21+ bewerbungsanschreiben quereinsteiger muster
This is an chapter of a alternation of replies (see the Introduction and Adept List) to much of Book IV (Of the Angelic Catholic Church) of Institutes of the Christian Religion, by early Protestant leader John Calvin (1509-1564). I advance the accessible area adaptation of Henry Beveridge, anachronous 1845, from the 1559 copy in Latin; available online. Calvin’s words will be in blue. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless contrarily noted.
Related account from castigation truly:
Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (2010 book: 388 pages)
A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (2012 book: 178 pages)
Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (2010 book: 187 pages; includes biblical critiques of all bristles credibility of “TULIP”)
Book IVCHAPTER 7OF THE BEGINNING AND RISE OF THE ROMISH PAPACY, TILL IT ATTAINED A HEIGHT BY WHICH THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS DESTROYED, AND ALL TRUE RULE OVERTHROWN.3. The age-old Fathers did not accord the appellation of Abbey to the Roman Bishop.
In absorption to the bald appellation of abbey and added titles of pride, of which that abbey now makes a amazing boast, it is not difficult to acquire how and in what way they crept in. Cyprian generally makes acknowledgment of Cornelius (Cyprian. Lib. 2 Ep. 2; Lib. 4 Ep. 6), nor does he analyze him by any added name than that of brother, or adolescent bishop, or colleague. Aback he writes to Stephen, the almsman of Cornelius, he not abandoned makes him the according of himself and others, but addresses him in acrid terms, charging him at one time with presumption, at addition with ignorance. Afterwards Cyprian, we acquire the acumen of the accomplished African Abbey on the subject. For the Board of Carthage allowable that none should be alleged arch of the priests, or aboriginal bishop, but abandoned abbey of the aboriginal See. But any one who will appraise the added age-old annal will acquisition that the Roman Abbey was afresh contented with the accustomed appellation of brother.
Yes, of course, actuality a apprehensive assistant . . . Jesus alleged His aggregation “friends” (Lk 12:4; Jn 15:14-15). He alleged His aggregation (Matt 12:49; 28:10; Mk 3:34; Jn 20:17) and the beyond chic of His followers (Lk 8:21) “brothers” or “brethren”. Does that beggarly He had no ascendancy over them? St. Paul calls the associates of the Roman abbey “brethren” (Rom 1:13; 7:1, 4; 8:12; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 30; 16:14, 17). He does the aforementioned with the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, and Laodiceans.
He alike calls the absolute Jewish bodies “my brethren” (Rom 9:3). By Calvin’s logic, then, Paul had no appropriate ascendancy over the Romans, because they alleged anniversary added “brothers”. If he doesn’t appetite to see this aftereffect of his reasoning, afresh he charge bead the aforementioned altercation with absorption to the papacy. It proves nothing. There is affluence of affirmation of appropriate account accorded the bishops of Rome, as we acquire apparent afresh and afresh appropriately far.
Certainly, as connected as the accurate and authentic anatomy of the Abbey continued,
Note that Calvin will never acquaint us as to aback this “pure form” aback disappeared.
all these names of pride on which the Roman See afterwards began to alias itself, were altogether exceptional of; none knew what was meant by the absolute Pontiff, and the abandoned arch of the Abbey on earth.
Whether one accurate appellation or added was acclimated is not as important as a application of the ascendancy of the Roman bishops, as accurate by a array of expressions and acts of deference, academic appeal, etc. For example, St. Cyprian (210-258) wrote:
With a apocryphal abbey appointed for themselves by heretics, they cartel alike to set captain and backpack belletrist from schismatics and blasphemers to the armchair of Peter and to the arch Church, in which apostolic accord has its source; nor did they booty anticipation that these are Romans, whose acceptance was accustomed by the admonition Apostle, and amid whom it is not accessible for perfidy [that is, faithlessness] to acquire entrance. (Letter to Pope Cornelius, 59 , 14; in William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Acceptance of the Early Fathers, 1st of 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, p. 232)
Is this an example, in the average of the third century, of the “true and authentic anatomy of the Church” or was it already absent and hopelessly abject by then?
St. Ambrose (c. 336-397), whom Calvin commended in the antecedent installment, additionally approves of this accompaniment of affairs:
We accustomed in the letter of your asceticism the acuity of the acceptable shepherd. You anxiously watch over the aboideau entrusted to you, and with pious anxiety you bouncer Christ’s sheepfold, you that are aces to acquire the Lord’s sheep apprehend and chase you. Since you apperceive the sheep of Christ you will calmly bolt the wolves and accost them like a alert shepherd. (Synodal Letter of Ambrose, Sabinus, Bassian and Others to Pope Siricius, 42,1; in Jurgens, ibid., vol. 2 , 148)Where Peter is, there is the Church. And area the Church, no afterlife is there, but activity eternal. (Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms, 40,30; in Jurgens, ibid., vol. 2, 150)
St. Jerome (c. 343-420), the greatest biblical academic of his time, concurs also:
The Abbey depends appropriately on all [the Apostles] . . . but one amid the twelve is alleged to be their arch in adjustment to abolish any break for division. (Against Jovinian, 1,26; in Jurgens, ibid., vol. 2, 199)Since the East tears into pieces the Lord’s covering . . . accordingly by me is the armchair of Peter to be consulted, and that acceptance which is accustomed by the Apostle’s aperture . . . From the Priest I ask the conservancy of the victim, from the Attend the aegis of the sheep . . . I cloister not the Roman height: I adduce with the almsman of the Fisherman and the adherent of the Cross. I, who chase none as my arch but Christ, am associated in accord with thy blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. On that bedrock the Abbey is built, I know. (Epistle 15 [writing to Pope Damasus]; cited in John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine [1845; revised in 1878], Allotment 2, ch. 6, sec. 3, no. 8; see the Schaff online version)
If any be abutting to Peter’s armchair he is mine. (Epistle 16; from Newman, ibid.)
St. Augustine (354-430) is of the aforementioned mind:
If the actual adjustment of apostolic acceptance is to be considered, how abundant added surely, truly, and cautiously do we cardinal them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one apery the accomplished Church, the Lord said: Aloft this bedrock I will anatomy My Church, and the gates of hell shall not beat it. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . (Letter to Generosus, 53,1,2 [c. 400]; in Jurgens, ibid. , vol. 3, 2)
The eastern bishops were no different. In the fourth century, St. Ephraem (c. 306-373) exclaims:
Simon, My follower, I acquire fabricated you the foundation of the angelic Church. I anon alleged you Peter, because you will abutment all its buildings. You are the ambassador of those who will anatomy on apple a Abbey for Me. If they should appetite to anatomy what is false, you, the foundation, will adjudge them. You are the arch of the bubbler from which My teaching flows, you are the arch of My disciples. Through you I will accord alcohol to all peoples . . . I acquire alleged you to be, as it were, the ancient in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be abettor of my treasures. I acquire accustomed you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I acquire accustomed you ascendancy over all my treasures! (Homilies, 4,1; in Jurgens, ibid., vol. 1, 311)
St. John Chrysostom (c. 344-407) was not abandoned the greatest preacher in the history of eastern Christianity, and conceivably admired aloft any added Abbey Father by the Eastern Orthodox, who advance abandoned his celebration in their worship, but additionally the best affecting and boisterous attestant in the east for the alluringly advancing papacy. He alleged St. Peter the “mouth of the apostles,” the “conductor of the apostolic choir,” and the “ruler of the absolute world.”
St. Peter was appointed by Christ to administer over “the see of the apple because he entrusted him with the affliction of the accomplished world.” Peter was to “receive the government of the world.” As to why Jesus questioned Peter three times whether he admired Him, and allowable him to augment and tend His sheep (John 21:15-17), Chrysostom states:
The adept asked those questions so that he ability advise us how abundant at affection he has the headship over these sheep. (All Chrysostom quotes and advice are from Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928, ch. 4: “St. Chrysostom on St. Peter”)
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393-c. 466) confesses:
For that angelic see has antecedence of all churches in the apple for abounding reasons; and aloft all for this, that it is chargeless of all taint of heresy, and that no abbey of apocryphal opinions has anytime sat aloft its throne, but it has kept the adroitness of the apostles undefiled. (Sozomen’s Church History, 3, 10)
In the seventh century, St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662), arguably the greatest mystical and abstinent theologian of the eastern Christian attitude (and admired as such by the Orthodox), echoes the aforementioned behavior about apostolic and Roman supremacy:
All in every allotment . . . who absolutely and accurately acknowledge the Lord, attending anon appear the best angelic Roman Abbey and its acknowledgment and faith, as it were to a sun of absolute light, apprehension from it the ablaze brilliance of our fathers . . . For from the advancing bottomward of the Incarnate Word amid us, all the churches in every allotment of the apple acquire bedevilled that greatest abbey abandoned as their abject and foundation, seeing that, according to the affiance of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never abound adjoin it, that it possesses the Keys of appropriate acknowledgment and acceptance in Him, that it opens the accurate and abandoned adoration to such as access with piety, and shuts up and locks every agnostic aperture that speaks abuse adjoin the Best High. (Cited by James Likoudis in Robert Baram, Spiritual Journeys, Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, revised edition, 1988, 206-207; primary antecedent from Migne, Greek Fathers, 91,137 ff.)
St. Theodore of Studios (759-826), one of the best affecting and awful admired apostolic reformers in the east, absolutely concurs with St. Maximus:
I attestant afore God and men that the iconoclasts ancient from the anatomy of Christ and from the absolute heavenward head in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, adjoin which the gates of hell, that is, the mouths of heretics, acquire not so far prevailed and shall not abound because the affiance was fabricated by the One who does not deceive. Let accordingly the best adored and apostolic [Pope] Paschal, aces of his name, rejoice because he had accomplished the action of the appointment of Peter. (Letter to Naveratius [Ep. 63], from Migne, Greek Fathers, 98:1281; cited in Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Chicago: Franciscan Adviser Press, 1986, 171)
So when, I ask Calvin, did the “true and authentic anatomy of the Church” become hopelessly corrupt? And what is he to do with all these statements of these men? What does it say about their opinions on the affairs apropos which Calvin is abounding of abrogating pontifications (pun intended)?
Had the Roman Abbey accustomed to acquire any such title, there were right-hearted men who would anon acquire repressed his folly.
Indeed. Since we don’t acquisition that (and this is a actual acceptable acumen why Calvin doesn’t aftermath such a thing, but rather, abandoned plays articulate games), and we do find a abundant accord of acclaim of the bishops of Rome and the Apostolic See of Rome, Calvin’s altercation collapses.
Jerome, seeing he was a Roman presbyter, was not apathetic to affirm the address of his church, in as far as actuality and the affairs of the times permitted, and yet we see how he brings it beneath due subordination. “If ascendancy is asked, the apple is greater than a city. Why aftermath to me the custom of one city? Why absolve a baby cardinal with whom affectedness has originated adjoin the laws of the Church? Wherever the abbey be, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, the arete is the same, and the priesthood the same. The ability of riches, or the bashfulness of poverty, do not accomplish a abbey aloft or inferior” (Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr.).
Be that as it may, Jerome additionally wrote to Pope Damasus (Letter XV), about 377 (I cited allotment of it above):
Evil accouchement acquire blown their patrimony; you abandoned accumulate your ancestry intact. The abounding clay of Rome, aback it receives the authentic berry of the Lord, bears bake-apple an hundredfold; but actuality the berry blah is afraid in the furrows and annihilation grows but darnel or oats. . . . This is the abode area abandoned the paschal lamb can be accurately eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not begin in it shall perish aback the flood prevails. . . . He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist. . . .
If you anticipate fit achieve a decree; and afresh I shall not alternate to adduce of three hypostases. Adjustment a new canon to abandon the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one acknowledgment will do for us all. . . .
I appeal your blessedness, therefore, by the crucified Saviour of the world, and by the agnate trinity, to accredit me by letter either to use or to debris this blueprint of three hypostases.
And afresh in Letter XVI (377 or 378) to the aforementioned pope, Jerome exclaims:
The constant foe follows me closely, and the assaults that I ache in the arid are severer than ever. For the Arian aberration raves, and the admiral of the apple abutment it. The abbey is hire into three factions, and anniversary of these is acquisitive to appropriate me for its own. The access of the monks is of connected standing, and it is directed adjoin me. I concurrently accumulate crying: “He who clings to the armchair of Peter is accustomed by me.” Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all acknowledge to carve to you, and I could acquire the affirmation if it were fabricated by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or abroad all three are accusable of falsehood. Accordingly I appeal your blessedness, by our Lord’s cantankerous and passion, those all-important glories of our faith, as you ascendancy an apostolic office, to accord an apostolic decision.
Yet Calvin would acquire us acquire that St. Jerome denied apostolic ability and headship, aback he is accessible (quite strikingly) to aboveboard acquire a unilateral acknowledgment of apostolic doctrine from the pope?
See an acutely all-embracing assay of “St. Jerome and Rome,” including an assay of the access Calvin cites, from Studies on the Early Papacy, by Dom John Chapman. The aforementioned book (online) has sections on St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, and St. John Chrysostom. See additionally (for a accepted study), The Primitive Abbey and the See of Peter, by Luke Rivington (1894), and The Ability of Peter, the Papacy, and Apostolic Succession, by Mark Bonocore.
4. Gregory was angry in action to the appellation aback claimed by the Abbey of Constantinople, and did not affirmation it for himself.
The altercation apropos the appellation of accepted abbey arose at breadth in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the appetite of John of Constantinople. For he admired to accomplish himself universal, a affair which no added had anytime attempted. In that controversy, Gregory does not adduce that he is beggared of a appropriate which belonged to him, but he acerb insists that the appellation is profane, nay, blasphemous, nay the advertiser of Antichrist. “The accomplished Abbey avalanche from its state, if he who is alleged accepted falls” (Greg. Lib. 4 Ep. 76). Again, “It is actual difficult to buck patiently that one who is our brother and adolescent abbey should abandoned be alleged bishop, while all others are despised. But in this pride of his, what abroad is intimated but that the canicule of Antichrist are already near? For he is assuming him, who, aloof the aggregation of angels, attempted to arise the acme of greatness” (Lib. 4 Ep. 76). He abroad says to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: “None of my predecessors anytime adapted to use this abusive term: for if one ancestor is alleged universal, it is aspersing to the name of ancestor in others. But far be it from any Christian apperception to appetite to arrogate to itself that which would in any degree, about slight, blemish the honour of his brethren” (Lib. 4 Ep. 80). “To accord to that agnostic appellation is annihilation abroad than to lose the faith” (Lib. 4 Ep. 83). “What we owe to the canning of the accord of the acceptance is one thing, what we owe to the abolishment of pride is another. I adduce with confidence, for every one that calls himself, or desires to be called, accepted priest, is by his pride a advertiser of Antichrist, because he acts proudly in preferring himself to others” (Lib. 7 Ep. 154). Thus, again, in a letter to Anastasius of Antioch, “I said, that he could not acquire accord with us unless he adapted the anticipation of a awesome and assuming appellation which the aboriginal backslider invented; and (to say annihilation of the abrasion to your honour) if one abbey is alleged universal, the accomplished Abbey goes to ruin aback that accepted abbey falls” (Lib. 4 Ep. 188). But aback he writes, that this honour was offered to Leo in the Board of Chalcedon (Lib. 4 Ep. 76, 80; Lib. 7 Ep. 76), he says what has no affinity of truth; annihilation of the affectionate is begin amid the acts of that council. And Leo himself, who, in abounding letters, impugns the decree which was afresh fabricated in honour of the See of Constantinople, assuredly would not acquire bare this argument, which was the best believable of all, if it was accurate that he himself repudiated what was accustomed to him. One who, in added respects, was rather too acquisitive of honour, would not acquire bare what would acquire been to his praise. Gregory, therefore, is incorrect in saying, that that appellation was conferred on the Roman See by the Board of Chalcedon; not to acknowledgment how antic it is for him to say, that it proceeded from that angelic council, and yet to appellation it wicked, profane, nefarious, proud, and blasphemous, nay, devised by the devil, and promulgated by the adviser of Antichrist. And yet he adds, that his antecedent banned it, lest by that which was accustomed to one individually, all priests should be beggared of their due honour. In addition place, he says, “None anytime admired to be alleged by such a name; none arrogated this adventurous name to himself, lest, by abduction on the honour of supremacy in the appointment of the Pontificate, he ability assume to abjure it to all his brethren” (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 82).
This is standard, garden-variety, boilerplate anti-Catholic argument: acceptable carefully on a apparent level, but beguiling in absolute admeasurement to how carefully it is examined. I’ve dealt with it briefly in the past. Catholic apologist Phil Porvaznik has treated it in some ample depth. See additionally the General Audience (4 June 2008) of Pope Benedict XVI, on Pope St. Gregory the Great, another essay by Fr. Edward Hawarden, and the apostolic encyclical Iucunda Sane / On Pope Gregory the Great, by Pope St. Pius X (12 March 1904).
As with Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope Gregory the Abundant leaves little agnosticism as to his all-embracing appearance of the abstract ability and ascendancy of the papacy (for some acumen Calvin ignores passages such as the following):
Who could be apprenticed of the actuality that the angelic abbey is circumscribed in the bendability of the prince of the Apostles, whose compactness of appearance continued to his name so that he should be alleged Peter afterwards the ‘rock’, aback the articulation of the Truth says, ‘I will accord to thee the keys of the commonwealth of heaven’. To him afresh is said “When afterwards a little while thou hast appear aback to me, it is for thee to be the abutment of thy brethren. (Epistle 40; in Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes, Baltimore: Helicon, 1960, 66)
Inasmuch as it is apparent that the Apostolic See, is, by the acclimation of God, set over all Churches, there is, amid our assorted cares, chief appeal for our absorption . . . (Letter to Subdeacon John; Register of the Epistles, Book III, Epistle XXX; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)
To all who apperceive the Gospel it is bright that by the words of our Lord the affliction of the accomplished Abbey was committed to Adored Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he accustomed the keys of the commonwealth of heaven, the ability to bind and apart was accustomed to him, and the affliction and belt of the absolute abbey was committed to him . . . (Epistles, 5, 37: To Emperor Maurice; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)
Protestant historian Philip Schaff (though somewhat perplexed) makes abbreviate assignment of this “universal bishop” altercation as allegedly proving annihilation adjoin the celebrated papacy:
On the added hand, it cannot be denied that Gregory, while he protested in the arch agreement adjoin the acceptance by the Eastern patriarchs of the antichristian and cursing appellation of accepted bishop, claimed and exercised, as far as he had the befalling and power, the ascendancy and blank over the accomplished abbey of Christ, alike in the East. “With account to the abbey of Constantinople,” he asks in one of his letters, “who doubts that it is accountable to the apostolic see?” And in addition letter: “I apperceive not what abbey is not accountable to it, if accountability is begin in him.” “To all who apperceive the Gospels,” he writes to emperor Maurice, “it is apparent that to Peter, as the prince of all the apostles, was committed by our Lord the affliction of the accomplished abbey (totius ecclesiae cura) ….
We acquire no appropriate to accuse Gregory’s sincerity. But he was acutely inconsistent in disclaiming the name, and yet claiming the affair itself. The absolute altercation is to the affectation of a accepted episcopate, not to the title. If we accept the former, the closing is altogether legitimate. And such accepted ability had already been claimed by Roman pontiffs afore Gregory, such as Leo I., Felix, Gelasius, Hormisdas, in accent and acts added assuming and arrogant than his. (History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073, § 51. Gregory and the Accepted Episcopate)
Photo credit: Historical alloyed media amount of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]