Question 1 –
Church = Believers from Turretin Fan
In the section of your rebuttal titled, “A False
Conclusion, an Attack on the Church,” you cite various
Scriptures and the writings of Irenaeus. You apply those
passages as if they were directed to your church (i.e.
the church of Rome), and not as though they were directed
to the church, defined as all believers (see WCF XXV:I
“I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible,
consists of the whole number of the elect, that have
been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ
the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the
fullness of Him that filleth all in all”).
Philip Schaff, in History of the Apostolic Church,
states: “The wide view of the church as the total of
believers, the whole kingdom of Christ on earth, is the
original one; the narrower sense of the term, in which it
denotes a particular local congregation, as the church of
Corinth or of Rome, is the derived.” (Schaff, 1859 ed. p.
500)
Furthermore, we see that this is the same definition
Irenaeus (who you quoted) used: “For where the Church is,
there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God
is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the
Spirit is truth.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III,
Chapter XXIV, 1.
Likewise, Clement of Alexandria states: “Thus believing
alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God
is never weak. For as His will is work, and this is named
the world; so also His counsel is the salvation of men,
and this has been called the church. He knows, therefore,
whom He has called, and whom He has saved; and at one and
the same time He called and saved them. “For ye are,”
says the apostle, “taught of God.”” Clement of
Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, Chapter VI
Tertullian likewise, in De Pœnit. 10 states, “Where one
or two are, is the church, and the church is Christ,” and
in another place states “For though you think heaven
still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and
through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every
one who has been here put to the question, and also made
confession, will carry with him.” Tertullian, Scorpiace,
Chapter X.
So also confesses Origen: “But that we may win over to
the reception of our views those who are willing to
accept the inferences which flow from our doctrines, and
to be benefited thereby, we say that the holy Scriptures
declare the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God,
to be the whole Church of God, and the members of this
body—considered as a whole—to consist of those who are
believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body,
which of itself has not the natural power of motion like
a living being, so the Word, arousing and moving the
whole body, the Church, to befitting action, awakens,
moreover, each individual member belonging to the Church,
so that they do nothing apart from the Word.” Origen,
Against Celsus, Book VI, Chapter xlviii.
And Lactantius says the same thing: “But the prophets
spoke of Him who was then born after that David had slept
with his fathers. Besides, the reign of Solomon was not
everlasting; for he reigned forty years. In the next
place, Solomon was never called the son of God, but the
son of David; and the house which he built was not firmly
established, as the Church, which is the true temple of
God, which does not consist of walls, but of the heart
and faith of the men who believe on Him, and are called
faithful.” Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book IV,
Chapter xiii.
Jerome similar writes: “The Church does not depend upon
walls, but upon the truth of its doctrines. The Church is
there, where the true faith is. But about fifteen or
twenty years ago, heretics possessed all the walls of the
Churches here. For, twenty years ago, heretics possessed
all these Churches. But the true Church was there, where
the true faith was,” Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus
CXXXIII, PL 26:1223, and again writes that “The true
Church, the true temple of Christ, is no other than the
human soul. The Church of Christ is nothing other than
the souls of those who believe in Christ.” FC, Vol. 48,
The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily
18.
Cyprian also writes: “Whence, moreover, nothing can
separate the Church—that is, the people established in
the Church, faithfully and firmly persevering in that
which they have believed—from Christ, in such a way as to
prevent their undivided love from always abiding and
adhering.” Cyprian, Epistle LXII, to Cæcilius
Victorinus likewise testifies: “6. “And He made us a
kingdom and priests unto God and His Father.” That is to
say, a Church of all believers; as also the Apostle Peter
says: “A holy nation, a royal priesthood.”” Commentary on
Revelation, Chapter 1, vs. 6 Victorinus.
Finally, Ambrose cautions: “So the faith of the Church
must be sought first and foremost; if Christ is to dwell
therein, it is undoubtedly to be chosen. But lest an
unbelieving people or heretical teacher disfigure its
habitation, it is enjoined that the fellowship of
heretics be avoided and the synagogue shunned. … Thus,
any Church which rejects faith and does not possess the
foundations of Apostolic preaching is to be abandoned,
lest it be able to bespatter some stain of unbelief.”
Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke,
Book VI, §68.
If space would permit we would add to these 2 Clement 14.
These definitions are not consistent with your claims
that the church is essentially defined by communion with
the pope. Why now do you feel justified in defining “the
Church” in the self-serving way you define it, contrary
(at least) to the WCF and the early churchmen quoted and
cited above?
Matthew
Bellisario response to the above
question.
Answer to question 1 The Church.
The Catholic Church also would agree that the Church is
made up of “believers” and the quotes above that you
listed use the term in that relative context. It is
however not the “only” definition that the Church Fathers
use to refer to the Church. It is a fallacy of selective
emphasis here that you have picked these quotes only to
arrive at yours, or the WMCs definition of the Church. If
we read other quotes from the same Church Fathers we see
a clear hierarchal structure to it which you fail to
accept.
Irenaeus clearly gives us a vision of the apostolic
succession of the apostles through the bishops which you
reject, which constitutes the real meaning of what the
Church is,
“1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every
Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate
clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested
throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to
reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the
succession of these men to our own times; those who
neither taught nor knew of anything like what these
[heretics] rave about.“
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built
up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the
office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes
mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded
Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man,
as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been
conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching
of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their
traditions before his eyes.
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
Irenaeus also gives us a clear understanding of the
structure of the Church being more than just believers
when he calls those to refer back to the tradition of the
most ancient churches, which once again you reject,
“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important
question among us, should we not have recourse to the
most ancient Churches with which the apostles held
constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain
and clear in regard to the present question? For how
should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us
writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to
follow the course of the tradition which they handed down
to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 4)
We can also the see that St Cyprian of Carthage had an
image of the primacy of the apostle St. Peter when he
refers to the chair of unity that the Church is built on
which is also in line with what I have presented with the
full meaning of what the Church is, one once again which
you reject,
“On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives
the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a
like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single
Chair, and He established by His own authority a source
and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the
others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is
given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is
but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds,
and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles
in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to
this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds
the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the
Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in
the Church?"
(The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c.
AD 251)”
We can also see that the chair of Peter was recognized in
the early Church by St. Ephraim as well,
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the
foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you
Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You
are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a
Church for me. If they should wish to build what is
false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are
the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows;
you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will
give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving
sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as
it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the
heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given
you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you
authority over all my treasures." St. Ephraim of Syria
("Homily 4," c. 351 A.D.)
The answer to your question, “Why now do you feel
justified in defining “the Church” in the self-serving
way you define it, contrary (at least) to the WCF and the
early churchmen quoted and cited above?” Whose way is
self serving? I read the Fathers in their complete
context, unlike the method you are using which you are
narrowly defining a definition of the Church which is
incomplete. It is obviously not contrary to any of the
above since I have just shown that they understood the
Church to be much more than yours, or the WMCs definition
of it.