Saturday, August 21, 2010

Saint Hippolytus, Antipope, on Pope Callistus

And it came to pass that the One True Church of Rome, through its medieval adventures in self-love, and though it never changes ("semper eadem"), actually lost touch with an actual early tradition, the ancient rite of baptism, it having become replaced by "no more than a formula recited over the one to be baptized by the priest who administers the sacrament." This is from Joseph Ratzinger in his "Principles of Catholic Theology" (pg 34). Ratzinger goes on to cite Saint Hippolytus on baptism:

"In recent times, to has become no more than a formula recited over the one to be baptized by the priest who administers the sacrament. But this was not always the case. In the early Church it had, evening the fourth or fifth century, the form of a dialogue. According to the Traditio Apostolica of Hippolytus of Rome, which dates from the third century, but is, nevertheless, to a large extent representative also of the earlier form of baptism, the officiating priest asked first: "Do you believe in God the Father, the Lord of all?" To this, the catechumen responded: "I do believe". Thereupon he was immersed in water. There followed a question about the Son, which was similar in content to the christological articles of our Apostles' Creed, and a question about the Holy Spirit, after each of which the catechumen was again immersed in water. He was then anointed with the baptismal oil. It is clear from what has been said that the baptismal formula was, in its oldest form, a confession of faith.
In the context of "ancient unwritten traditions," this is one of those that has been mentioned earlier, although, one might ask, how, if "tradition" and especially "the unwritten traditions of the Apostles" was so important to the early church, how in the world did they lose it?"


I say this to make a point about how highly Hippolytus is regarded -- what an exceptionally fine source he has become of historical information about the early Roman church. Because he is also an exceptional source for other things as well.



Here is a line from Hippolytus that Roman Catholics of our day are not likely to like: "He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people, must be irreproachable."


We won't bother to trace either the source or the history of THAT saying at this time, but my point in writing today is to provide the "primary source" for Alexander Greco, who asked for it.


On p. 119 of Lampe, he is quoting a portion of this section from Hippolytus below. Also provided is the Greek text, which is found in Migne among the works of Origen. It seems as if Lampe provided his own translation which differs a little from the translation below which is found in the Schaff series.

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236): And the hearers of Callistus (bishop, c. 217-22) being delighted with his tenets, continue with him, thus mocking both themselves as well as many others, and crowds of these dupes stream together into his school. Wherefore also his pupils are multiplied, and they plume themselves upon the crowds (attending the school) for the sake of pleasures which Christ did not permit. But in contempt of Him, they place restraint on the commission of no sin, alleging that they pardon those who acquiesce (in Callistus’ opinions). For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded, and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage (διὰ τοῦ νομίμως γαμηθῆναι), that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free (εἴτε οἰκέτην εἴτε ἐλεύθερον), and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth (διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν καὶ πέρογκον οὐσίαν). Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church! And some, under the supposition that they will attain prosperity, concur with them. During the episcopate of this one, second baptism was for the first time presumptuously attempted by them. These, then, (are the practices and opinions which) that most astonishing Callistus established, whose school continues, preserving its customs and tradition, not discerning with whom they ought to communicate, but indiscriminately offering communion to all. And from him they have derived the denomination of their cognomen; so that, on account of Callistus being a foremost champion of such practices, they should be called Callistians. ANF: Vol. V, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book IX, Chapter VII.
Greek text: οὗ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ ἡσθέντες τοῖς δόγμασι διαμένουσιν ἐμπαίζοντες ἑαυτοῖς τε καὶ πολλοῖς, ὧν τῷ διδασκαλείῳ συρρέουσιν ὄχλοι. Διὸ καὶ πληθύνονται, γαυριώμενοι ἐπὶ ὄχλοις διὰ τὰς ἡδονάς, ἃς οὐ συνεχώρησεν ὁ Χριστός· οὗ καταφρονήσαντες οὐδέν ἁμαρτεῖν κωλύουσι, φάσκοντες αὐτὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ γυναιξὶν ἐπέτρεψεν, εἰ ἄνανδροι εἶεν καὶ ἡλικίᾳ γε ἐκκαίοντο ἀναξίᾳ, ἠ ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν μὴ βούλοιντο καθαιρεῖν διὰ τοῦ νομίμως γαμηθῆναι, ἔχειν ἕνα, ὃν ἂν αἱρήσωνται σύγκοιτον, εἴτε οἰκέτην εἴτε ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοῦτον κρίνειν ἀντὶ ἀνδὸς μὴ νόμῳ γεγαμημένην. Ἐνθεν ἤρξαντο ἐπιχειρεῖν πισταὶ λεγόμεναι ἀτοκίοις φαρμάκοις καὶ περιδεσμεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ τὰ συλλαμβανόμενα καταβάλλειν, διὰ τὸ μήτε ἐκ δούλου βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τέκνον μήτε ἐξ εὐτελοῦς, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν καὶ ὑπέρογκον οὐσίαν. Ὁρᾶτε εἰς ὅσην ἀσέβειαν ἐχώρησενὁ ἄνομος μοιχείαν καὶ φόνον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ διδάσκων· καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῖς τολμήμασιν ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἀπηρυθριασμένοι καθολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ἀποκαλεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσι, καὶ τινες νομίζοντες εὖ πράττειν συντρέχουσιν αὐτοῖς. Ἐπὶ τούτου πρῶτως τετόλμηται δεύτερον αὐτοῖς βάπτισμα. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ θαυμασιώτατος Κάλλιστος συνεστήσατο, οὗ διαμένει τὸ διδασκαλεῖον φυλάσσον τὰ ἔθη καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν, μὴ διακρῖνον, τίσι δεῖ κοινωνεῖν, πᾶσιν δʼ ἀκρίτως προσφέρον τὴν κοινωνίαν· ἀφʼ οὗ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος μετέσχον ἐπίκλησιν καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸν πρωτοστατήσαν τῶν τοιούτων ἔργων Κάλλιστον Καλλιστιανοί. Philosophumena sive Omnium Haeresium Refutatio, Liber IX, §12, PG 16C:3386-3387. (This work by Hippolytus is found in Migne among the corpus of Origen).


Source. (HT: DTKing)

38 comments:

Matthew Bellisario said...

And this is supposed to prove what again?

Matthew D. Schultz said...

If you don't have something substantive to offer Bellisario, don't publish a comment. This is the kind of behavior that leads to comment deletion.

John Bugay said...

And this is supposed to prove what again?

It's just providing a clearer picture of your developing, infallible "primacy" in action.

And just so we're clear, Matthew Bellisario: if you continue with your usual boorish behavior, you are going to be out of here.

natamllc said...

Matthew Bellisario,

it is with a keen sense that I am now coming to understand you.

You wrote: And this is supposed to prove what again?

In the combox of Defining Perspicuity TF commented and I replied:

[TF asks:

I wonder if Bellisario thinks before he writes?

Well, I think so?]

I am wondering if you do think before you comment, now?

John put up a thread on annulment.

Alexander Greco made a response to me and made these comments:

natamllc, my point is, how does this address the "why" of annulment as the title of the post says it does? Secondly, I'd like to see the primary sources.

If you do think, as I suspect you do, you might consider the substance of this current reply in providing "primary source" material to the debate.

There is, even today, and I marvel just how similar and the same human flesh is today as it was back then when Saint Hippolytus was commenting on Pope Callistus and the issues facing them then.

It really goes to the heart. It really goes to the depth of your own depraved heart, which I say, we all came into this world with, all of us.

I would recommend you spend some time meditating on these verses and realize just how dirty your comments are and belligerent they are? As well, as God, in His own fashion and Way, gives us an out from ourselves delivering us to the newness of Life that is found in Christ Jesus alone by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Think on these things, then:

Son 3:1 On my bed by night I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, but found him not.
Son 3:2 I will rise now and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares; I will seek him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but found him not.
Son 3:3 The watchmen found me as they went about in the city. "Have you seen him whom my soul loves?"
Son 3:4 Scarcely had I passed them when I found him whom my soul loves. I held him, and would not let him go until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her who conceived me.


And, I would not think on those things unless you do it this way:::>

Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.

Not until you are taking in by Him will you ever have a fresh, holy and righteous understanding of these things!

Lvka said...

Bishops are chosen by the people. Not ordained by them. (See Acts 6:3-6, for instance).

John Bugay said...

Bishops are chosen by the people. Not ordained by them. (See Acts 6:3-6, for instance).

Couple of things wrong with this.

1. In the Roman church, bishops are not chosen by the people.

2. You left off part of the quote. The second part of the quote involved those being chosen being "irreproachable." That is a concept that the Roman church left far behind, long, long ago.

3. In Acts 6, it was Deacons, not Bishops

4. You have some explaining to do to make the connection that they were "ordained".

Not that I care to interact with you on this. You are far off topic.

What do you suppose all of the above means with regard to "pope" Callistus?

Matthew Bellisario said...

How did the people having a say in who was ordained a bishop contradict the validity of the Catholic teaching? Just because the people had a say in who they wanted to become bishop does not negate the authoritative ordination that had to come through the Church. The lay people themselves did not ordain the bishops, they merely elected them by their recommendation. It amazes me how you people draw these erroneous conclusions, as if you have somehow found the achilles heel that will bring down the Church. Do you actually think that this is somehow unknown, hidden information that jeopardizes Catholic Church teaching?

John Bugay said...

How did the people having a say in who was ordained a bishop contradict the validity of the Catholic teaching?

1. There was no pope to do the "selecting," which varies from current practice. I'm aware of a number of other ancient sources in which "the people" selected their own church elders, which supports a congregational or presbyterial paradigm, which, as you know, is what Peter Lampe argued for.

2. Those being "ordained" needed to be "irreproachable." That is a Scriptural concept that is lost in current Roman Catholicism.

Just because the people had a say in who they wanted to become bishop does not negate the authoritative ordination that had to come through the Church.

I don't believe "authoritative ordination" was mentioned. Do you think bringing it up somehow negates the factual content of this passage? That Callistus permitted an end-around of the state (legal) marriage requirements, and permitted contraceptive means and abortion as a way of enabling senatorial-class women (and ostensibly their money and prestige) to remain in the church? Saying it doesn't prove it, but if Hippolytus is a generally reliable source, don't you think this also throws some light on Rome's claims about "faith and morals"?

It amazes me how you people draw these erroneous conclusions, as if you have somehow found the achilles heel that will bring down the Church.

In this particular post, I haven't drawn any conclusions. I've merely reported a primary source from the early church. I don't think the Roman church has any one "achilles heel," but rather, there are many, many points of just plain untrustworthiness, and I do believe the combined weight of evidence is very persuasive.

Do you actually think that this is somehow unknown, hidden information that jeopardizes Catholic Church teaching?

I do think that the information I present is not widely known; and I believe the cumulative effect of it will help Protestants become more cognizant of what Roman Catholicism actually is, contra what it says it is. As you are aware, what these discussions frequently come down to is "the definition of the word 'church'." So I am laying the groundwork, across some key topics, where the Roman church has been unreliable about reporting its own history. Then when the question of "doctrine" comes up, readers will have that general sense of unreliability in mind.

So I have not yet begun to deal with "Catholic Church teaching" but my thought is that the current things I'm publishing will help provide the context within which "Catholic Church teaching" is given, and yes, eventually, when I begin to contrast it with Scriptural teaching, people will see it as just more of the same, unreliable reporting by a Roman church more interested in protecting its own (false and usurped) authority, than in spreading what most folks would consider to be the truth about things.

natamllc said...

Matthew,

I have two responses to your points, here:

The lay people themselves did not ordain the bishops, they merely elected them by their recommendation.

My first response is that what I believe you are mistaken about is God's election and the superiority of those elected.

Jesus taught: Luk 22:24 A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
Luk 22:25 And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luk 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.


You may have missed this point? The Elect are "first" members of the Royal Priesthood and Christ is Our Head. His rule of service has not changed throughout eternity. For one to end up being a servant, they are lowered to a realm of servanthood, not Priesthood, seeing all of God's Elect are of the Royal Priesthood that Christ is Head of. By your comment I can see you have gotten it all backwards thus your premise is wrong.

Satan wanted to change that rule of service that the Eternal Son made plain there and what did it get him? He was booted out of the Kingdom of Our Heavenly Father.

How shall we change the rule and be let in, then?

No, we will not be let into the Kingdom of Our Heavenly Father as Satan was let out; and if you are one of those among those let out, well, guess what? You ain't being let in!

Mat 25:40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.



Now, for my second response, you wrote further:

It amazes me how you people draw these erroneous conclusions, as if you have somehow found the achilles heel that will bring down the Church.

Unless I am reading the Bible incorrectly, there is a "Church" Triumphant and a "church" that is not. Both will be present at the last day of this creation!

Of course both will be there on the last day, so based on that one fact alone, all by itself, your point is moot!

The question is not whether the RCC will be present on the last day. She surely will be! There is no dispute about that. Here again, as has been pointed out about you before, you have just put up another strawman and ask us to justify it against you! Hmmmmmm?

The question the RCC must realize is, will she be let into the Kingdom of Heaven on the last day?

What is her justification, if there is any worthy of acceptance by Our Heavenly Father?

Of course, this is the great dividing point now between us, is it not?

Jesus ain't about peace, but division! He is deadly serious about all self-righteous works as a premise of being let into the Eternal Life the Elect enjoy by being conjoined to Christ by the Hand of Our Heavenly Father!

Luk 12:49 "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!
Luk 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!
Luk 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

Matthew Bellisario said...

""the people" selected their own church elders, which supports a congregational or presbyterial paradigm"

No it does not. It is well known that the Pope has not always directly picked bishops himself, but the ordination still ultimately comes by his authority along with the other bishops who do the ordaining.

"I don't think the Roman church has any one "achilles heel," but rather, there are many"

Yet you have not demonstrated one yet.

"where the Roman church has been unreliable about reporting its own history. "

Again, another assumption on your part. You have yet to prove anything close to that. If anything, an honest look at history gives the position of the Catholic Church a much more likely reality than any Protestant version Christianity. Protestantism simply never existed before the 16th century. No liturgy or form of Christian worship documented before the 16th century supports anything you believe, or represents anything close to your liturgical worship today, save for that of traditional Anglicanism. Those are the facts.

Constantine said...

How did the people having a say in who was ordained a bishop contradict the validity of the Catholic teaching?

Code of Canon Law, Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

Which, of course, means the pope picks the bishops. If you think the people have a say in the choice of bishop, I encourage you to “google” William Braxton, the last appointee of JPII. Not only did the people of this diocese have no say in the matter, they have requested the bishop’s removal. But Imperial Rome has a tin ear.

This was certainly not the case in the early church.

Just because the people had a say in who they wanted to become bishop does not negate the authoritative ordination that had to come through the Church.

True. But ordinations in the early days were handled by neighboring bishops without Rome’s involvement and sometimes over Rome’s prior decisions.

The lay people themselves did not ordain the bishops, they merely elected them by their recommendation.

True enough. Local bishops performed the ordinations.

It amazes me how you people draw these erroneous conclusions, as if you have somehow found the achilles heel that will bring down the Church.

It’s true, you are easily amazed. Passing over your badly mixed metaphor, the point is not so much what will “bring down the Church” as what feeble props are holding it up.

Do you actually think that this is somehow unknown, hidden information that jeopardizes Catholic Church teaching?

It’s unknown to the Catholic in the pews who trusts the Magisterium to tell them the truth. Were the people in the pews to find out that priests and bishops had historically been elected and cosecrated locally I dare say that would be news to them. In fact, some have speculated that were this situation to be restored, the priest shortage would be solved overnight. Local parishes could choose from among their number the quantity and quality of priests they need and Rome’s meddling would stop impeding the church. What was good enough for Augustine is apparently not good enough for local Catholics today.

So yes, the historical truth does jeopardize current Catholic Church teaching.

Peace.

Constantine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Constantine said...

No it does not. It is well known that the Pope has not always directly picked bishops himself, but the ordination still ultimately comes by his authority along with the other bishops who do the ordaining.

Sure it does (prove a presbyterian form of government). For example, in 254 a synod of bishops completely overturned Pope Stephen’s illegitimate attempt to reinstate two apostates to the episcopacy. The Pope had been swayed by the personalities of the apostates and succumbed to their pleas. So St. Cyprian and the synod of bishops sent an epistle to the local church telling them to disregard the pope!

This action had been initiated by local presbyters, supported by Cyprian, supported by the synod of bishops all of which denied the pope’s “authority” in this ordination.

Presbyterianism at its finest.

John Bugay said...

the ordination still ultimately comes by his authority

Maybe you can demonstrate an instance of this in the early church. Otherwise, I'll simply have to say that this is a mere assertion on your part.

Yet you have not demonstrated one yet.

Interesting that you cut off my quote to suggest that I said "there are many achilles heels," but rather, I said, there are many points of untrustworthiness," and of these, I have demonstrated many.

Again, another assumption on your part.

None of these things are "assumptions." Every point I make is documented with evidence from somewhere. You may not be convinced, but I guarantee you, the cumulative weight of the evidence is not helpful to your case, and there are a lot of people reading who don't have your prejudices.

If anything, an honest look at history gives the position of the Catholic Church a much more likely reality than any Protestant version Christianity.

You keep bringing this up. It's purely a straw man. Nobody ever says "the early Church was Protestant." What we do keep saying is that there has been a tremendous amount of disunity and inconsistency in the early church.

Protestantism simply never existed before the 16th century.

No, but every Protestant doctrine exists in the New Testament. It's the Roman doctrines that are not found in the New Testament. It's the "development" that can be shown to be contra the New Testament. What Protestantism did was to throw out these exclusively Roman inventions.

No liturgy or form of Christian worship documented before the 16th century supports anything you believe, or represents anything close to your liturgical worship today, save for that of traditional Anglicanism.

As I mentioned, the doctrines ARE straight from the Bible.

And tell me why I should care about external forms, when "true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth"?

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Bugay said...

Wanna try being less insulting, MB?

Matthew Bellisario said...

"This action had been initiated by local presbyters, supported by Cyprian, supported by the synod of bishops all of which denied the pope’s “authority” in this ordination."

Cyprian is not the ultimate authority on the subject since he was incorrect in his later views of Church authority.

"No, but every Protestant doctrine exists in the New Testament."

That is not true, your manmade teaching of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide is not present in the New Testament and no one believed such a thing in the early Church period. So much for your conclusions John.

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Bugay said...

Just so we're clear, Matthew Bellisario: if you continue with your usual boorish behavior, you are going to be out of here.

Constantine said...

Cyprian is not the ultimate authority on the subject since he was incorrect in his later views of Church authority.

Apparently he was. Cyprian and the synod instructed the local church to disregard the "pope" and that is what the local church did. The history books record the episcopacy of those chosen by the presbyters and not by the pope.

The fact that you disagree with Cyprian has no bearing at all. The church agreed with him in this instance, against the pope.

That is all that need be said to disprove your point that the pope is required for ordination - historically speaking.

Jae said...

John B,"And tell me why I should care about external forms, when "true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth"?

Well, I think God Himself cared and I don't think you have the monopoly of "true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth", unless somehow we could read people's hearts.

External forms of worship is not prohibited by God in fact He Himself ordained it just look at the Jewish people's history found in OT it is saturated with EXTERNAL (physical-tangible matters)forms as well as internal "spiritual" forms.

The Ark of the Covenant which is the main attraction in the second room , because this is where God sent His presence to talk to Moses. It is the main entity in thier worship procession to God. The lamp stand had seven lamps (menorah)signifying the seven spirits of God.In the second room, the Holiest of Holies (WHY? 'cause it's where the Ark resided), there was an altar of incense that burned continuously, giving off a sweet smell throughout the area. The Bible says our prayers are like sweet-smelling incense that rises before the Lord.

The mere FACT God commanded and ordained it (external forms of worship) and thus pleases Him is enough for us to acknowledge and do so.

John Bugay said...

Jae-- External forms of worship is not prohibited by God

In the first place, an it's a thing I mentioned in this post, the Roman position in Tridentine times for centuries had not looked like the form of worship of the second century. Rome had to go back to an antipope to fix its superstition-encrusted forms.

And second, the book of Hebrews tells us how we rightly ought to think of the Old Testament forms of worship that you talk about. They themselves were mere copies of the reality in heaven. The Roman representation of what they think is in heaven

So yes, God commanded it for the Jews, but then he wiped away the need for it in Christ.

It is the Roman church, with its "re-presentation of the crucifixion" in the Mass in which "to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." (Hebrews 6:6).

We should not think that that is in any way a good thing.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello All,

What is being left out of this discussion is that Matt asked for a primary source of what Callixtus (Callistus) held in regards to the previous post. Hippolytus' vituperative comment does not help your case here because his commentary is not not a "primary" source of what Callixtus held to be his doctrine. It is a secondary source and thus Hippolytus' motivations must be considered as well. If you were going for a primary source, why not cite to something that Callixtus wrote? Unless of course there aren't any extant.

if there are not any such primary sources, then we have to look at context. Roman argumentation style of that time allowed for antagonists to exaggerated a protagonist's position to make a point. Hippolytus was an opponent of Callixtus. Hippolytus wrote this after he was not selected to replace Zephyrinus as Bishop of Rome. Hippolytus was upset that Callixtus was selected and not him. Hippolytus' followers refused to follow Callixtus and they elevated Hippolytus as their "bishop." In an effort to gain followers, Hippolytus criticized Callixtus' rather compassionate treatment of repentent sinners (he held that sinners could confess their sins more than once after baptism) and treated slaves who converted to Christianity as equals with other classes and thus could marry persons of other classes (which was in opposition to the Roman version of anti-miscegnation laws).

Most importantly, you left out the fact that Hippolytus reconciled with the successors of Callixtus by fully repenting of his schism which means that he ultimately accepted the position that Callixtus had advocated.

Thus, with respect to the particular passage that you erroneously cite as a "primary source," you need to critically review what Hippolytus was saying and why he was saying it rather than unabashedly accept it just because he seems to offer something that supports your view of the Roman Church. Stripped of the rhetoric, Hippolytus is indeed a fine source showing that the continuity between the Catholic Church then and today.

It's too bad that you and your co-religionists are not capable of engaging such subject matter with any sort of objectivity allowing your hatred of Catholicism to blind you.

As for the substance of your remarks about the rite of baptism, you comment on the form but not on the underlying theology thus missing the whole point of why Apostolic Tradition is important. Is there anything different between what the Church believed with respect to baptism and what it does now based on what you see in the rite?

And if you have a problem with the fact that the Catholic Church does not follow the form of the rite, does your own flavor of Protestantism follow it? If not, why not?

God bless!

Paul Hoffer said...

BTW, I apoloiguze for the typos and grammar errors.

Paul Hoffer said...

Oh, I see that you removed my first comment. Interesting...I guess I will have to post it on my own blog. I am sorry that you folks did not want to interact on this occasion.

James Swan said...

Oh, I see that you removed my first comment. Interesting...I guess I will have to post it on my own blog. I am sorry that you folks did not want to interact on this occasion.

I did not delete your comment.

James Swan said...

Here you go, from my mailbox:

Paul Hoffer has left a new comment on your post "Saint Hippolytus, Antipope, on Pope Callistus":

Hello All,

What is being left out of this discussion is that Matt asked for a primary source of what Callixtus (Callistus) held in regards to the previous post. Hippolytus' vituperative comment does not help your case here because his commentary is not not a "primary" source of what Callixtus held to be his doctrine. It is a secondary source and thus Hippolytus' motivations must be considered as well. If you were going for a primary source, why not cite to something that Callixtus wrote? Unless of course there aren't any extant.

if there are not any such primary sources, then we have to look at context. Roman argumentation style of that time allowed for antagonists to exaggerated a protagonist's position to make a point. Hippolytus was an opponent of Callixtus. Hippolytus wrote this after he was not selected to replace Zephyrinus as Bishop of Rome. Hippolytus was upset that Callixtus was selected and not him. Hippolytus' followers refused to follow Callixtus and they elevated Hippolytus as their "bishop." In an effort to gain followers, Hippolytus criticized Callixtus' rather compassionate treatment of repentent sinners (he held that sinners could confess their sins more than once after baptism) and treated slaves who converted to Christianity as equals with other classes and thus could marry persons of other classes (which was in opposition to the Roman version of anti-miscegnation laws).

Most importantly, you left out the fact that Hippolytus reconciled with the successors of Callixtus by fully repenting of his schism which means that he ultimately accepted the position that Callixtus had advocated.

Thus, with respect to the particular passage that you erroneously cite as a "primary source," you need to critically review what Hippolytus was saying and why he was saying it rather than unabashedly accept it just because he seems to offer something that supports your view of the Roman Church. Stripped of the rhetoric, Hippolytus is indeed a fine source showing that the continuity between the Catholic Church then and today.

It's too bad that you and your co-religionists are not capable of engaging such subject matter with any sort of objectivity allowing your hatred of Catholicism to blind you.

As for the substance of your remarks about the rite of baptism, you comment on the form but not on the underlying theology thus missing the whole point of why Apostolic Tradition is important. Is there anything different between what the Church believed with respect to baptism and what it does now based on what you see in the rite?

And if you have a problem with the fact that the Catholic Church does not follow the form of the rite, does your own flavor of Protestantism follow it? If not, why not?

God bless!



Posted by Paul Hoffer to Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics at 8:36 AM, August 23, 2010

John Bugay said...

Paul Hoffer: Oh, I see that you removed my first comment. Interesting...I guess I will have to post it on my own blog. I am sorry that you folks did not want to interact on this occasion.

I did not remove it either. I'm not sure why it didn't post, but as you'll note, James Swan did repost it from his email version.

I'll respond as I have time.

Paul Hoffer said...

Thank you! I look forward to your reply to my remarks!

God bless!

John Bugay said...

Paul Hoffer said: What is being left out of this discussion is that Matt asked for a primary source of what Callixtus (Callistus) held in regards to the previous post.

Here, actually is what Alexander Greco (not M.B.) said: natamllc, my point is, how does this address the "why" of annulment as the title of the post says it does? Secondly, I'd like to see the primary sources.

That was the only request for "primary sources" and I have not tried to hide anything.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/reason-rooted-in-history-why-roman.html?showComment=1282179971146#c8762305663618566597

Hippolytus' vituperative comment does not help your case here because his commentary is not not a "primary" source of what Callixtus held to be his doctrine.

It's the *only* thing we know about what Callistus said. And Lampe corroborates it by giving a number of other secular and church-based sources as to what the marital situation was with regard to marriage of senatorial-class women, etc.

It is a secondary source and thus Hippolytus' motivations must be considered as well.

Kelly's "Oxford Dictionary of the Popes" calls it "factually revealing." Ratzinger, whose word you ought to be inclined to trust, says it to a large extent representative of a form of baptism which the Roman church had forgotten. So you are in the highly unenviable position of having to rely on his work as the only source of one of the few genuine traditions you have, and yet having to deny the other things he wrote.

If you were going for a primary source, why not cite to something that Callixtus wrote? Unless of course there aren't any extant.

Because he never wrote anything.

if there are not any such primary sources, then we have to look at context

Which is the exact thing that Lampe provides.

Hippolytus was upset that Callixtus was selected and not him.

You don't know that this motivated someone whose other writings were critical of Callistus for being lenient. His work argues for purity; it makes more sense that he would be consistent with himself.

In fact, you are dependent on undermining his work somehow, and you have to grasp at some straw or other. Because if he is correct about Callistus, it's another big nail in the coffin of the early papacy.

Most importantly, you left out the fact that Hippolytus reconciled with the successors of Callixtus by fully repenting of his schism which means that he ultimately accepted the position that Callixtus had advocated.

You don't know this, and there aren't any published retractions. Hippolytus genuinely suffered as a martyr; that may have been more than sufficient for the honor he was given.

Thus, with respect to the particular passage that you erroneously cite as a "primary source," you need to critically review what Hippolytus was saying and why he was saying it rather than unabashedly accept it just because he seems to offer something that supports your view of the Roman Church.

It is a primary account of an eyewitness of the Roman church in the early third century.

It's too bad that you and your co-religionists are not capable of engaging such subject matter with any sort of objectivity allowing your hatred of Catholicism to blind you.

We are the objective ones. I've written many, many times of the confluence of conservative scholarship and critical scholarship on these historical issues. The picture of the early church is becoming clearer and clearer, and the accounts upon which Rome rests its authority are becoming thinner and thinner.

John Bugay said...

Is there anything different between what the Church believed with respect to baptism and what it does now based on what you see in the rite?

Ratzinger himself noted the difference. And if Roman baptism was in such an orthodox state, why were people permitted to be baptized on their deathbeds? Including someone as notable of Constantine?

And if you have a problem with the fact that the Catholic Church does not follow the form of the rite, does your own flavor of Protestantism follow it? If not, why not?

Protestantism shouldn't factor at all in this discussion. If the Roman church was fouled up in its doctrines and practices, it should stand alone and be accountable itself for this sorry state.

Jae said...

@ John, "So yes, God commanded it for the Jews, but then he wiped away the need for it in Christ."

Where does it say in the Bible that God WIPED it all away?

Actually, liturgy is the highest form of communal worship of thansgiving, praise and adoration of God. (which God was pleased and grants petition through communal prayers).

John Bugay said...

The writer to the Hebrews notes that Christ has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. … In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.


Note the past tense and perfect tense in all the verbs. There is no need to "re-present" this one sacrifice. It accomplished what He intended to accomplish. "Re-presenting" it, as I noted, is "crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." Why would you want to do that?

2 Cor 5:16ff: From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Rome pulls the old system into its sacramental system. But the "new creation" IS "the righteousness of God." This is not something that you lose when you sin, and regain again when you go to confession. There is a once for all accomplishment with this sacrifice, and for Rome to portray itself as the keeper of the benefits of this sacrifice, to dribble out those benefits as people comply with its system, is a total mockery of the free gift of God in Christ.

Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

You have enslaved yourself again to the old system. You are merely a follower in this. But the vessel through whom that slavery comes is the one that's destined for wrath.

Constantine said...

Where does it say in the Bible that God WIPED it all away?

God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah (31:31-34) and promised to “wipe away” the old covenant with the new. And the new covenant is completely different than the old.

The writer of Hebrews also repeats Jeremiah 31:31-34 in its entirety in chapter 8 and partially in chapter 10.

Jae said...

@ John,

Thanks. There are great deal of evidences to the "ministerial priesthood" aside from the "priesthood" of all believers. The Catholic Church believes that the Ministerial priesthood replaces the Old Testament's Levitical priesthood. Thus, bishops (Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:2) and presbyters (interchangeable terms according to Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5,7) and deacons (Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:12) are the New Testament's priests and Levites, while the Old Testament Levitical priesthood isno longer functional. In fact, after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD (and never rebuilt to this day), the sacrificial system of the Judaism came to end [1]. However the Old Testament has a prophecy saying that Levitical priests will never cease offering sacrifice. see Jeremiah 33: 17-22.

Thus, the Levitical priesthood of Judaism cannot fulfill this prophecy. Furthermore the Old Testament also prophesies that God had intention to extend the Levitical priesthood to include non-Jewish people. Isaiah chapter 66 describes the prophecy that God will gather all nations and tongues to see His glory (Isaiah 66:18) and then it goes saying,

Isaiah 66:21 , "And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord."

The writer of the Hebrews you cited didn't in any way say that God WIPED it all out. The Catholic Church does teach that Jesus is the only true priest who offered Himself as sacrifice once for all. Those bishops and presbyters are His ministers and they do not offer their own sacrifices. In the Mass they act on Christ's behalf (in the person of Christ) to make present the same sacrifice He offered on the cross. Their priesthood also makes present the unique priesthood of Christ.

The Catholic Church accepts the priesthood of believers while at the same time maintaining a ministerial priesthood (see the Catechism 1546-1547). The word for "elder" is where we get our word "priest" and James 5:14ff specifically refers to the "elders" of the church involved in the Sacrament of anointing the sick with oil. (Mark 6:13) "They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them."

There is a LOT of evidence from the Bishops and Fathers of the Church that that is exactly how Christ intended His words to His apostles to be so understood (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:21-23; cf. 2 Cor 5:18-20; James 5:14-16; 1 John 1:7-9; Acts 19:18, 2 Corinthians 2:10). Also, there is a whole book about Confession to priests in Scripture -- it is called Leviticus. Simply because there is no explicit mention in the New Testament of sacramental absolution does not mean the Church fell into "apostasy" on the Sacraments.

The apostles had the Spirit in a special way. If you read the entire chapter of Matthew 10:1-19 ff -They were inspired preachers and teachers -- they had the "Spirit of the Father" speaking through them (Apostles). That is not true of all believers. Jesus said "if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you RETAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED". Do we retain sins, John? Do we or your church anoint oil too as prescribed in the Holy Writ?

Cont.

Jae said...

Cont.

And lastly, for the "sacrifice" of the Mass in no way violate the "once and for all" Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross 2,00 years ago. (see also CCC #1544-5.)

The context of 1 Cor 10:14-21 is that of sacrifices and altars - this is undeniable, as the very words are used. And not only the context, but direct parallels are made to Communion. When Paul says: "You cannot partake of the TABLE of the Lord and the TABLE of demons," he just finished saying the "table of demons" is the pagan sacrificial altar; thus, the "table of the Lord" is a sacrificial altar for the Mass. This is confirmed by the fact "table of the Lord" is used elsewhere in Scripture in explicit reference to sacrificial altar (e.g. Mal 1:7, "By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, 'How have we polluted you?' By saying that the LORD’s table may be despised.")

Anything short of this interpretation of 1 Cor 10:14-21 isn't going to make much sense.


Malachi 1.11

"For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they BRING SACRIFICE to my Name, and a PURE offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts."

The assertion that somehow our thanksgiving, prayers and praises to God are PURE doesn't hold water because we humans even to the highest deed are not just pure, period. Some would say Paul talking about our approach to God to be PURE - pure in our INTENTION that is. In Malachi it was different, it's describing about a PURE STATE OF BEING....viz God is Love itself and not God has Love.

And lastly, thanks for your concern, really! but John I'm not the one being enslaved to the old system, you see that old system is very consistent by which it's being guided by the truth since DAY ONE to the present and not to the ever changing winds of ideas.

See what Justin Martin and ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (circa. 110 A.D.) about the Eucharist on the "table of the Lord" as His true Flesh and Blood.

This has been taugh and practiced for thousands of years so why do you tend to side with just a new idea of Luther and Calvin?

natamllc said...

Jae,

I do believe you have missed the entirety of the messages, both Old and New?

I believe you have come under an understanding that blinds you to what this whole reality is about?

You might have read about the "new" and "living way" Jesus opened up to His people at His ascension?

In the Gospel we read about the veil of the Temple being torn from top to bottom signifying that the tear was done by God and His power and not by the power of man?

With that, please reconcile your responses to an "insight" given by revelation to King Solomon here:

2Ch 6:17 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you have spoken to your servant David.
2Ch 6:18 "But will God indeed dwell with man on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, how much less this house that I have built!


Also, how about this revelation given to King David, here: 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17???

I believe, if you will step back and take to heart those passages from 2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 17 and 2 Chronicles 6, you should be able to separate and distinguish between the earthly functions and the Heavenly Work of God in imputing His Righteousness to His people?

Peter captures the idea so well, here:

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Jae said...

I pretty much agree with you but so sorry i think the concept of "imputing" graces is unBiblical.

And also what do mean by citing, "2Ch 6:18 "But will God indeed dwell with man on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, how much less this house that I have built!"

If what I think you are implying then who was that little baby in the manger, small, couldn't able to walk, speak and subjected to all human conditions, was that the ALMIGHTY GOD who created the Universe?

If HE could be so humble to be the most vulnerable person, do you think He could not humble Himself a little bit more to be a "food" and a "drink" for us? Anyways He is the epitome of all virtues, right?

This teaching has been taught since the earliest days of christianity of those who were martyred, fed to the lions and bled for Jesus Christ now, my question to you then, why lean on the teachings of new idea by a guy named Calvin?