Errol Amey, "On Origen’s Warning of a Potential Falling Away of the Corporate Church"

The following is from my friend Errol Amey and is shared with his permission.

On Origen’s Warning of a Potential Falling Away of the Corporate Church

“If you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. . . . Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off.” (Romans 11:18,20-22)

Patristic scholars generally agree that the early Christians viewed the Second Advent of Christ to be an event looming just around the corner, possibly (if not likely) within a given writer’s own lifetime. One massively peer-reviewed source had this to say about the earliest extra-Biblical writings: “the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the homily known as 2 Clement speak of history’s final crisis as imminent (Barn. 4; Did. 16; 2 Clem. 5.5; 7.1; 8.1-3) and express a longing for Jesus’ coming (Did. 10.6; cf. Barn. 21.1).”1 Likewise, further into the second century, Tertullian spoke of, “two comings of Christ having been revealed to us . . . a second, which impends over the world, now near its close.”2 Even in the mid third century Cyprian, after a particularly vicious persecution, could state with confidence that, “already His second coming is drawing near to us.”3

Given this eschatological view of the perceived timing of Christ’s Second Advent, the concept of a potential falling away of the corporate Church wasn’t particularly in the early Christians’ purview. Had they known that well over a millennium later Christians would still be writing in anticipation of this event, they would certainly have had something different to say on the matter than what we reviewed above. We’ll not know in this life whether they would have had any consensus or majority view regarding a possible falling away had they known how history would prove to play out, but by the time the Church was some two hundred years removed from the First Advent we do find that Origen, commonly acknowledged as the most brilliant writer in this period of church history and well known for plumbing the depths of theological speculation, repeatedly made observations on the matter based on relative Scriptural statements, such as the following:

“‘Behold, the days will come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I shall send a famine across the land; not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but famine to hear the words of the Lord. The waters will be unsettled as far as the sea. And from the north to the east men will scurry about seeking to find the word of the Lord, but they will not find it.’” (Amos 8:11-12)

 While some today feel that this passage from Amos only had application to its direct historical context, Origen, true to the form of eastern thought in seeing foreshadowings and types in the Old Testament in addition to their immediate application (such as various Messianic prophecies, for instance), saw this passage as having potential application under the New Covenant as well: “whenever we become unjust, he will send forth ‘a famine upon the earth, not a famine of bread nor a thirsting of water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord.’ [Amos 8:11]”4 Nor did he imagine this to be any less total in scale than the text itself indicates, as he expounded elsewhere:

“if ‘the people do evil in the sight of the Lord,’ [cf. Judges 4:1] to the church such a judge is given under whom the people suffer ‘hunger and thirst,’ ‘not hunger for bread or thirst for water, but hunger for hearing the word of God.’ [Amos 8:11] Therefore, let us so act and let us so pray lest divine indignation should ever condemn us to a ‘famine of the word’ and to ‘thirst for the word,’ lest he should ever be taken away from us who would instruct us in word and deed, who, in character and integrity, would offer himself as a perfect example of patience and gentleness to the people. For if ‘we were to do evil in the sight of the Lord,’ [cf. Judges 4:1] that is, if we were to live wickedly, if we do our will and not the will of God, ‘Ehud dies’ also for us, and Shamgar is taken away, and our glory will be rendered invisible, and ‘we will be handed over into the hands of Jabin, king of Canaan.’ [Cf. Judges 4:2]”5

The greater part of Origen’s warning, however, actually comes from the New Testament. In order to understand his thought processes, however, it may first be necessary to review how the early Christians viewed fleshly Israel under the Old Covenant versus spiritual Israel under the New Covenant. Returning to Tertullian in the late second century, we have the succinct declaration that, “The Jews had formerly been in covenant with God; but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be without God.”6 Going further back into church history, we find Irenaeus delivering the same teaching:

“For inasmuch as the former have rejected the Son of God, and cast Him out of the vineyard when they slew Him, God has justly rejected them, and given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation. This is in accordance with what Jeremiah says, ‘The Lord hath rejected and cast off the nation which does these things; for the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord.’ [Jeremiah 7:29-30]”7

This teaching, while not quite unique to the earliest period of the faith, certainly appears to have drastically diminished in today’s Christendom, either in part in some communities or in whole in others. Origen’s own teacher, Clement, likewise gives us the following:

“They were people gone astray, who did not know their Lord; they were uncircumcised in mind; [cf. Ezekiel 44:7; Acts 7:51] not recognizing God, they rejected their Lord and so lost the promise implied in their name Israel, [cf. Genesis 35:10] for they persecuted God and tried to bring disgrace to the Word.”8

And such is what the early Christians unanimously believed to have become of the corporate or fleshly Israel. Finally, how Origen himself expressed this belief:

“living apart as a ‘chosen nation and a royal priesthood,’ [1 Peter 2:9] and shunning intercourse with the many nations around them, in order that their morals might escape corruption, they enjoyed the protection of the divine power, neither coveting like the most of mankind the acquisition of other kingdoms, nor yet being abandoned so as to become, on account of their smallness, an easy object of attack to others, and thus be altogether destroyed; and this lasted so long as they were worthy of the divine protection. But when it became necessary for them, as a nation wholly given to sin, to be brought back by their sufferings to their God, they were abandoned (by Him), sometimes for a longer, sometimes for a shorter period, until in the time of the Romans, having committed the greatest of sins in putting Jesus to death, they were completely deserted.”9

Note that this is not an exhaustive set of examples; the above are representative of pre-Nicene orthodoxy as a whole with other witnesses including Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Melito, Marcus Menicius Felix, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Lactantius.10 With this in mind, consider the implications this foundational teaching has on the following passage from the Apostle Paul:

“I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? Far from it! But by their wrongdoing salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their wrongdoing proves to be riches for the world, and their failure, riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Therefore insofar as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry if somehow I may move my own people to jealousy and save some of them. For if their rejection proves to be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are as well. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’ Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.” (Romans 11:11-32)

The implications of this passage for the corporate Church become clear when considered within the context of the original Christian perspective here presented. While the extant writings of other early figures do not often dwell on this passage, Origen follows its logical train of thought:

“As the nation of the Hebrews formerly attained mercy after they had been given up on by men and rejected by God, so also now, therefore, the people of the Gentiles, who were looked down upon and given up on by those who boast in circumcision, have attained mercy. But we need to examine what that means more critically, that they have also attained mercy and have been called the people of God and were loved by God, [Hosea 2:1] but since they were ignorant of how to preserve the grace they had received, it is said to them, ‘Because the dwelling place of Israel committed adultery, I sent her away and put a decree of divorce in her hands’; [Jeremiah 3:8] and again in another passage, ‘You have become loathsome to me, I will no longer forgive your sins.’ [Cf. Isaiah 1:14] And through Jeremiah the Lord says, ‘My inheritance has become to me like a jackal’s den,’ [Jeremiah 12:9] lest perhaps in our case too, we who were not God’s people, but through the riches of his glory he called us his own people, and who were not beloved, but have become beloved as sons of the living God, if we fail to walk as sons of the light [cf. Ephesians 5:8] and sons of God, if we do not behave as God’s people, ‘so that men who see our good works may glorify our Father in heaven,’ [Matthew 5:16] it has to be feared lest we fall upon that word of the Apostle when he says, ‘For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you.’ [Romans 11:21]”11

Just as the nation of the Hebrews comprising ancient Israel was not immune to corporate rejection, so, too, is the nation of the Gentiles comprising the Church not immune to corporate rejection. An insistence to the contrary would no doubt have been viewed by Origen as a dangerously delusional false sense of security potentially inviting laxity and corruption. On this point he gave further elucidation in the most recently rediscovered of his writings:

“‘Their kinship said together, ‘Come, and let us cause all God’s feasts to cease from the earth.’’ [Psalm 73:8] They say such things, but what they had said was produced for the Jews. Therefore, the people said: ‘We do not see our signs.’ [Psalm 73:9] When our Savior suffered, signs stopped for the people. There are no longer signs and wonders, [cf. Matthew 24:24; Mark 31:22; John 4:48] even though they had been produced then up to the Savior’s birth itself, when such signs were produced, for example, such as the vision of an angel that appeared to Zachariah, [Luke 1:11] such as the signs that were at the Savior’s passion. [Cf. Matthew 27:45,51-53; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:44-45] After these signs, signs were  produced, but not to Jews or by Jews, but the signs went over from the people to the gentiles. Therefore, the people said: ‘We do not see our signs; there is no longer a prophet.’ [Psalm 73:9] For prophecy was stopped since ‘the law and the prophets’ prophesied ‘until John.’ [Luke 16:16] And when prophecy was stopped, the Holy Spirit, as a consequence, stopped from them, and the benefit went over to the gentiles, unless we also run riot, [cf. Revelation 18:7,9; 1 Timothy 5:11] unless we also are watered down, unless we become coarse and destroy the grace poured out [cf. Psalm 44:3] on us by God, so that the people would once more be speaking in our dispensation the truth concerning it: ‘We do not see our signs; there is no longer a prophet.’ [Psalm 73:9]”12

The translator summarized this passage while tying it back in with Origen’s treatment of the Epistle to the Romans:

“Israel’s estrangement from God will end when God’s plan is complete. The (temporary) estrangement of Israel from God is a warning that Christians should not presume on their status as God’s people. See Rom 11:25-32.”13

Footnotes

1 Brian E. Daley, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 383

2 Tertullian, ca. 197, Apology 21, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:35

3 Cyprian, ca. 254, Letters 63:18, in Fathers of the Church 51:215

4 Origen, ca. 239, Commentary on John 13:224, in Fathers of the Church 89:114

5 Origen, ca. 245, Homilies on Judges 4:3, Fathers of the Church 119:73-74

6 Tertullian, ca. 197, Prescription Against Heretics 8, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:247

7 Irenaeus, ca. 180, Against Heresies 4:36:2, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:515

8 Clement of Alexandria, ca. 195, Christ the Educator 2:8:73, in Fathers of the Church 23:157

9 Origen, ca. 248, Against Celsus 4:32, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:511

10 Cf. Epistle of Barnabas 4, Dialogue With Trypho 140, Discourse 5, Octavius 33, Fragments on Psalms 5, On the Lord’s Prayer 13, Divine Institutes 4:20, respectively.

11 Origen, Commentary on Romans 7:18:6, in Fathers of the Church 104:124

12 Origen, ca. 251, Homilies on Psalm 73 2:2, in Fathers of the Church 141:193-194

13 Joseph W. Trigg, Fathers of the Church 141:194-195

For previous articles of Errol's that can be found on this blog, see:

Errol Amey, "A Case for Subordinationism in Modern Apologetics" (A Response to William Albrecht and Sam Shamoun)

Errol Amey, "A Case for Subordinationism in Modern Apologetics" Part II

Errol Amey, "The Earliest Christian References to the Contents of the Communion Cup"

Off to Utah in December//Goals for 2022

 As many know, I hope to move to Utah permanently in 2022 (so much red tape . . . ) I will be in Utah for another 3-month stint from December 1 until the end of February. As I will be flying out soon, expect there to be ‘radio silence' on this blog for a few days. UPDATE: still in Ireland. They did not let me in on the ESTA and now I have to wait for the VISA to go through. Sad face.

 

I will continue blogging, and once I am permanently in the USA (not just simply there for 3-month stints) I hope to set up a podcast interviewing LDS and non-LDS on theological issues (e.g., Anglican and Catholic sacramental theology in light of texts such as Apostolicae Curae [yes, you read that right]; textual criticism of the OT, NT, and non-canonical texts; 'meet the apologist' segments; patristic texts, Christology, etc).

 

The projects I hope to work on in 2022 (outside projects I will be doing for work) include:

 

(*) reception history of Daniel 7, with a focus on the interpretation of the "Ancient of Days" (not much has been done by LDS on this issue and JS' identification of the AofD with Michael/Adam)

(*) textual criticism of the Bible, with a focus on the Old Testament (thinking of organizing a few LDS scholars and apologists to come together for a book entitled something like "As Far as it is Translated Correctly": 1 Nephi 13 and the Eighth Article of Faith in the Light of Modern Textual Criticism"—watch this space for more)

(*) revisit the topic of the canon and its formation, with a focus on the Apocrypha/Deutero-canonical books

(*) if time permits, revisit the topic of the textual development of Deuteronomy and the appearance of Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon (have not touched this topic since 2010)

(*) getting equipment (e.g., good microphone; etc) for the podcast

(*) continue doing research into Open Theism from a Latter-day Saint framework for a future book

(*) further studies into Satanology & Demonology and the origins and development of New Testament and Early Christian theologies on these issues

(*) work on topics such as soteriology and Christology and related topics for future books

 

I hope to have a day/time/venue organized for the debate on the Immaculate Conception announced in early 2022. Ditto for the debate on Sola Scriptura. I am also trying to find someone who will agree to debate me on the topic of baptismal regeneration (though as with Sola Scriptura, finding it super hard to find Protestants who reject this doctrine to debate it).

For those who wish to donate to support my research/writing, you can make a donation on Paypal. I also take Amazon vouchers (Email: IrishLDS87@gmail.com)

Baptism for the Dead and Baptism's Relationship to Faith and Repentance in the School of the Prophets in Paris, Idaho (1869) and Payson, Utah (1871)

One of my favourite topics to research is that of baptism. I have written an entire book defending the doctrine of baptismal regeneration from the Bible:

"Born of Water and of the Spirit": The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration (2021 [for those who want a free PDF, drop me an email at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom])

While pursuing the minutes of some of the Schools of the Prophets in Utah/Idaho, I came across the following interesting excerpts dealing with baptism for the dead and the dead person's free-will ability to accept/reject the gospel (and the proxy work) being retained in the spirit world and an early discussion of baptism and its relationship to faith and repentance:

Minutes from the Paris, Idaho School of the Prophets, December 4, 1869

 

Prest. Rich said that everyone would receive the salvation they deserved. He thought that celestial glory would be reserved for those who obey the gospel in this life and prove faithful. He further stated that the ordinance of baptism for the dead did not interfere with the agency of man the dead. It would still remain with them in order to render the ordinance of avail in their behalf to acknowledge and receive the same. Prest. Rich also explained the order for baptism for the dead the oldest son for his father's family if his father did not attend to it. If the oldest son did not attend to it the second son should & so on. (source [Prest. Rich = Charles C. Rich, who was sustained unanimously as president of the School of the Prophets June 19, 1869])

 

Minutes from the Payson City School of the Prophets, July 1, 1871

 

Elder Paul Gourley took the stand and preached an excellent discourse on the first principles of the gospel. Asserted that baptism in and of itself is not for the remission of sins. It requires Faith, Repentance and Baptism for the remission of sins. Elder Philip Sykes felt to coincide with the remarks of br. Gourley. Quoted the formula used in baptism as given in the Book of Doctrine & Covenants. Made some good remarks on the first principles. Elder J. W. Huish believed that baptism is for the remission of sins. Elder Hicks was of the same opinion. Elder H. Box made some remarks. Elder B. F. Stewart made some good remarks on the subject that had been introduced. We should never undertake to officiate in the priesthood or give counsel unless we have the Holy Spirit. (source; such fits with baptism, not being the meritorious cause, but the instrumental cause of initial justification and remission of sins, it having no energy/power in of itself to save, it being dependent wholly upon the meritorious cause [i.e., Christ's redemptive sacrifice]. See pp. 6-12 of Born of Water and of the Spirit for a discussion of different “causes” [meritorious; instrumental; final; efficient; formal])

 

J. Glen Taylor on Deuteronomistic History and Yahweh as a Member of "The Host of Heaven"

  

. . . D[euteronomistic]H[istory] is concerned not so much with the worship of Yahweh as a member of the Host of Heaven (2 Kgs 22.19) as it is with the reverse phenomenon, namely with the worship of an object as Yahweh (that is the sun) or objects as members of his Heavenly Host (that is the stars). In other words, the issue is not syncretism but iconism. (J. Glen Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 111; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 107)

 

Ephrem the Syrian on Peter being Paralleled with Eve in his Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, Matthew 16:21-23

  

See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all that is written about me will be fulfilled. For the Son of Man is about to be crucified and die. Satan fought once again against our Lord through the mouth of Simon, head of his Church, as [he had formerly] through Eve. Let these things be far from you, Lord. He said to him, Get behind me, Satan. "Have you not learned the reason for my coming? Just as I became an infant and was placed in the cradle, and gave joy to those born [of women], so too it is fitting that I go down to Sheol, and console the dead, in the presence of those just ones, who for ages have been waiting to see me. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 214)

 

New Translation of Relevant Texts dealing with the Pope Honorius Affair

 In their 2021 Keys over the Christian World, Scott Butler and John Collorafi spend a number of pages discussing Honorius’ letters to Sergius and his subsequent condemnation at the Third Council of Constantinople. The following is of importance as they provide new translations of important works relating to this important incident in Christian history, provided by Collorafi and his translation of sections from Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio and Migne, Patrologia Graeca:

 

His first reply to Sergius begins:

 

We have received the writings of Your Fraternity, by which we have learned that new questions about words were introduced by a certain Sophronius—who was then a monk although now . . . he has been made bishop of Jerusalem—against our brother Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria, who preaches one operation of our Lord Jesus Christ to those who have converted from heresy. (Mansi 11:538)

 

After discussing the union of the two natures in Christ, Honorius continued:

 

Wherefore we also confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because evidently our nature, nor (our) guilt, was assumed by the divinity—that (nature), to be sure, which was created before sin, not the son that was vitiated after the fall. For Christ the Lord, coming in the likeness of the flesh of sin, took away the sin of the world, and of his fulness we have all received: and receiving the form of a servant, he was found in habit as a man, because without sin he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and also without sin was born of the holy and immaculate virgin Mother of God, experiencing no contamination of (our) vitiated nature . . . As we have already said, then, the vitiated nature, which would war against the law of His mind, was not assumed by the Savior, but rather He “came to seek and to save what was lost,” that is, the vitiated nature of the human race. For there was not another law in His members, or a diverse will, or one contrary to the Savior, because He was born above the law of the human condition. And although indeed it is written, “I came not to do my own will, but the will of the Father, who sent me,” and “Father, not my will, but thine be done,” and other similar things—these are not (written) of a diverse will, but of the dispensation of the humanity (which He) assumed. For these things were said for our sake, to whom He gave an example . . . that each of us might not follow his own will, but rather, in all things, prefer the will of the Lord. (Mansi 11:539-42)

 

Returning to the question of one versus two operations, Honorius added:

 

. . . neither do canonical authorities appear to have explained that anyone should presume to preach one or two operations of Christ God, which neither the words of the Gospel or the apostles nor a synodal examination about this subject seem to have decided . . . Now whether, because of the works of the divinity and the humanity, one or two operations should be said or understood to be derived, these things ought not to pertain to us, leaving them to grammarians. (Mansi 11:542)

 

Pope Honorius wrote a second letter to Sergius, again contending that neither one operation or two operations should be defined:

 

As far as ecclesiastical dogma is concerned, what we ought to hold or preach, because of the simplicity of men, and to avoid inextricable controversies, as we said above, we must not define one or two operations in the mediator between God and men but must confess each of the natures joined in the one Christ by a natural union, working in communion with the other. (Mansi 11:579) (Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World: The Evidence for Papal Authority (33 AD – 800 AD) from Ancient Latin, Greek, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Documents [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2021], 340-41)

 

Pope John IV (640-642), successor of Severinus, sent the emperor a lengthy letter, sometimes called the “apology for Pope Honorius,” adamantly denying that Honorius was a monothelite:

 

. . . all the regions of the West are scandalized (and) disturbed, as our brother Patriarch Pyrrhus . . . is preaching certain new things, which are outside the rule of faith . . . as if wrestling to his own understanding our predecessor, Pope Honorius of holy memory—which was utterly foreign to the mind of the Catholic father . . . Patriarch Sergius, of reverend memory, signified to the earlier mentioned pontiff of the city of Rome, of holy memory, that certain individuals were asserting two contrary wills in our Redeemer, Jesus Christ . . . and therefore, in accordance with the original formation of Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to have one nature will of his humanity, not two contrary ones, as we who are born from the sin of Adam are recognized to have. (Mansi X, 683).

 

In response to such speculation, John IV continued, Honirius had taught one human will in Christ, not “two contrary wills of the mind and flesh, ascertain heretics are known to assert madly.” John IV continued his defense of Honorius at some length and made his own orthodoxy clear by condemning Monothelitism in a council. (Mansi X, 682 sq.)

 

The pope’s defense of Honorius was substantiated by the man who had drafted the first letter to Sergius: a Roman abbot named John Symponus. Not only had Symponus composed the letter to Sergius, he also drafted John IV’s apology for Honorius. In the disputation with Pyrrhus, Maximus had adopted this defense of Honorius. The exchange went:

 

PYRRHUS. “What have you to answer for Honorius, who openly (wrote) to my predecessor, teaching one will in our Lord Jesus Christ”?

 

MAXIMUS. “Who is the trustworthy exegete of this letter, he who composed it in the person of Honorius, who is still living, or those at Constantinople, who speak from their own heart?”

 

PYRRHUS. “He who composed it.”

 

MAXIMUS. “The same individual (writing) to the holy Constantine, who became emperor, again in the name of Pope John, who is among the saints, said that: ‘We spoke of one will in the Lord, not of his divinity and humanity, but of his humanity alone. For because Sergius had written that certain individuals were asserting two contradictory wills in Christ, he answered: ‘We said that Christ had one will, not two contradictory wills, of the flesh and of the Spirit, as we do after the fall, which naturally characterized His humanity.’” (PG 91:328-9)

 

In the “Tome to Marinus the priest,” Maximus revealed that a personal friend, an abbot named Anastasius, had gone to Rome and discussed the letter of Honorius “with the most distinguished priests of that great Church.” Anastasius conferred also with John Symponus, who continued to deny that the letter had asserted a “numerical unity” of will in Christ; that, according to Symponus, had been done by whoever translated the letter into Greek. (PG 91:244) (Ibid., 344-46; cf. Dom John Chapman, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius [London: Catholic Truth Society, 1907] for a differing perspective on the evidence from Symponus)

 

Scott Butler and John Collorafi on Peter being the New Moses among Some Christian Authors

 Syriac Writers

 

Some Syriac writers draw a parallel between Moses and Peter. Moses was the undisputed leader of God’s people in the Old Covenant, a role that falls to Simon Peter in the New. The Liturgy and the fathers sometimes use references to the Transfiguration to introduce this comparison. St. Ephraem, for example, in a sermon on the Transfiguration, expressed a thought which is echoed in the Syrian offices:

 

The princes of the Old and New Testament saw each other there. The saintly Moses beheld the sanctified Simon; the Stewart of the Father saw the Procurator of the Son. The former rent the sea to let the people walk in the midst of the waves; the latter raised the (new) Tabernacle so as to build the Church. (Opera Omnia, ed. G. Vossius, 687)

 

James of Sergus comments, in his homily on the Transfiguration:

 

He brought together Moses, who is the beginning of prophecy, and John, who is the beauty of apostleship. He summoned Elijah and associated him with Simon, the head of the disciples, so that the keys (of power) over (all) creatures might be confirmed to him. He sought to make manifest before the herald Apostles that he had given the Spirit likewise to the prophets, and that they were His servants. He sent forth His Gospel so that ti might prevail over the world through Simon, and He brought in Moses so that he might be a witness that he was true. (P. Bedjan, ed., Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis, Paris 1906, 2:362-3, tr. Prof. William Macomber)

 

In a poetic homily on the Resurrection, James of Serug presents St. John as deferring to St. Peter, out of consideration for the keys:

 

John came to the door of the bridegroom king’s tomb, but he did not enter until Simon the perfect arrived. He waited for the one who bore the keys of the treasury to arrive, so that he as steward might open and enter. John stood like a wise man and did not enter, so as not to confuse the settled order of heraldship. He waited for the head of the disciples to arrive, who had fallen behind him, so that he might first see and bear witness to His resurrection. Simon Cephas, the head (or: wall) of the structures came and entered before him, so that he might be placed first on the apostolic building. The spiritual youth observed (good) order with regard to the noble old man, so that he might serve as the first foundation of the heraldship. (P. Bedjan, ed., Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis, Paris 1906, 2:618-619, tr. Prof. William Macomber) (Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World: The Evidence for Papal Authority (33 AD – 800 AD) from Ancient Latin, Greek, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Documents [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2021], 566-67)

 

Other Christian Authors

 

Because both Peter and Moses appeared at the Transfiguration of Jesus, the Fathers sometimes used their homiletical remarks on this feat to draw this parallel.

 

St. John Damascene did precisely that. Preaching on the Transfiguration, he characterizes Moses as the ‘divine lawgiver,’ and Peter as the ‘chiefest (disciple) of the New Testament’. (PG 99:548)

 

The Damascene added other remarks about Peter’s high dignity, for example:

 

. . . secretly He (Jesus) instructs him whom he had predestined to be the worthy president (proedron) of the Church. (PG 99:553)

 

. . . (Christ) ordained thee the keybearer of the kingdom of heaven and gave thee the power of binding and loosing sins. (PG 99:555)

 

. . . He took Peter (on the mountain) as him who was the president (proedron), who was also going to take up the helm of the entire Church. (PG 99:560)

 

In one sarcophagus in the catacombs, Peter is depicted as receiving the New Law from Christ, Mediator of the New Testament, much as Moses received the Old Law on the mountain. At other times, a figure is represented striking a rock, a parallel with a biblically recorded event in the life of Moses. A six letter inscription removes all doubt about the figure’s identity: PETRUS. (Kraus, F.X. Roma Sotteranea, Freiburg 1879, 339-40

 

Another type of ancient image, the traditio legis, depicts Christ handing the scroll of the Law to Peter, while St. Paul watches reverently. In the traditio clavium, Christ delivers the keys to St. Peter. (Cf. C. Pietri, Roma Christana, Rome 1976, 1413 sq.)

 

St. Macarius of Egypt taught that “Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ and the true priesthood.” (Hom. 26, PG 34:690)

 

In the Latin Church, Augustine boldly makes the same comparison:

 

Why is it illogical, if Peter, after (wishing to use the sword) became Pastor of the Church, as Moses, after killing the Egyptian, became Ruler of that (Old Testament) Synagogue? (Contra Faustum, XXII, 70, PLL 42:445) (Ibid., 621-23)

 

New Translation of Agatho's Letter from Third Constantinople (680/681)

The following is John Collorafi's translation of Agatho's letter which was read aloud during the fourth session of the Third Council of Constantinople (680/681), translated from volume 11 of Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio:

This is the apostolic and evangelical tradition which your most felicitous empire’s spiritual mother, the apostolic church of Christ holds. This is the true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, which human ingenuity did not invent, but which the princes of the apostles taught . . . which Blessed Peter the apostle . . . taught, not that it might be hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached more loudly than a trumpet throughout the world: because his true confession was revealed by the Heavenly Father, for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all. With a threefold recommendation, [Peter] also received from the very Redeemer of all, the Church’s spiritual sheep, to feed them: by those protection, this apostolic Church of his has never turned aside to any part of error, whose authority, as that of the prince of all the apostles, the entire Catholic Church of Christ, and the ecumenical councils, ever faithfully embracing, followed in all things . . . this is the rule of the truth faith, which both in prosperity and adversity your most serene empire’s spiritual mother, the apostolic church of Christ, has keenly held and defended: which, by the grace of Almighty God, shall be shown never to have erred from the path of apostolic tradition, nor has she succumbed to being corrupted by heretical innovations, but as he has received from the beginning of the Christian faith from her authors, the princes of Christ’s apostles, she remains unblemished to the very end, in accordance with the divine promise of the very Lord (and) Savior, which in the sacred Gospels he uttered to the prince of his disciples, saying: “Peter, Peter, behold Satan has sought to sift you, as one who sifts wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail, and do you, when you have been converted, strengthen your brethren.”

 

Let your Serene Clemency consider, therefore, that the Lord and Savior of all, from whom the faith comes, who promised that the faith of Peter would not fail, admonished him to strengthen his brethren: which, as everybody knows, the apostolic pontiffs, predecessors of my lowliness, ever did with confidence . . . For woe to me, if I neglect to preach what they preached with sincerity. Woe to me, if I cover over in silence what I have been commanded to instill into and to teach the Christian people. (Mansi 11:239-42) (Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World: The Evidence for Papal Authority (33 AD – 800 AD) from Ancient Latin, Greek, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Documents [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2021], 364-66)

 

Scott Butler and John Collorafi Throwing Cyprian Under the Bus to Defend the Vatican I Dogma of the Papacy

  

Although Cyprian is venerated as a saint and martyr in the Catholic Church, the Church did not accept everything he ever wrote. The inconsistencies and even contradictions in his writings fall of their own weight. At the Council of Carthage, in 256, Cyprian had proclaimed that “every bishop has a right to his own opinion,” and “can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”

 

Did Cyprian really believe that? Cyprian had asked the Roman bishop to intervene against Bishop Marcian of Arles, because of Marcian’s Novatianist leanings. What if Marcian had responded that “every bishop has a right to his own opinion,” or that he, Marcian, could “no more be judged by another than he (could) judge another?”

 

In his treatise De Unitate, Cyprian had compared the unity of the Church to that of God Himself, writing:

 

There is one God, and one Christ, and his Church is one, and the faith is one, and there is one people joined in solid unity of the body of the glue of agreement.

 

The baptismal controversy showed why the Church needed to have this “glue,” or an absurd situation would have resulted. This is obvious if we consider the alternatives in a purely dialectical way:

 

1. If Stephen was right. Pope Stephen had condemned rebaptism as contrary to apostolic tradition, yet without the power of the keys, Stephen would have been unable to enforce his view. Cyprian, and virtually all the Africans, would in effect be administering “double baptism,” with Rome powerless to intervene.

 

2. If Cyprian was right. According to Cyprian, baptism by heretics was invalid—utterly null and void. Yet Stephen as bishop would be refusing, in effect, to give such converts a real baptism. If so, converts from heresy who entered the church under Stephen were receiving no baptism at all. Yet “every bishop has a right to his own opinion,” Cyprian had proclaimed. Consequently, nobody in the Church could make sure that converts from heresy receive a “real” baptism in Rome.

 

If all bishops have a right to their own opinion, there would be no way to resolve the baptismal controversy: thus great provinces of the Universal Church must resign themselves either to rebaptism (at Africa), or to no baptism at all for converts (at Rome). Either way, the Church would be prevented from proclaiming one faith, one Lord, one baptism, as the Scripture demands Eph. 4, 5).

 

In reality, nothing of the kind happened. While the Church venerates the holiness of Cyprian, the great African did not have the last word in the dispute about rebaptism.

 

Cyprian had confronted a power greater than himself. With all his eloquence, all his conviction, all his magnetism and iron rectitude, he had collided, head first, into the power of the keys.

 

This time, a saint did not prevail. (Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World: The Evidence for Papal Authority (33 AD – 800 AD) from Ancient Latin, Greek, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Documents [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2021], 42-43)