. He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as "the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise" (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est).
The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was, he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Epistle 66:1).
He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen "to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place" (Epistle 66:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective primacy.
At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.
St. Dionysius of Alexandria
Contemporary with St. Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents bearing on the present question are related of him.
Eusebius (Church History VII.9) gives us a letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus's advice and begs for his decision (gnomen), that he may not fall into error (dedios me hara sphallomai).
Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety to some of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared hardly compatible with a full belief in the Divinity of Christ. They promptly had recourse to the Holy See and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of Rome, of heretical leanings. The pope replied by laying down authoritatively the true doctrine on the subject.
Both events are instructive as showing us how Rome was recognized by the second see in Christendom as empowered to speak with authority on matters of doctrine. (St. Athanasius, "De sententia Dionysii" in P.G., XXV, 500).
Emperor Aurelian
Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).
The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles.
It was not of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church was as yet in her infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure governing the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other sees. To establish such a system was the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the canons. There would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the Apostolic tradition was still fresh and vigorous in every part of Christendom. Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St. Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter was not disputed.
In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal ambition, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith and the consciousness that to them had been committed the responsibility of its guardianship. The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence. Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the statements of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church — of that Church which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. That tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the long series of popes bear witness.
Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading, but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of theGallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his "Defensio cleri gallicani" (II, 1. XI, c. vi).
The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus":
•   "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema."
•   "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).
A question may be raised as to the precise dogmatic value of the clause of the second canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter's successor. The truth is infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily connected with this deposit. The former are held fide divina, the latter fide infallibili.
Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head, Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another.
Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church's chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises — the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infallibili.
According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church.

[mclees8]

Since it seems you did not read this I will post it. This question comes to mind. If it was excepted the there was a divine order then there would be no question as the the authority of papacy and it would go with out question. So why then did the bishops of Rome find it necessary to commit fraud saying the secular ruler Constantine gave it to them to achieve the position of supreme pope  Not to mention all the other bishops who tried to get this throne unsuccessfully

It seems I am not allowed to exceed 2000 Chacters so Im posting in two pages
Donation of Constantine
GET THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ON CD-ROM

This entire website is available on CD-ROM. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more...
SALE: 20% off if you buy now...
FREE Shipping Worldwide...

Click here...

(Latin, Donatio Constantini).

By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, manuscript Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris". It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled "Confessio") the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the "Donatio") Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world. The Lateran basilica at Rome, built by Constantine, shall surpass all churches as their head, similarly the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul shall be endowed with rich possessions. The chief Roman ecclesiastics (clerici cardinales), among whom senators may also be received, shall obtain the same honours and distinctions as the senators. Like the emperor the Roman Church shall have as functionaries cubicularii, ostiarii, and excubitores. The pope shall enjoy the same honorary rights as the emperor, among them the right to wear an imperial crown, a purple cloak and tunic, and in general all imperial insignia or signs of distinction; but as Sylvester refused to put on his head a golden crown, the emperor invested him with the high white cap (phrygium). Constantine, the document continues, rendered to the pope the service of a strator, i.e. he led the horse upon which the pope rode. Moreover, the emperor makes a present to the pope and his successors of the Lateran palace, of Rome and the provinces, districts, and towns of Italy and all the Western regions (tam palatium nostrum, ut prelatum est, quamque Romæ urbis et omnes Italiæ seu occidentalium regionum provincias loca et civitates). The document goes on to say that for himself the emperor has established in the East a new capital which bears his name, and thither he removes his government, since it is inconvenient that a secular emperor have power where God has established the residence of the head of the Christian religion. The document concludes with maledictions against all who dare to violate these donations and with the assurance that the emperor has signed them with his own hand and placed them on the tomb of St. Peter.

This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, "The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy", Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (ad an. 324) admitted that the "Donatio" was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized. The forger made use of various authorities, which Grauert and others (see below) have thoroughly investigated. The introduction and the conclusion of the document are imitated from authentic writings of the imperial period, but formulæ of other periods are also utilized. In the "Confession" of faith the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explained at length, afterwards the Fall of man and the Incarnation of Christ. There are also reminiscences of the decrees of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople (754) against the veneration of images. The narrative of the conversion and healing of the emperor is based on the apocryphal Acts of Sylvester (Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), yet all the particulars of the "Donatio" narrative do not appear in the hitherto known texts of that legend. The distinctions conferred on the pope and the cardinals of the Roman Church the forger probably invented and described according to certain contemporary rites and the court ceremonial of the Roman and the Byzantine emperors. The author also used the biographies of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis, likewise eighth-century letters of the popes, especially in his account of the imperial donations.

The authorship of this document is still wrapped in obscurity. Occasionally, but without sufficient reason, critics have attributed it to the author of the False Decretals or to some Roman ecclesiastic of the eighth century. On the other hand, the time and place of its composition have lately been thoroughly studied by numerous investigators (especially Germans), though no sure and universally accepted conclusion has yet been reached. As to the place of the forgery Baronius (Annales, ad. an. 1081) maintained that it was done in the East by a schismatic Greek; it is, indeed, found in Greek canonical collections. Natalis Alexander opposed this view, and it is no longer held by any recent historian. Many of the recent critical students of the document locate its composition at Rome and attribute the forgery to an ecclesiastic, their chief argument being an intrinsic one: this false document was composed in favour of the popes and of the Roman Church, therefore Rome itself must have had the chief interest in a forgery executed for a purpose so clearly expressed. Moreover, the sources of the document are chiefly Roman. Nevertheless, the earlier view of Zaccaria and others that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert (see below). They call attention to the fact that the "Donatio" appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous "Diploma" of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome.

A still greater divergency of opinion reigns as to the time of its composition. Some have asserted (more recently Martens, Friedrich, and Bayet) that each of its two parts was fabricated at different times. Martens holds that the author executed his forgery at brief intervals; that the "Constitutum" originated after 800 in connection with a letter of Adrian I (778) to Charlemagne wherein the pope acknowledged the imperial position to which the Frankish king by his own efforts and fortune had attained. Friedrich (see below), on the contrary, attempts to prove that the "Constitutum" was composed of two really distinct parts. The gist of the first part, the so-called "Confessio", appeared between 638 and 653, probably 638-641, while the second, or "Donatio" proper, was written in the reign of Stephen II, between 752 and 757, by Paul, brother and successor of Pope Stephen. According to Bayet the first part of the document was composed in the time of Paul I (757-767); the latter part appeared in or about the year 774. In opposition to these opinions most historians maintain that the document was written at the same time and wholly by one author. But when was it written? Colombier decides for the reign of Pope Conon (686-687), Genelin for the beginning of the eighth century (before 728). But neither of these views is supported by sufficient reasons, and both are certainly untenable. Most investigators accept as the earliest possible date the pontificate of Stephen II (752-757), thus establishing a connection between the forgery and the historical events that led to the origin of the States of the Church and the Western Empire of the Frankish kings. But in what year of period from the above-mentioned pontificate of Stephen II until the reception of the "Constitutum" in the collection of the False Decretals (c. 840-50) was the forgery executed? Nearly every student of this intricate question maintains his own distinct view. It is necessary first to answer a preliminary question: Did Pope Adrian I in his letter to Charlemagne of the year 778 (Codex Carolinus, ed. Jaffé Ep. lxi) exhibit a knowledge of the "Constitutum"? From a passage of this letter (Sicut temporibus beati Silvestri Romani pontificis a sanctæ recordationis piissimo Constantino magno imperatore per eius largitatem sancta Dei Catholica et Apostolica Romana ecclesia elevata et exaltata est et potestatem in his Hesperiæ partibus largiri dignatus, ita et in his vestris felicissimis temporibus atque nostris sancta Dei ecclesia, id est beati Petri apostoli, germinet atque exultet. . . .) several writers, e.g. Döllinger, Langen, Meyer, and others have concluded that Adrian I was then aware of this forgery, so that it must have appeared before 778. Friedrich assumes in Adrian I a knowledge of the "Constitutum" from his letter to Emperor Constantine VI written in 785 (Mansi, Concil. Coll., XII, 1056). Most historians, however, rightly refrain from asserting that Adrian I made use of this document; from his letters, therefore, the time of its origin cannot be deduced.