Mark’s Ending

[tabibito]

You have shown a tendency to refer to the "early church" as it was some unified group where everyone was in agreement..

If I ever referred to the churches of the first and second centuries as the early church, it was inadvertent. I usually reserve "early church" as a reference to the church of the fourth through sixth centuries.

Rogue has stated why there was general agreement among the early churches regarding doctrine.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If I ever referred to the churches of the first and second centuries as the early church, it was inadvertent. I usually reserve "early church" as a reference to the church of the fourth through sixth centuries.

And even then there were those who would not conform to the orthodoxy.

Rogue has stated why there was general agreement among the early churches regarding doctrine.

Since when has rogue06 been the de facto expert on such matters?

[tabibito]

And even then there were those who would not conform to the orthodoxy.

The range of allowable variation in the early churches was considerably broader than in later times. Nonetheless, there were limits, and Paul's letters indicate that some were excommunicated when they went beyond the limits.

Since when has rogue06 been the de facto expert on such matters?

It doesn't take an expert to identify an unsound argument.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The range of allowable variation in the early churches was considerably broader than in later times. Nonetheless, there were limits, and Paul's letters indicate that some were excommunicated when they went beyond the limits.

That only applied to his group. As noted for the first 250 years or so Christianity was entirely fluid. That various individuals that we now know as the ECFs railed against certain other groups was nothing but their opinions

It doesn't take an expert to identify an unsound argument.

There evidently was not " general agreement among the early churches regarding doctrine as Irenaeus writing his Adversus Haereses illustrates.

However, we need to remember that he was only expressing his opinion on what constituted heresies. He had not over-arching authority to impose his view. That came much later.

[tabibito]

That only applied to his group. As noted for the first 250 years or so Christianity was entirely fluid. That various individuals that we now know as the ECFs railed against certain other groups was nothing but their opinions


There evidently was not " general agreement among the early churches regarding doctrine as Irenaeus writing his Adversus Haereses illustrates.

However, we need to remember that he was only expressing his opinion on what constituted heresies. He had not over-arching authority to impose his view. That came much later.

The early churches were more flexible in what they would accept than was the later monolithic church. Irenaeus for example rejected Pope Victor's prohibition of the commemoration of the crucifixion on the day of preparation (temple rite), Nisan 14th. That particular episode reflects both the flexibility of the early churches, and the early attempts by Rome to enforce uniformity. However, the sect of the Marcionites (for example) was rejected by the early congregations in a fair display of consensus. On some matters, no room was made for flexibility.

There were minority sects that were accepted by none of the other congregations; there were many variations in observance that were. Problems only arise when one small sect manages to force other congregations into conformity with its own practices.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The early churches were more flexible in what they would accept than was the later monolithic church.

The early groups of Christians were completely fluid in what they believed.

Irenaeus for example rejected Pope Victor's prohibition of the commemoration of the crucifixion on the day of preparation (temple rite), Nisan 14th. That particular episode reflects both the flexibility of the early churches, and the early attempts by Rome to enforce uniformity.

The pope Victor had no overarching authority beyond his group in Rome.

However, the sect of the Marcionites (for example) was rejected by the early congregations in a fair display of consensus.

It would seem the ideas of Marcion were rather popular. Hence Irenaeus' denunciation. Such works are not required to denounce for the beliefs of a few.

On some matters, no room was made for flexibility.

Only among some of those early sects. That those proto-orthodox views finally gained the ascendancy was pure happenstance and luck.

There were minority sects that were accepted by none of the other congregations;

That did not prevent those sects regarding themselves as Christians.

there were many variations in observance that were. Problems only arise when one small sect manages to force other congregations into conformity with its own practices.

One might opine that is precisely what occurred in the late fourth century.

The subordinationist viewpoint was deeply held, particularly in the East.

[tabibito]

The early groups of Christians were completely fluid in what they believed.

I'm sure that you have documented evidence from the time to support your assertion.

The pope Victor had no overarching authority beyond his group in Rome.

He overstepped his authority - that doesn't mean he didn't make the attempt. Did the word "attempt" in my post fail to make it to your screen?

It would seem the ideas of Marcion were rather popular. Hence Irenaeus' denunciation. Such works are not required to denounce for the beliefs of a few.

Certainly, the existence of written argument against a particular teaching testifies to the teaching's probable popularity.

Only among some of those early sects. That those proto-orthodox views finally gained the ascendancy was pure happenstance and luck.

By boot and cudgel, and with the backing of the empire's swords. Happen-stance and luck had some influence (eg a particular emperor and a horse), but not a whole lot.

That did not prevent those sects regarding themselves as Christians.

Being biologically male doesn't prevent certain people from regarding themselves as women. What a person regards himself as is significant only if reality supports his viewpoint.

One might opine that is precisely what occurred in the late fourth century.

One would be opining correctly, IMO.

The subordinationist viewpoint was deeply held, particularly in the East.

It has significant scriptural support - provided that the concept is not extended to ontology: some declare that "co-equal" only means that they are both God, not that they are precisely the same in every respect - ie, they are the same ontologically but different economically. One alternative phrasing would be "the same in being, but different in authority." More than that, co-equality ventures beyond the limits established by scripture.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm sure that you have documented evidence from the time to support your assertion.

You only need to read some Patristics to see the various concerns about heretics. Or consider the various beliefs percolating from the second and often into the fourth century. For example: Macedonianism, Monarchianism, The Pneumatomachi, Docetism, Adoptionism, and Montanism.

He overstepped his authority - that doesn't mean he didn't make the attempt. Did the word "attempt" in my post fail to make it to your screen?

His authority only extended to his own group. If other groups in the city of Rome were extant they could ignore him.

Certainly, the existence of written argument against a particular teaching testifies to the teaching's probable popularity.

As the polemical texts and tracts from various individuals, later deemed ECFs, castigating various other sects demonstrate.

By boot and cudgel, and with the backing of the empire's swords.

Once again extraneous circumstances within the recent history of the empire need to be considered.

Constantine needed political stability and cohesion and the internecine fighting, often literal, between various Christian groups was detrimental to achieving that.

Being biologically male doesn't prevent certain people from regarding themselves as women. What a person regards himself as is significant only if reality supports his viewpoint.

Entirely irrelevant.

One would be opining correctly, IMO

We can agree on that.

It has significant scriptural support - provided that the concept is not extended to ontology: some declare that "co-equal" only means that they are both God, not that they are precisely the same in every respect - ie, they are the same ontologically but different economically. One alternative phrasing would be "the same in being, but different in authority." More than that, co-equality ventures beyond the limits established by scripture.

All that comes down to understanding and interpreting certain "pagan" Greek philosophical ideas.

[tabibito]

His authority only extended to his own group. If other groups in the city of Rome were extant they could ignore him.

Only according to everyone else - not according to him.

Once again extraneous circumstances within the recent history of the empire need to be considered.

Constantine needed political stability and cohesion and the internecine fighting, often literal, between various Christian groups was detrimental to achieving that.

The emperor's motives don't materially change what was done, but his attitude made it easier to effect the takeover and make it stick.

All that comes down to understanding and interpreting certain "pagan" Greek philosophical ideas.

The "orthodox" teaching about the Trinity certainly result from pagan philosophical influence, though from the viewpoint of "pagan" philosophers who largely regarded the gods of Greece and Rome as worthy of no respect.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Only according to everyone else - not according to him.

Are you suggesting he was a megalomaniac?

The emperor's motives don't materially change what was done, but his attitude made it easier to effect the takeover and make it stick.

It seems that Constantine did consider that deity to have some importance among other deities but I suspect his own Christianity probably only went to skin deep as it were.

The "orthodox" teaching about the Trinity certainly result from pagan philosophical influence, though from the viewpoint of "pagan" philosophers who largely regarded the gods of Greece and Rome as worthy of no respect.

Basil did study in Athens.

[tabibito]

Are you suggesting he was a megalomaniac?

IIRC, one of his contemporary bishops did accuse him of having (so to speak) "ideas above his station."

It seems that Constantine did consider that deity to have some importance among other deities but I suspect his own Christianity probably only went to skin deep as it were.

Seems likely.

Basil did study in Athens.

The trend seems to have had its genesis with Origen. (Contra Celsus)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

IIRC, one of his contemporary bishops did accuse him of having (so to speak) "ideas above his station."

To paraphrase "[Temporal] power tends to corrupt"

The trend seems to have had its genesis with Origen. (Contra Celsus)

Plotinus was Origen's contemporary.

[rogue06]

IIRC, one of his contemporary bishops did accuse him of having (so to speak) "ideas above his station."

IIRC Irenaeus was critical.

[tabibito]

IIRC Irenaeus was critical.

Polycrates epistle to Victor
Not the one I was thinking of, but this paper does mention that isolated pockets of Quartodecimans still exist.

I also, Polycrates, ..., do according to the tradition of my relatives,... For seven of my relatives were bishops: I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when people put away the leaven. ... those greater than I have said we ought to obey God rather than man. I could mention the bishops whom I summoned ... a great multitude. And they, ..., gave their consent to the letter,
... Polycrates and the bishops who supported him were ex-communicated from the church by Roman Bishop Victor.

Victor responded by excommunicating Polycrates and the bishops who supported him, later reversing the decision at the behest of a group of bishops including Iranaeus.


The passage in the letter I was thinking of had a blunt "Who the hell do you think you are? get over yourself!" feel to it.

[rogue06]

Polycrates epistle to Victor
Not the one I was thinking of, but this paper does mention that isolated pockets of Quartodecimans still exist.

I also, Polycrates, ..., do according to the tradition of my relatives,... For seven of my relatives were bishops: I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when people put away the leaven. ... those greater than I have said we ought to obey God rather than man. I could mention the bishops whom I summoned ... a great multitude. And they, ..., gave their consent to the letter,
... Polycrates and the bishops who supported him were ex-communicated from the church by Roman Bishop Victor.

Victor responded by excommunicating Polycrates and the bishops who supported him, later reversing the decision at the behest of a group of bishops including Iranaeus.


The passage in the letter I was thinking of had a blunt "Who the hell do you think you are? get over yourself!" feel to it.

I remember Irenaeus expressing his displeasure after Victor started excommunicating people, but the only record of it that I'm aware of is in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History

There is still extant a writing of those who were convened in Palestine, over whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the diocese of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem; and there is similarly another from those in Rome on the same controversy, which gives Victor as bishop; and there is one of the bishops of Pontius over whom Palmas presided as the oldest; and of the dioceses of Gaul, of which Irenaeus was bishop; and yet others of those in Osrhoene and the cities there; and particularly of Bacchyllus, the bishop of the church of Corinth; and of very many more who expressed one and the same opinion and judgement, and gave the same vote.

Among them too Irenaeus, writing in the name of the Christians whose leader he was in Gaul, though he recommends that the mystery of the Lord's resurrection be observed only on the Lord's day, yet nevertheless exhorts Victor suitably and at length not to excommunicate whole churches of God for following a tradition of ancient custom, and continues as follows: "For the controversy is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast; for some who think that they ought to fast one day, others two, others even more, some count their day as forty hours, day and night. And such variation of observance did not begin in our own time, but much earlier, in the days of our predecessors who, it would appear, disregarding strictness maintained a practice which is simple and yet allows for personal preference, establishing it for the future, and none the less all these lived in peace, and we also live in peace with one another and the disagreement in the fast confirms our agreement in the faith."

He adds to this a narrative which I may suitably quote, running as follows: "Among these too were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church of which you are now the leader, I mean Anicetus and Pius and Telesphorus and Xystus. They did not themselves observe it, nor did they enjoin it on those who followed them, and though they did not keep it they were none the less at peace with those from the dioceses in which it was observed when they came to them, although to observe it was more objectionable to those who did not do so. And no one was ever rejected for this reason, but the presbyters before you who did not observe it sent the Eucharist from other dioceses who did; and when the blessed Polycarp was staying in Rome in the time of Anicetus, though they disagreed a little about some other things as well, they immediately made peace, having no wish for strife between them on this matter. For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to observe it, inasmuch as he had always done so in company with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he had associated; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, for he said that he ought to keep the custom of those who were presbyters before him. And under these circumstances they communicated with each other, and in the church Anicetus yielded the celebration of the Eucharist to Polycarp, obviously out of respect, and they parted from each other in peace, for the peace of the whole church was kept both by those who observed and by those who did not."

And Irenaeus, who deserved his name, making an eirenicon [peace offering] in this way, gave exhortation of this kind for the peace of the church and served as its ambassador, for in letters he discussed the various views on the issue which had been raised, not only with Victor but also with many other rulers of churches.