‘Cardinal Fernández issues text on ‘validity’ of sacraments’
Ancient Pergamos (photo by Joyce Thiel}
LifeSite News reported the following:
Cardinal Fernández issues text on ‘validity’ of sacraments
February 3, 2024
Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernández has published a new document on “the validity of the sacraments,” which he says is a response to various unauthorized changes to the form of sacraments which render them invalid.
Entitled Gestis Verbisque, the 12-page text was released February 3 by the new prefect of the Congregation (Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). …
Fernández did not deal with the traditional liturgy in his GV text, despite quoting from Desiderio Desideravi, writing instead that “The whole Church is called to guard the richness contained in them [sacraments], so that the primacy of God’s saving action in history may never be obscured, even in the fragile mediation of signs and gestures proper to human nature.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-cardinal-fernandez-issues-text-on-validity-of-sacraments/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=canada
As far as the “validity of the sacraments” go, what the Church of Rome does now is very different than the practices of the original Apostles and the original catholic church.
Notice something about the Paulicians and sacraments as reported in the free onlibe book, Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
The Paulicians They called themselves only Χριστιανοí {Christians} (Kurtz JH, Jr., Macpherson J. Church History: Volume 1. 1891, p. 423)
The Paulicians did not call themselves Paulicians or Tonrakians, but the Universal and Apostolic Church. To them the orthodox churches, … had apostatized from the faith, lost their orders, and forfeited their sacraments. As to their Mariolatry and adoration of saints and pictures and crosses, it was all nothing but idolatry. (Arpee L. Armenian Paulicianism and the Key of Truth. The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 10, No. 2, Apr., 1906: 267-285)
The Paulicians claimed to be THE ‘holy universal and apostolic church’ founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. Of the false churches, they would say: “We do not belong to these, for they have long ago broken connection with the church.” … 6th century. (Lesson 50 – What Became of the Church Jesus Built? 58 Lesson: Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, 1968, p. 13).
So, these Paulicians considered that they had apostolic succession, were the true catholic church, and that the Roman churches were not. They appear to have continued with beliefs of the original church whose remnants in Antioch passed them on to Armenia no later than in the 5th century (Conybeare, p. cix).
Here is is more on sacraments from our free online book, Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
The Roman Church admits that immersion was the original practice, without the use of baptismal fonts (like it now uses):
In the Apostolic Age, as in Jewish times (John 3:23), baptism was administered without special fonts, at the seaside or in streams or pools of water (Acts 8:38); Tertullian refers to St. Peter’s baptizing in the Tiber (De bapt., iv); similarly; in later periods of evangelization, missionaries baptized in rivers as is narrated of St. Paulinus in England by Bede (Hist. Eccl., II, xiv-xvi). (Peterson, Baptismal Font. The Catholic Encyclopedia).
The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament … The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion. This is not only evident from the writings of the Fathers and the early rituals of both the Latin and Oriental Churches, but it can also be gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul, who speaks of baptism as a bath (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4; Titus 3:5). In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church. The Oriental Churches have retained immersion. (Fanning, Baptism. The Catholic Encyclopedia)
1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 342)
Notice that The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that immersion was “unquestionably” the biblical practice, the practice of the early Church, and was slowly dropped in the Latin/Western Church. Hence it admits that it is not faithful to the original practice of baptism. Also notice that the Catechism of the Catholic Church admits that baptism is a plunging/immersion that shows a burial and resurrection, but this certainly is not the ceremony that they use of infants (which most likely are the majority of those baptized by Roman Catholics).
So, the Church of Rome admits that it changed the baptism ‘sacrament’ from the original practice.
Here is is more on sacraments from our free online book, Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
On the Ministry
Related to elders in the ministry, Polycarp wrote:
And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always “providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man; “abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unjust judgment; keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting [an evil report] against any one, not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin. If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive; for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and “we must all appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, and must every one give an account of himself.” Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord [have alike taught us]. Let us be zealous in the pursuit of that which is good, keeping ourselves from causes of offence, from false brethren, and from those who in hypocrisy bear the name of the Lord, and draw away vain men into error. (Polycarp, Chapter VI. Letter to the Philippians. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1).
It may be of interest to note that the term sacraments is not part of Polycarp’s description (nor is that term in the New Testament). This does not mean that elders and pastors did not baptize or perform marriages, which took a relatively small part of their time, for example, but does indicate that sacramental duties were not the focus of church leaders in the first and second centuries.
Notice also:
And on the sabbath, when prayer had been made long time on bended knee, he, as was his custom, got up to read; and every eye was fixed upon him. Now the lesson was the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and to Titus, in which he says what manner of man a bishop ought to be. And he was so well fitted for the office that the hearers said one to another that he lacked none of those qualities which Paul requires in one who has the care of a church. (Life of Polycarp, Chapter 22).
The epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus focus on the character of the ministry and are not focused on what some may be consider to be sacramental duties.
Polycarp’s focus, when speaking at church services, was messages from the Bible, not ritualistic sacraments.
The Church of Rome considers that Polycarp was an important major saint, yet he did not share Rome’s view on sacraments.
Polycarp told the Bishop of Rome no when he wanted to have Passover on a Sunday instead of the biblical date. Here is is more from our free online book, Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
Eusebius noted that in Polycarp’s region:
… the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book V, Chapter XXIII, Verse 1, p. 113)
An “older tradition” perhaps would be more accurately called the original practice of the apostles, which was also specifically done by Jesus (cf. Mark 14:12-25). Polycarp and his spiritual descendants continued the practices of the apostles in their area, who were known to have been Philip and John in the latter portion of the 1st century, but Paul earlier.
Yet during Polycarp’s time, Bishop of Rome Anicetus preferred Sunday. Irenaeus reported:
And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points … For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect. (Irenaeus. FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1)
Polycarp told the one that many now consider to have been “the pope,” no. This also shows that Rome did not have dominion over the faithful as many now act like that it did.
Furthermore, consider that Anicetus acquiesced to having Passover service when Polycarp said to:
Anicetus’ acquiescence to Polycarp’ views concerning the Pascha … presumes an accepted representation of some ‘apostolic’ tradition in the latter. (Hartog p. 16)
Yes, Polycarp was recognized, even by the Bishop of Rome, as having major ecclesiastical standing.
As far as the eucharistic ‘sacrament’ goes, Rome changed that as well:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
1339 Jesus choose the time of the Passover … And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them … (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 373)
Now the above is scriptural. Here are some related scriptures:
19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. …
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. (Matthew 26:19,26 DRB)
22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. (Mark 14:22, DRB)
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22:19, DRB)
Notice, it is very clear that Jesus BROKE the bread on Passover (Pasch means Passover).
The Apostle Paul confirmed that it was the practice of the early Christians to break bread:
16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? (1 Corinthians 10:16, DRB).
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. (1 Corinthians 11:23-24, DRB)
In the Continuing Church of God, we still break bread as part of the Passover ceremony.
The Apostle Paul followed Jesus’ practice and broke bread. Furthermore, notice what The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches in its article “Host”:
… the first Christians … simply used the bread that served as food. It seems that the form differed but little from what it is in our day. (Leclercq H. Host.)
Roman Catholic scholars admit that the adopted changes to the eucharist as the following also confirms:
The eucharistic celebration also admitted new elements in the fourth and fifth centuries and through continued development in individual points drew ever closer to the form of the Mass.” (Jedin, Volume 1, p. 296)
Yes, the Greco-Roman churches changed. A rounded host was adopted by the Romans, whereas the Greeks adopted leavened bread. Both differ from what Jesus did and said to be continued (1 Corinthians 11:23-24).
The original Christian observance of Passover involved unleavened bread, wine, and footwashing on the 14th of the first month of the biblical calendar. And this was continued by the Christians in Judea and those in Asia Minor (Holweck F. Easter. The Catholic Encyclopedia; Thurston, H. Washing of Feet and Hands. The Catholic Encyclopedia). It was considered as a commemoration of Christ being the Passover lamb slain for us and was not a resurrection holiday on that day (Holweck F. Easter).
So, Rome does not hold to the original ‘sacraments.’
Here is is more on sacraments from our free online book, Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
Seven Sacraments?
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches claim what they call seven sacraments. Their lists are similar, but not identical.
The Eastern Orthodox list and explanation is closer to the original catholic church than Rome’s list.
The Eastern Orthodox Church (Fitzgerald T. The Sacraments. St. George Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church. http://www.stgeorgenj.com/the-seven-sacraments-of-the-orthodox-church.html accessed 08/06/21) and the CCOG both teach:
1) Baptism (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38).
2) Laying on of hands after baptism (Acts 19:5-6).
3) Confession of sins to God (1 John 1:9).
4) Eucharist, normally referred to as Passover in the CCOG (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).
5) Marriage (Matthew 19:6).
6) Ordained ministry (Ephesians 4:11-16).
7) Anointing the sick (James 5:14-16).Rome teaches that Confirmation replaces 2 above and confession to a priest is preferred for 3 above.
The Bible does not refer to the term “seven sacraments,” but as the list above shows, there is scriptural support for the seven items that the CCOG endorses.
In the latter portion of the third century and even into the fourth century, many Smyrnaeans (especially those with a Jewish heritage) in the Asia Minor area were known as Nazarenes and some were known as Paulicians.
The Bible records that the Apostle Paul was considered to be the head of the Nazarenes (for more on the Nazarenes, please see the article Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes?):
1…Paul…5 For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5).
It may be interesting to note that according to something from a 2nd/3rd century document (that was probably altered in places in the 4th century), titled The Life of Polycarp, shows that the Apostle Paul endorsed keeping the Passover, the Days of Unleavened Bread, and Pentecost to those in Smyrna:
In the days of unleavened bread Paul, coming down from Galatia, arrived in Asia, considering the repose among the faithful in Smyrna to be a great refreshment in Christ Jesus after his severe toil, and intending afterwards to depart to Jerusalem. So in Smyrna he went to visit Strataeas, who had been his hearer in Pamphylia, being a son of Eunice the daughter of Lois. These are they of whom he makes mention when writing to Timothy, saying; Of the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois and in thy mother Eunice; whence we find that Strataeas was a brother of Timothy. Paul then, entering his house and gathering together the faithful there, speaks to them concerning the Passover and the Pentecost, reminding them of the New Covenant of the offering of bread and the cup; how that they ought most assuredly to celebrate it during the days of unleavened bread, but to hold fast the new mystery of the Passion and Resurrection. For here the Apostle plainly teaches that we ought neither to keep it outside the season of unleavened bread, as the heretics do, especially the Phrygians…but named the days of unleavened bread, the Passover, and the Pentecost, thus ratifying the Gospel (Pionius. Life of Polycarp, Chapter 2. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 3.2, 1889, pp.488-506).
Thus, the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13), taught Gentile Christians in Asia Minor (specifically in Smyrna) to keep the Holy Days. Days many now consider to be Jewish and not Christian–but apparently Paul considered them important for all Christians to keep (see also 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 where he told the Gentiles in Corinth to keep them as well).
Some consider that those who were the followers of Paul in regards to the Holy Days, were Paulicians. However, in the middle of the third century, Paul of Samosata, came to be considered a bishop in Antioch (part of the East, but normally considered to have been in Syria, hence not actually part of Asia Minor). But he was accused of immoral behavior and became considered a problem by the Alexandrians and Romans, who held several synods to investigate him and he was deposed.
Lucian Probably Was Called a Paulician
Also notice what else was happening in Antioch at the time:
Lucian of Antioch…Though he cannot be accused of having shared the theological views of Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion at the time of Paul’s condemnation, and was compelled to sever his communion with the Church…
The opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him. He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation…(Healy P.J. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Some who supported Paul of Samosata were also called Paulicians. Actually, it seems to me that all who did not accept the views of the Alexandrian and Roman churches in the area of Antioch about this time were labeled Paulicians–and this likely included Lucian and people who held similar views.
There were binitarian (sometimes called Semi-Arians) “Paulicians” in the area of Antioch who also kept the seventh-day Sabbath in Lucian’s time (late third century). While I am not certain if Lucian was or was not in the Church of God, he and others in his area were Semi-Arian, rejected using allegory as the primary way of interpreting the Bible, and since they were considered practicing Judaism, they would have kept the Sabbath. Notice this condemnation by a Roman Catholic Cardinal:
Lucian, who schismatized or was excommunicated on his deposition, held heretical tenets of a diametrically opposite nature, that is, such as were afterwards called Semi-Arian…I would rather direct the reader’s attention to the particular form which the Antiochene corruptions seem to have assumed, viz., that of Judaism… (Cardinal Newman, John Henry. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, pp. 7,9).
So, there were people in the Antioch area that held to some form of Judeao-Christianity in the third century according to Catholic sources.
Emperor Constantine and Others Condemned Them
Towards the end of the Smyrna era, Constantine became emperor. He decreed circa March 7, 321:
“Let all judges, the people of cities, and those employed in all trades, remain quiet on the Holy Day of Sunday. Persons residing in the country, however, can freely and lawfully proceed with the cultivation of the fields; as it frequently happens that the sowing of grain or the planting of vines cannot be deferred to a more suitable day, and by making concessions to Heaven the advantage of the time may be lost.” (Code of Justinian, Book III, Title XII, III. THE JUSTINIAN CODE FROM THE CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS. Translated from the original Latin by Samuel P. Scott. Central Trust Company, Cincinnati, 1932).
The Emperor authorized persecution against those who did not share his religious beliefs (many of which came from Mithraism), such as Sunday. Around 332, Constantine issued what is known as the Edict Against the Heretics,
Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the heretics. “Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full of absurdities and fictions: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one’s ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one’s own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure? (Chapter LXIV.—Constantine’s Edict against the Heretics. This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College).
Some of those referred to as Paulians (Paulicians) and Cataphrygians were part of the true Church of God. And like some other persecutions, it included those truly in the Church of God and those not in the true church. Herod, when he tried to kill Jesus, persecuted an entire nation and killed many babies, but Jesus’ family fled the persecution and He survived. Constantine’s tactics seem similar. Because Emperor Constantine called for and oversaw the Council of Nicea in 325 which endorsed Sunday, it makes sense that any “Paulicians” that kept the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) would engender his wrath.
Despite what Constantine tried to do, there were still binitarian (sometimes called Semi-Arian) Paulicians in Armenia who also kept the seventh-day Sabbath in the late fourth century and they were persecuted by others:
Eustathius was succeeded by Erius, a priest, and semi-Arian…Erius also condemned fasts, stated feasts, prayers for the dead, and the celebration of Easter; he urged a purer morality and a stricter observance of the Sabbath. He had many followers, whose numbers were augmented by one of Paul of Samosota, from whom they were called Paulicians. Notwithstanding the opposition of the prelates, who invoked the secular arm to prevent the defection of their spiritual subjects, the tenets of this sect struck deep root in Armenia and many of its eastern provinces, and finally the great body of Christians in the former country, withdrew from the Episcopal communion, and publicly espoused the sentiments of the Paulicians…The bishops of Syria, Pontus, and Cappadocia, complained of the defection of their spiritual flocks…induced the Grecian emperors to commence, and continue for nearly two centuries, the most terrible persecutions against the Paulicians (Davis, Tamar. A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches. 1851; Reprinted 1995 by Commonwealth Publishing, Salt Lake City, pp. 20-23).
Anti-Christ Notions
Paulicians were not popular with the Roman Catholics because they considered them to represent forces that were anti-Christ. Actually, as a Catholic source suggested, it was the Paulicians that first came up with the papal-antichrist theory in the fourth to seventh century:
Now, one of the first questions which it is natural to ask on entering upon the subject is, whereas the Pope is said to be Antichrist, sometimes from the fourth, sometimes from the seventh century, when was he first detected and denounced, and by whom? On this point, Todd supplies us with much information, from which it appears that the belief that the Pope was Antichrist was the conclusion gradually formed and matured out of the belief that the Church of Rome was Babylon, by… the Oriental Manichees or Paulicians (Newman JH. The Protestant Idea of Antichrist. [British Critic, Oct. 1840]. Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman. Copyright © 2004 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/antichrist1.html viewed 12/03/07).
Why would that occur then?
In the late fourth century (382 AD), after the Eastern emperor Theodosius established Greco-Roman Christianity as the official religion of the empire, the Western Emperor Gratian renounced the title of Pontifex Maximus (he was also the last of the emperors to hold that title). Almost immediately afterwards, the bishops of Rome took the term and have used it ever since.
Since “Pontifex Maximus” was a pagan title signifying the greatest (maximus) bridge-builder (pontifex) between mortals and the gods, it seems that when the Roman bishops started to refer to themselves this way that it was clear to the faithful of the true Church that this could only be done by one who could go along (cf. Revelation 13:11-15) with someone like the “man of sin” that the Apostle Paul had warned about (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11), as well as one who had a pagan view of the Godhead (more information on the Godhead can be found in the article Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning).
(Perhaps it should be noted that that idea of a Latin or Roman anti-Christ was apparently developed by Polycarp, and he seems to have learned this from the Apostle John. But it apparently was not until the late fourth century that the Bishops of Rome had enough influence and heresy to have such a resemblance to the final antichrist.)
Paulicians Were Persecuted for Opposing Idolatry
The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the Paulicians heretics because they were basically against idolatry and Roman Catholic ritualism:
The Paulicians, as part of their heresy held that all matter (especially the human body) is bad, that all external religious forms, sacraments, rites, especially material pictures and relics, should be abolished. To honour the Cross was especially reprehensible (Fortescue A. Iconoclasm. Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler.The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Amazingly, The Catholic Encyclopedia notes this about the Paulicians:
Leo V, though an Iconoclast, tried to refute the accusation that he was a Paulician by persecuting them furiously. A great number of them at this time rebelled and fled to the Saracens. Sergius was killed in 835. Theodora, regent for her son Michael III, continued the persecution…
We hear continually of wars against the Saracens, Armenians, and Paulicians…
This eliminated the sect as a military power. Meanwhile other Paulicians, heretics but not rebels, lived in groups throughout the empire (Fortesque A. Transcribed by Richard L. George. Paulicians. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
In other words, since the Paulicians and Emperor Leo V were against idols, Leo decided he had to persecute them because he was accused of being a bit like them in that area. And additional persecution followed Leo’s. The above quote also shows that there were Paulicians, who even though persecuted, would not fight back. This is because those truly in the Church of God were opposed to military participation (please see article Military Service and the COGs).
And while not all who claimed to have been Paulicians were in the true church, notice how brutal the persecution was:
The empress, Theodora, instituted a new persecution, in which a hundred thousand Paulicians in Grecian Armenia are said to have lost their lives (Paulicianism. WIkipedia, viewed 06/26/08).
Thus, the “Orthodox” Empress Theodora apparently killed 100,000!
Furthermore, note this historical writing about the Paulicians in Armenia:
From the earliest ages they have devoutly hated the error and idolatry of the Greeks. Like the primitive Christians, they have ever exhibited an unconquerable repugnance to the use or abuse of images, which, in the eighth and ninth centuries spread like a leposy…and supplanted all traces of genuine piety in the visible church…They are decidedly adverse (Davis, Tamar. A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches. 1851; Reprinted 1995 by Commonwealth Publishing, Salt Lake City, p. 24).
Thus the followers of the true church were persecuted for beliefs such as opposing idolatry.
Paulicians Did Not Keep Sunday or Greco-Roman Holidays
The historian, Fred C. Conybeare observed this about some affiliated with the Paulicians:
They are accused by their Armenian opponents of setting at naught all the feasts and fasts of the Church, especially Sunday…The Sabbath was perhaps kept…Of the modern Christmas and of the Annunciation, and of the other feasts connected with the life of Jesus prior to his thirtieth year, this phase of the church knew nothing. The general impression which the study of it leaves on us is that in it we have before us a form of Church not very remote from the primitive Jewish Christianity of Palestine (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, pp. clii, cxciii).
It would be logical that Paulicians would be opposed to Sunday and the other festivals of the Roman Church.
Noted historian K.S. Latourette wrote,
“for centuries even many Gentile Christians also observed the seventh day, or Sabbath” (Latourette K.S. A History of Christianity, Volume 1, Beginnings to 1500. Harper Collins, San Francisco, 1975, p.198).
And Sabbath-keeping has existed throughout history (even Roberts and Donaldson refer to it in the 1800s).
Paulicians Were Believed to Have Preserved Pure Early Christianity
Like the Romans, the Paulicians condemned Simon Magus:
But Simon himself believed and was baptized and rose up against Philip in trickery and charlanatry, in order to obtain the power of the holy spirit by deceit (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. 92)
Unlike certain Romans, the true “Pergamos era” Paulicians did not have any of the heretical practices associated with Simon such as statues, revering a woman (Simon’s “wife” and later Mary), the doctrine of the immortal soul, incantations, mystic priests, claiming divine titles for leaders, accepting money for religious favors, preferring allegory and tradition over many aspects of scripture, having a leader who wanted to be thought of as God/Christ on earth, and being divorced from Christian biblical practices considered to be Jewish, (detailed information on what the Bible and mainly Roman sources wrote about Simon is found in the article Simon Magus, What Did He Teach?).
The following is from the Catholic Priest Basil Sarkisean’s work Manichaean Paulician Heresy and is from a 987 A.D. letter written by Gregory of Narek against the Paulicians (note I have left out additions by the editor/translator F. Conybeare):
Then among the observances which we know to have been repudiated by them as neither apostolic or divine the mysterious prayers of genuflexion…
The Font is denied by them…
the communion of immortality…is denied…
We know that they deny the adored sign, which God, made man, raised and carried on his shoulders (Conybeare F.C. Addendix I in: The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. 127).
Perhaps I should add that Gregory of Narek called a man “valiant…who destroyed and put to death their cursed ancestors” (ibid, p.128).
The following from the late fourth century, by Gregory of Nyssa suggests that the Manichaean/Paulicians did accept the Father and Son as God, but not the Holy Spirit, hence they held a binitarian view:
I am aware, too, that the Manichees go about vaunting the name of Christ. Because they hold revered the Name to which we bow the knee, shall we therefore number them amongst Christians? So, too, he who both believes in the Father and receives the Son, but sets aside the Majesty of the Spirit, has “denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel,” and belies the name of Christ which he bears (Gregory of Nyssa. On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1893. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).
A related article of interest may be Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?
Harvard scholar H. Brown wrote:
The Bogomils…Its doctrine of God is highly dualistic…There is no True Trinity (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 251).
One of their so-called “dualistic” teachings was that this is Satan’s world. One scholar noted that an:
…important idea of Bogomils and Cathars, i.e. that this world is the kingdom of the devil (Vassilev, Georgi. DUALISTIC IDEAS IN THE WORKS OF WILLIAM TYNDALE. ACADEMIE BULGARE DES SCIENCES. INSTITUT D’ETUDES BALKANIQUES. ETUDES BALKANIQUES, n° 1, 2003: 124-142).
Notice this from The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The heresy of the Bogomili was started in the tenth century…followers called themselves Christians and considered their faith the only true one. In Bosnia they were named Paterines. The Paterines, or Bogomili…forbade intercourse with those of other faiths, disbelieved in war (Klaar K. Transcribed by Joseph E. O’Connor. Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
The following is apparently from the work History of Armenia by Chamich and is from a 1054-1058 A.D. letter written by Gregory Magistros against the Manichaean (note I have left out additions by the editor/translator F. Conybeare):
…they represent our worship of God as worship of idol. As if we, who honour the sign of the cross and the holy pictures, were still engaged in worshiping devils (Conybeare F.C. Addend ix III in: The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. 149).
It is of historical interest to note the following doctrinal admissions in the article on the Paulicians in The Catholic Encyclopedia (bolding mine):
They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures…
The whole ecclesiastical hierarchy is bad, as also all Sacraments and ritual. They had a special aversion to monks…
Since Gibbon the Paulicians have often been described as a survival of early and pure Christianity, godly folk who clung to the Gospel, rejecting later superstitions, who were grossly calumniated by their opponents…
In Armenia the sect continued in the “Thonraketzi” founded by a certain Smbat in the ninth century. Conybeare attributes to this Smbat a work, “The Key of Truth”, which he has edited. It accepts the Old Testament and the Sacraments of Baptism. Penance, and the Eucharist. This work especially has persuaded many writers that the Paulicians were much maligned people. But in any case it represents a very late stage of their history, and it is disputed whether it is really Paulician at all.
Edward Gibbon was a British historian who was not in any Church of God. Yet apparently because of his historical research, even outsiders have concluded that some of the Paulicians (not all, however, held true doctrine) were a remnant of the true church.
Interestingly, The Catholic Encyclopedia article also admits:
The emperor Alexius Comnenus is credited with having put an end to the heresy. During a residence at Philippopolis, he argued with them and converted all, or nearly all, back to the Church (so his daughter: “Alexias”, XV, 9). From this time the Paulicians practically disappear from history. But they left traces of their heresy. In Bulgaria the Bogomile sect, which lasted through the Middle Ages and spread to the West in the form of Cathari, Albigenses, and other Manichaean heresies, is a continuation of Paulicianism. In Armenia, too, similar sects, derived from them, continue till our own time.
Notice that even some Roman Catholic scholars know that it is possible that the Paulicians were the survivors of an early and pure Christianity and that they had spiritual descendants that continued into the future (such as those within the Thyatira era), as well into modern times! The Cathari were also known to be pacifists, as well as the faithful among the Paulicians (of course there were many called by those names that were not faithful).
The ‘Paulicians’ Called themselves Catholic and Asserted Apostolic Succession
Fred Conybeare reported that in the Middle Ages the Paulicians of Armenia continued to state, “They were the ‘holy, universal, and apostolic Church,’ founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles” (Conybeare, p. xxxiii). They opposed Sunday observance and the Greco-Roman festivals, while apparently observing the seventh-day Sabbath (Conybeare, pp. clii, cxciii).
Notice also the following about them:
They called themselves the Apostolic Catholic church, but … nicknamed Paulicians by their enemies … (Paulicians. The Encyclopaedia Britannica: Mun to Pay. 1911, p. 961; Blackwell D. A HANDBOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY: A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology. April 1973, p.29)
In Kurtz’s Church History, article Nostic and Manichean Heretics:
The Catholics, this sect called Romans, gave them the name Paulicians.
See how they received that name. The Catholics, whom this sect called “Romans.” … Paulicians. They did not give themselves that name.
But they designated themselves Christians.
Yes, the Bible had said they had not denied His name. And when you read about the Paulicians, that is one thing that is mentioned quite often. They were named Paulicians by the Catholics. They considered themselves Christians and they would not call the Romans “Christians.” They called them Romans. (Blackwell, p. 48)
The Paulicians They called themselves only Χριστιανοí {Christians} (Kurtz JH, Jr., Macpherson J. Church History: Volume 1. 1891, p. 423)
The Paulicians did not call themselves Paulicians or Tonrakians, but the Universal and Apostolic Church. To them the orthodox churches, … had apostatized from the faith, lost their orders, and forfeited their sacraments. As to their Mariolatry and adoration of saints and pictures and crosses, it was all nothing but idolatry. (Arpee L. Armenian Paulicianism and the Key of Truth. The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 10, No. 2, Apr., 1906: 267-285)
The Paulicians claimed to be THE ‘holy universal and apostolic church’ founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. Of the false churches, they would say: “We do not belong to these, for they have long ago broken connection with the church.” … 6th century. (Lesson 50 – What Became of the Church Jesus Built? 58 Lesson: Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, 1968, p. 13).
So, these Paulicians considered that they had maintained apostolic succession, were the true catholic church, and that the Roman churches were not.
Comments from Other Researchers
The late John Ogywn made the following comments:
According to Armenian scholar Nina Garsoian in The Paulician Heresy: “It would, then, appear that the Paulicians are to be taken as the survival of the earlier form of Christianity in Armenia” (p. 227). The author also states that the Paulicians were “accused of being worse than other sects because of adding Judaism” (p. 213).
Christ’s message to this third stage of God’s Church (Paulicians) is characterized by the Church at Pergamos (Revelation 2:12–17). The word Pergamos means “fortified,” and the Church members of this era were noted for dwelling in remote, mountainous areas…
At some point in their history, however, many Paulicians succumbed to a fatal error. They reasoned that they could outwardly conform with many of the practices of the Catholic Church in order to avoid persecution as long as in their heart they knew better. This road of compromise led many to have their children christened and others to attend mass. Christ prophesied of this, admonishing the Church at Pergamos about those who held to pagan, immoral doctrines (Revelation 2:14–15)…
In the eighth and ninth centuries, many Armenian Paulicians were forcibly resettled in the Balkans by Byzantine emperors. They were placed there as a bulwark against the invading Bulgar tribes. Relocated to the Balkans, the Paulicians came to be called Bogomils.
What did these Bogomils teach? “Baptism was only to be practiced on grown men and women… images and crosses were idols” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., “Bogomils”).
So, while many called Paulician compromised, some did hold to Church of God doctrines.
Harvard scholar H. Brown wrote:
…in Slavoni, the name “Bomomil” means “beloved of God”…The specific predecessors of the Bogomils are the Paulicians…Many Bogomils, and especially their leaders, exhibited a zeal and a purity of life that contrasted with the indifference and frivolity of all too many orthodox ecclestiastics in both East and West…Like the Paulicians, the Bogomils detested the cross, for it was the symbol of the Saviour’s apparent murder (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 247,252).
He also noted that the Bogomils were pacifists (Ibid p.260).
In the introduction to his English translation of The Key of Truth, F.C. Conybeare provides this quote on the practices of the early Paulicians:
John of Otzun’s language perhaps implies that the old believers in Armenia during the seventh century were Quartodecimans, as we should expect them to be (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. clii).
…they were probably the remnant of an old Judeo-Christian Church, which had spread up through Edessa into Siuniq and Albania” (ibid, p. clxii).
We also know from a notice preserved by Ananias of Shirak that the Pauliani, who were the same people, who, at an earlier date were called Quartodecimans, kept Passover on the Jewish date:
But the Paulini also keep the feast of the Pascha on the same day (as the Jews), whatever be the day of the full moon, they call it Kuriaki, as the Jews call it Sabbath, even though it be not a Sabbath (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. clii).
It should be mentioned that “Quartodecimans” are those who follow the biblical and apostolic example of observing the Passover on the 14th day of Nisan.
Concluding Thoughts
“Paulicians” were a label that Alexandrian and Roman supporters apparently labeled certain opponents with. Apparently those who were labeled as Paulician did not accept the authority of the Bishops of Rome, were opposed to Sunday as the designated day of worship, were opposed to idols, eschewed certain Roman rituals, seemingly had binitarian views of the Godhead, considered that those who took up the title Pontifex Maximus took a title that would be associated with Antichrist, kept Passover on the 14th, and they were persecuted.
Many, because of persecution and economic pressures apparently compromised, and some apostasized to the point of engaging in carnal warfare. While those who did that were not truly part of the Church of God, there were apparently some of the faithful amongst those labeled as Paulicians.
And that is how it is even today. While we in the Continuing Church of God, for example, are not Protestant, Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics tend to lump us in with the Protestants as we do not accept the various doctrinal compromises that the Catholics have made. (for documentation, please see Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Continuing Church of God?). While we, like the Protestants claim to believe in sola Scriptura, do not endorse the use of statues in worship, and eschew certain ritualistic aspects of the Greco-Romans, this does not make us Protestant any more than having Church of God doctrines made people “Paulicians.”
But it could be properly stated that we in the Continuing Church of God count among our spiritual ancestors some who were called Paulicians. And we believe that we have faithfully been carrying out the original Christian faith as was practiced by the original apostles and their most faithful successors.
Here is a link to a sermon video: Pergamos Era and the Antichrist.
Some items of related interest may include:
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.Simon Magus, What Did He Teach? Sometimes called “the father early heretics” or the “father of heresies”, do you know what early writers claimed that Simon Magus taught? Sadly, most who profess Christ still hold to versions of his teachings. Here is a link to a related sermon: Simon Magus and ‘Christianity’?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 from 31 A.D. to present: information on all of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3. There is also a YouTube video: The Seven Church Eras of Revelation. There is also a version in the Spanish language: Las Siete Iglesias de Apocalipsis 2 & 3.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view? Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches? Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter! Here is a link to a sermon: Claims of Apostolic Succession. Here is a related article in the Spanish language La sucesión apostólica. ¿Ocurrió en Roma, Alejandría, Constantinopla, Antioquía, Jerusalén o Asia Menor?
Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups that Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries? Did you know that many in the second and third centuries felt that there were two major, and separate, professing Christian groups in the second century, but that those in the majority churches tend to now blend the groups together and claim “saints” from both? “Saints” that condemn some of their current beliefs. Who are the two groups? A related sermon is also available Christianity: Two groups.
Do You Practice Mithraism? Many practices and doctrines that mainstream so-called Christian groups have are the same or similar to those of the sun-god Mithras. December 25th was celebrated as his birthday. Do you follow Mithraism combined with the Bible or original Christianity? A sermon video from Vatican City is titled Church of Rome, Mithras, and Isis?
1. The Ephesus Church Era was predominant from 31 A.D. to circa 135 A.D. The Church of James, Peter, Paul, and John, etc. Here is a link to a related video sermon: Ephesus Church Era.
2. The Smyrna Church Era was predominant circa 135 A.D. to circa 450 A.D. The Church led by Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc. Here is a link to a related video sermon: The Smyrna Church Era.
3. The Pergamos Church Era was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church. Here is a link to a related sermon video: Pergamos Era and the Antichrist.
4. The Thyatira Church Era was predominant circa 1050 A.D. to circa 1600 A.D. The Church during the Inquisition. It claimed succession from the apostles. Here is a link toa related sermon: Thyatira, Succession, and Jezebel.
5. The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses some early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, CG7-Salem, Jerusalem 7DCG, and COG-7th Day-Denver. Here are two historical sermons: Sardis Church Era: Beginnings, Doctrines, and Leaders and Sardis: SDBs, SDAs, & CG7s.
6. The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now the remnant of that era is basically the most faithful in the Church of God, like who hold to the beliefs and practices of the Continuing Church of God.
7. The Laodicean Church Era has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. The Laodiceans are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG or its offshoots. They do not properly understand the work or biblical prophecies and will face the Great Tribulation if they do not repent. One video of related interest is 50+ Laodicean Prophetic Errors. See also Do You Hold to Any of These Laodicean Prophetic Errors?
What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons? Did the early Church use icons? What was the position of Christians about such things? A related sermon is available: The Second Commandment, Idols, and Icons.
What is the Origin of the Cross as a ‘Christian’ Symbol? Was the cross used as a venerated symbol by the early Church? Two related YouTube videos would be Beware of the ‘Ecumenical Cross’, The Chrislam Cross and the Interfaith Movement, and Origin of the Cross.
Did The Early Christian Church Practice Monasticism? Or was monsticism unheard of in the early Christian church?
Where is the True Christian Church Today? This free online pdf booklet answers that question and includes 18 proofs, clues, and signs to identify the true vs. false Christian church. Plus 7 proofs, clues, and signs to help identify Laodicean churches. A related sermon is also available: Where is the True Christian Church? Here is a link to the booklet in the Spanish language: ¿Dónde está la verdadera Iglesia cristiana de hoy? Here is a link in the German language: WO IST DIE WAHRE CHRISTLICHE KIRCHE HEUTE? Here is a link in the French language: Où est la vraie Église Chrétienne aujourd’hui?
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 to the 21st century. Related sermon links include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries and Continuing History of the Church of God: 17th-20th Centuries. The booklet is available in Spanish: Continuación de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios, German: Kontinuierliche Geschichte der Kirche Gottes, French: L’Histoire Continue de l’Église de Dieu and Ekegusii Omogano Bw’ekanisa Ya Nyasae Egendererete.
 |
Tweet |
|