Catholic Church: Established AD 33 or AD 300? (5)
At the moment on this blog, I am responding to a reader who commented on a post I wrote about Mary, Ark of the New Covenant. In my earlier posts, I dealt with her comments concerning Our Lady, but in her closing paragraph she made a number of assertions concerning the origins of the Catholic Church. In these last two posts I would like to respond to these final assertions:
I would suggest you do… more research about the origins of the roman catholic church which comes from pagan origins when it was founded in Rome by Constantine about 300AD. This is well known in history. Constantine was the first pope, and he mixed paganism with Christianity and that is how the Roman catholic church was born. You will find many parallels between the Roman catholic church and paganism.
In this particular post I think I’d like to spice things up with a little help from Barney Stinson. Since Monica has challenged me to investigate history…
Let’s take a look at each of the assertions in turn…
Assertion #1: Constantine started Catholicism and was first Pope
I’m afraid to say that comments such as Monica’s are fairly common among Evangelicals, but they’re demonstrably false. This is not, in fact, “well known in history” but more akin to The Da Vinci Code. If Monica thinks she has evidence to substantiate this assertion, then I would appreciate it if it were presented.
My guess is that her information has come from, at best, anti-Catholic historical commentary. I would suggest that she has never really encountered the Early Church Fathers, nor read much at all from the primary and secondary sources from the early centuries of Christianity. Had she been exposed to these original sources, assertions of this kind wouldn’t be made. It’s just bad history to assert that Constantine “founded” the Catholic Church or that he “was the first pope”. In fact, when you hear people make these kind of assertions…
I’ll present some primary sources in the next post and we’ll look at the actual writings of the Christians who lived in the centuries prior to the rise of Constantine and we’ll see what they have to say to us.
Assertion #2: This took place around AD 300
I’m not sure of the significance of the date of AD 300 which Monica mentioned.
In AD 300, Christians were still openly persecuted. It wasn’t until the Edict of Milan in AD 313 that Christianity even became legal. Although during his time as Emperor Constantine was a patron of the Church, he didn’t become a baptized Christian until his deathbed in AD 337. In fact, Christianity didn’t become the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine, as is commonly asserted. It was only under Theodosius, fourteen emperors later, that it became the state religion following the Edict of Thessalonica in AD 380.
There are a number of problems with conspiracy theories concerning Constantine:
1. Integrity of the Scriptures
I assume Monica is a Bible Alone Christian. If Constantine had such control over the Church, how can she possibly trust the Scriptures? If Constantine was the powerful architect of this new pagan religion, why didn’t he tinker with the Scriptures to make them more Pagan-friendly?
The canon of Scripture wasn’t fixed prior to Constantine’s rise to power. How can Monica trust that the correct books are in her Bible if the Church had been taken over by the evil Constantine? While we’re on this subject, I’d be interested to know how Monica explains the assembling of the canon of Scripture without mentioning Sacred Tradition, Catholic bishops or Church Councils. Personally, I don’t think it can be done.
2. Integrity of the Christians
To credit Constantine with the complete usurpation of the Christian faith reflects extremely poorly on the Christians of that generation. Those believers, as well as their forefathers, had undergone terrible persecutions and many had even suffered mutilation and martyrdom. Why does she think that these battle-hardened witnesses of Christ would so easily capitulate and allow the Emperor to hijack and distort the religion for which they were previously willing to give their lives?
However, it gets even worse than that. If one subscribes to this theory concerning Constantine, not only did the Christians fail in defending their apostolic faith, the historical record provides no evidence that they raised any kind of defense at all! There are no writings in the early centuries in which we find doctrines which come close to resembling that of Protestantism.
So, in the absence of any other compelling evidence, I will personally put the founding of the Catholic Church around Jerusalem in AD 33.
Assertion #3: Catholicism is basically just paganism
Monica said that “You will find many parallels between the Roman catholic church and paganism”. Aside from the allegations against Mary as “Queen of Heaven” (which I dealt with in an earlier post), Monica named no other parallels. However, when I’ve heard that assertion made by others in the past, it’s usually concerned stuff like the celebration of Easter (rebutted here). When making assertions like this, it’s important to note that just because there is some vague similarity between two things, it doesn’t mean that they’re causally related – that link must be proved.
If one accepted Monica’s premise, I see three resulting problems:
1. Other Christian Doctrines
Knowledge of Monica’s own beliefs would be useful here since I’ve often found inconsistencies among those who make such arguments. However, since she didn’t identify herself to the contrary, I’m going to assume she believes in the Trinity, the doctrine which states that the Father, Son and Spirit are three Divine Persons of the one triune God.
The problem is that I’ve met some Unitarian Christians who claim that isn’t the teaching of Scripture and that the Trinity is, in fact, an import from Paganism! Would Monica accept this assertion, or would she demand proof?
2. Criticisms of Christianity
Atheists and those who seek to discredit the Christian faith often claim that Jesus is simply a rehashing of old myths. Would Monica accept such an assertion or would she require evidence of a link?
3. Commonly Accepted Paganism
I’ve notice that, at every single Christian wedding I’ve attended, the bride has carried a bouquet down the aisle and the couple have exchanged rings. What’s that got to do with anything? Well, both the bridal bouquet and the use of wedding rings are imports from Paganism!
If bouquets and rings can be “baptized” and put to the service of the Christian faith, doesn’t that mean other things could too?
I won’t say anything more on the subject of Paganism since it’s rather hard to rebut something without first hearing the specific charges.
Up Next…
In the final part of this series I’ll be assembling a post I wanted to write for some time. I intend to look at some primary sources and set the historical record straight concerning Christianity in the pre-Constantinian Church…
Introduction | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
From an earlier comment which Monica made…
> If you look at the statues these pagans were worshipping they are similar to the ones the catholic church has of the Mother holding down the baby
Please name and identify these pagan deities and explain to me how you know there to be a causal relationship between the pagan religions and the Christian faith of the early centuries.
Bravo!
I would add though that Eusebius in Life of Constantine Book IV Chapter 24, quotes Constantine on exactly how he saw himself:
“Hence it was not without reason that once, on the occasion of his entertaining a company of bishops, he let fall the expression, that he himself too was a bishop, addressing them in my hearing in the following words: You are bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church: I also am a bishop, ordained by God to overlook whatever is external to the Church. And truly his measures corresponded with his words: for he watched over his subjects with an episcopal care, and exhorted them as far as in him lay to follow a godly life.” – Source
Furthermore, Constantine attended the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325, which was also attended by the papal legates Victor and Vincentius. Since Victor and Vincentius were legates of Pope Sylvester I, we can safely conclude that Constantine the unbaptized emporer, was not “the Pope.”
This was a great post!
As a protestant who loves early church history, I am finding it increasingly difficult to argue with the facts on the ground!
We are often very inconsistent in our logic and argumentation. We say we base our beliefs soley on the scriptures when in fact, most of our beliefs are based on Calvin or Luther’s understanding of the Scriptures. How we don’t see that baffles me.
It is basically heresy to even posit the question “What if Calvin or Luther got it wrong?”
I thought I would chime in here. I love your blog!
> This was a great post! I thought I would chime in here. I love your blog!
Thanks Jim 🙂
> As a protestant who loves early church history, I am finding it increasingly difficult to argue with the facts on the ground!
I hope you come back tomorrow as I’ll be diving into history more deeply.
> We are often very inconsistent in our logic and argumentation. We say we base our beliefs soley on the scriptures when in fact, most of our beliefs are based on Calvin or Luther’s understanding of the Scriptures. How we don’t see that baffles me.
Yup, it’s simply exchanging apostolic tradition for brand new 16th Century tradition. Maybe it shouldn’t even be called “tradition” at this point? Perhaps “nasty habits” would be more apt at that late stage of the game? 😉
> It is basically heresy to even posit the question “What if Calvin or Luther got it wrong?”
Yes and no. I’d say that the average Protestant reserves for himself the right to reject any of the Reformers’ doctrines as he sees fit if it conflicts with his or her personal interpretation of Scripture. This is why Sola Scriptura has only damaged Christian Unity.
For example, I commonly hear praise for Luther in casting off the “yoke of Romanism” and relying on the Bible alone…yet in the next breath I’m told that Luther was wrong about the Eucharist, Baptism, Mary, and a whole host of points in which he was in accord with Catholic teaching.
Yup, it’s simply exchanging apostolic tradition for brand new 16th Century tradition. Maybe it shouldn’t even be called “tradition” at this point? Perhaps “nasty habits” would be more apt at that late stage of the game? 😉
Ouch!
Restless was only teasing. For all that bluster, you should see his CS Lewis collection. 🙂
So Jim, why are you not Catholic or Orthodox?
> For all that bluster, you should see his CS Lewis collection.
Just finished The Last Battle yesterday 🙂
My Philip Yancy collection is also quite impressive…
That is a good question. Let me just say that I am on a journey and I am not sure where the destination lies.
I do know that I am a protestant that spends much of my time protesting the protestant church.
I get that, conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism is a big step. However, what you say reminds me of a conversion story I once read from the Coming Home Network newsletter…
I can’t remember who the person was, but I think he was a pastor of a non-denominational congregation. In his story he said that he enjoyed being a Protestant who was sympathetic to the Catholic faith, in that he could point people to some of the treasures he’d found there. There came a point though, when he had to decide: was he just sympathetic to the Catholic Faith or did he want to embrace it?
I had something similar near the end of my return journey. While I was in my non-Catholic small group, questions concerning the Catholic Faith would come up quite often. Since I was rediscovering Catholicism at the time, when someone asked why Catholics believed, say, that priests could forgive sins, I would give them an explanation of the belief from Scripture and history. There came a point, however, when realized that, if what I was arguing was true, then I needed to act upon it.
Protesting Protestantism is one thing, but it came be compared to the situation where you repeatedly criticize someone for the way they’re tackling a task. Eventually it gets to the point where where the person says “Fine! If I’m doing it the wrong way, then tell me how it should be done!”
> “In AD 300, Christians were still openly persecuted. It wasn’t until the Edict of Milan in AD 313 that Christianity even became legal. Although during his time as Emperor Constantine was a patron of the Church, he didn’t become a baptized Christian until his deathbed in AD 337.”
At the first Ecumenical Council, the Emperor Constantine kissed the wounds of some of the confessors of the Faith.
I wonder if Monica subscribes to the so called “trail of blood theory” that some baptists hold to? According to this theory all of the early heretical groups were actually the True Christians being persecuted by the bad “official Church.” It of course it a total farce of a historical theory.
> At the first Ecumenical Council, the Emperor Constantine kissed the wounds of some of the confessors of the Faith.
A beautiful image. I seem to recall this most likely referred to the the bishops who had been sent to the mines, since they would first be blinded in one eye and crippled in one foot to stop them escaping.
> It of course it a total farce of a historical theory.
Yeah, the problem with this theory is summed up the phrase “The dog who never barked”. It’s a reference to a Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze”. A killer gets into and out of a certain house without the alarm being raised by the dog, demonstrating to Holmes that the dog must have known the killer, providing an important clue to solving the case.
Likewise, “Trail of blood” theories are undermined through a “dog who never barked”. In the theory, it is asserted that the Catholic Church persecuted the “true” Christians…yet without leaving any evidence that they had done so. To begin with, this is an argument which lacks evidence and is therefore pretty weak.
However, it’s even worse than that since we have many, many examples of the Catholic Church battling heresy in those early centuries. Docetism, Paganism, Arianism, Gnosticism, …
How do we know about all these heresies? We know about them because the Christian apologists of the day wrote tracts against them. If they did this for some heresies, why wouldn’t they do it for others? Why write against, say Modalism, but not against those who held pro to-Protestant beliefs?
Hmmm…I think this would be a good post to do sometime. Thanks Nelson 🙂
Pingback: This Week's Best in Catholic Apologetics | DavidLGray.INFO
There are differences in terminology with catholic and Roman Catholic. They are not the same things. We know for a fact that the church of the NT did not believe nor teach such doctrines as purgatory, merit or indulgences. We also know from the early centuries there was not one recognized leader of the entire church for centuries. The facts are not there to support this.
Hey Roscoe, welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
> There are differences in terminology with catholic and Roman Catholic.
That’s true, but not in the way I think you are suggesting. I go to a Catholic parish, but it’s Byzantine, not Roman.
> We know for a fact that the church of the NT did not believe nor teach such doctrines as purgatory, merit or indulgences.
Firstly, I would say each of these could be defended from Scripture. However, the important thing to point out is that you’re coming at this from a Bible Alone presupposition.
However, the question which must be answered then is this: what on earth happened to the followers of Jesus?! Where are the “real” Christians in these early centuries?
> We also know from the early centuries there was not one recognized leader of the entire church for centuries.
Here are a couple of quotations which spring to mind:
“If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?” – St. Cyprian (A.D. 251)
“…that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; …which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…
…The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [of Rome]. Of this Linus…Anacletus…Clement…[and] Eleutherius does now…hold the inheritance of the episcopate.
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth – Against Heresies III.3.3 (c. AD 180)
The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is also relevant to this discussion, since there you have the Bishop of Rome interfering with the running of the Church at Corinth, even though John the Apostle is still alive at the time.
There have also been “real” Christians in these early centuries.
In your quotes where does it say that its the church at Rome?
No where in the epistle of Clement does he as a person claim to be the leader of the entire church.
> There have also been “real” Christians in these early centuries.
Can you please name a few?
> In your quotes where does it say that its the church at Rome?
You saw the Irenaeus quote, right?
> No where in the epistle of Clement does he as a person claim to be the leader of the entire church.
I didn’t say he did, I just said it was relevant.
There are no historical facts to support the idea that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. Rome was over 1000 miles away from where they were. We can see what Peter was doing in Acts and he was not in Rome at this time. Most likely the faith was brought there by pilgrims who were converted in the early chapters of Acts.
“Real Christians” in the early centuries would have been Clement and some of the church fathers and untold millions of unknown Christians.
Does Clement claim to be a bishop and thee bishop of Rome?
> There are no historical facts to support the idea that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome.
…other than the universal testimony of the Church Fathers. Why does that not count as evidence? What kind of evidence are you expecting?
> Most likely the faith was brought there by pilgrims who were converted in the early chapters of Acts.
Nobody is claiming that Peter and Paul were the first Christians in Rome. The very presence of Paul’s epistle is proof positive that there was a community there extremely early.
> “Real Christians” in the early centuries would have been Clement and some of the church fathers and untold millions of unknown Christians.
We’ll look at Clement shortly, but can you give me any more names out of these millions?
> Does Clement claim to be a bishop and thee bishop of Rome?
No, I already answered that. However, Does someone have to explicit claim something for it to be true? Muslim apologists ask all the time for the place in the Scriptures were Jesus says “I am God, worship me”, which is an unreasonable test.
Do all the other Fathers refer to him as bishop of Rome? Does the content of the Clementine letter fit with what we might expect the Bishop of Rome to say?
> There are no historical facts to support the idea that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome.
…other than the universal testimony of the Church Fathers. Why does that not count as evidence? What kind of evidence are you expecting?
The universal testimony of the early church fathers can not count as evidence, because if it did, we protestants would have a very difficult time explaining our particular brand of the faith and practice. So, of course, it is unacceptable as evidence because we say so. 🙂 Plus the term “church fathers” is not found any where in the scriptures:)
There are a number of reasons why Peter and Paul could not have founded the churches at Rome. One is that Rome was to far away from where they were. Over 1000 miles away. The early chapters of Acts is probably at least a couple of years or more. There is no mention of either one of these apostles going to Rome.
Also, RC scholarship doubts it also:
“ALTHOUGH CATHOLIC TRADITION, BEGINNING IN the late second and early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome’s first bishop…He often shared his position of prominence with James and John…However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25,29).
The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this about Peter,
…we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. 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).
We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…”Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”…the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).”
> There are a number of reasons why Peter and Paul could not have founded the churches at Rome
You’ve said all this before and I responded to it. Nobody is claiming that Peter and Paul were the first Christians in Rome.
You also didn’t answer my question. You asserted that there was no evidence, so I pointed to the unanimous witness of the Early Church Fathers. Why doesn’t that count as evidence?
To what do you attribute the Fathers’ testimony? Stupidity? Maliciousness? How can you trust Irenaeus’ witness to the fourfold Gospel on the one hand, but not his statements concerning the episcopacy of Rome on the other?
> Also, RC scholarship doubts it also…
I’ve seen those sets of quotations posted on various internet sites before, but I don’t really know what a Protestant expects to gain by posting them. For example, Fr. McBrien is notorious for denying many foundational Catholic principles and teachings. How would you respond if I quoted liberal Protestant scholars to “prove” that the Gospels aren’t authentic and that the Resurrection probably didn’t happen? You wouldn’t find it very convincing, would you?
I’m also looking forward to hearing some other names of the millions of “true” Christians in those early centuries. So far, the only name you’ve given is Clement.
You wrote –Nobody is claiming that Peter and Paul were the first Christians in Rome.”
Here is what one of the fathers you quoted wrote:
“that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;…” Against Heresies III.3.3 (c. AD 180)
The claim is not who were the first Christians in Rome but who founded the church there. It was not Peter and Paul. RC scholars are saying this.
You wrote–“You also didn’t answer my question. You asserted that there was no evidence, so I pointed to the unanimous witness of the Early Church Fathers.”
Those quotes you gave do not claim to say that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. Only one did and we see it was false. How many church fathers speak of the apostles founding the church at Rome?
Does Irenaeus say that ” Linus…Anacletus…Clement…[and] Eleutherius” were the supreme leaders of the entire church?
Here are some names of true Christians in the early centuries:
Polycarp of Smyrna
Justin Martyr
Scillitan Martyrs
Perpetua and Felicity
Ptolemaeus and Lucius
Pothinus, bishop of Lyon, with Blandina and several others, the “Martyrs of Lyon and Vienne”
Fabian
Saint Sebastian
Saint Agnes
Felix and Adauctus
Marcellinus and Peter
Origen
Forty Martyrs of Sebaste
Perpetua
Felicity
Euphemia
> The claim is not who were the first Christians in Rome but who founded the church there
Then why do you keep talking about Christians who were in Rome prior to Peter and Paul?
> It was not Peter and Paul
You stand in direct contradiction to Irenaeus on this point (as well as many other early Fathers). What makes you think that you are better placed to make this judgement?
Why do you accept Irenaeus’ testimony on some things (e.g. the Gospel) yet reject his testimony when it comes to Rome? Why do you think he makes this mistake? Stupidity or maliciousness?
> RC scholars are saying this
I’ve already responded to this. How impressed would you be if I quoted liberal Protestant scholars to disprove Scripture?
> Those quotes you gave do not claim to say that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome
I find this a very strange statement given that the next thing you say is…
> Only one did
So there is evidence to support the claim! Also, just because I gave you one quotation which supports this claim, it doesn’t mean it’s the only one.
> How many church fathers speak of the apostles founding the church at Rome?
Off the top of my head? Probably well over a dozen.
> Does Irenaeus say that “Linus…Anacletus…Clement…[and] Eleutherius” were the supreme leaders of the entire church?
I’ve given the quotation so you can see what he says. He doesn’t couch it in those terms, but he lists those men as bishops of Rome and he then speaks of the See of Rome and says “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…”. Sounds pretty close to me.
There were Christians in Rome before Peter and Paul came there. Peter and Paul did not found the church there.
We are in a far better place to know because we have more resources to go by than he did.
Whether a scholar is conservative or liberal is irrelevant. What matters are the facts. If the facts are supported then it does not matter if they are liberal or conservative.
Hi Roscoe,
I think David’s point is well taken. There were a bunch of liberal scholars who met regularly. They called their work “The Jesus Seminar.” They met to decide what belongs in the bible and what doesn’t. Because of their fantastic work, we now know that none of the miracles in the Bible ever happened and that Jesus of Nazareth was not divine, among many other things.
If someone were to argue with you and I that Jesus isn’t Divine, and said “Even your own scholars admit THAT!” We would reject that claim. Why? Because we do not trust the sources!
I think David is objecting in a similar way.
At any rate, there was a universal church! It was pretty united until the Schism that divided the church between the Orthodox in the East and the Catholics in the West. Then, of course, came the reformation and now we have too many churches to count.
Some of these details that are being argued here seem to me to be tiny details. The Eastern Orthodox church viewed the church of Rome as the primary church but not the supreme church. So even the two most ancient forms of the Church don’t fully agree on this issue. I look at this as a minor issue, somewhat to the Protestant argument over the mode of baptism.
However, suppose you are right and Peter was never the leader of the entire church. A) do you think there was a person who was the leader of the universal church? B) If so, who was it? or C) if not, why not?
You said,
“We are in a far better place to know because we have more resources to go by than he did.”
I think I would agree with David on this. A man who was disciple by someone who actually knew the apostle is in a better place to tell us what was going on at the time. If we want to let church history speak to us, we can not let our own theology silence it’s testimony. After all, our theology (protestants) is the new kid on the block, so to speak.
Hi Jim,
As said its irrelevant if a scholar is liberal or conservative. What matters are the facts. Is the The Catholic Encyclopedia and Sullivan F.A. liberals? Are you implying that liberals always lie?
There is no human supreme leader of the entire church. Christ never appointed on. The apostles don’t even have a position of such a thing when they describe the offices of the church as in I Timothy 3 for example.
We are in a better position today to know the first century and what the Jesus and His apostles did and taught than a man living 200 years after them. There might have been a short period of time that some people knew some of the apostles and disciples personally but we have no record of what they knew. We certainly do know more than someone living 200 years and later because we have so much more knowledge than they did.
I understand your point about the vast resource’s of information we have available to us today, as opposed to the limited resources the early church had. However, they did have access to the apostles and their writings as well as to those who worked alongside the apostles.
You said “There might have been a short period of time that some people knew some of the apostles and disciples personally but we have no record of what they knew.”
Of course it had to be a short period of time. Yet In that short period of time, Peter and Paul both knew Clement and he is even mentioned by Paul in Philippians and called a “co-worker”. We have Clements writings. I think that is pretty significant.
Polycarp, Ireneus and Ignatius all knew John and we have there writings. It would seem to me that whatever they have to say about the faith is much more reliable than the opinion of anyone in the 21st century. They were there, they were taught by the Apostles
> As said its irrelevant if a scholar is liberal or conservative. What matters are the facts
…which you haven’t actually presented. As Jim points out, scholars say lots of things, many things with which you’d vehemently disagree.
> [Are] the The Catholic Encyclopedia and Sullivan F.A. liberals?
Well, Francis Sullivan certainly isn’t exactly conservative! As for the quotation you pulled from the Catholic Encyclopedia, it simply says “we possess no precise information regarding the details”. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen – it just says that we don’t have precise information. We don’t have precise information concerning many things in Early Christianity, but that’s not a problem.
> There is no human supreme leader of the entire church. Christ never appointed on[e]
I would say Matthew 16 and the Davidic, Old Testament background of Isaiah 22 begs to differ.
> The apostles don’t even have a position of such a thing when they describe the offices of the church as in I Timothy 3 for example.
What makes you think that was meant to be an exhaustive description of all the roles in the Church?
> We are in a better position today to know the first century and what the Jesus and His apostles did and taught than a man living 200 years after them.
I find this unconvincing and this claim isn’t really substantiated.
> There might have been a short period of time that some people knew some of the apostles and disciples personally but we have no record of what they knew
At least in part, we do. Those are the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the liturgies, the canons etc.
> We certainly do know more than someone living 200 years and later because we have so much more knowledge than they did.
This is exactly the same argument used by modern scholars to discredit the authenticity of the New Testament and discard the testimony of the Scriptures by the Early Church.
Hi Roscoe,
Did the Mcbrien Pontiff book receive the “nihil obstat and imprimatur”? (It’s usually near the cover page if it did.)
Thanks.
> There were Christians in Rome before Peter and Paul came there. Peter and Paul did not found the church there
I thought you just agreed that it wasn’t about when there were Christians first in Rome?
> We are in a far better place to know because we have more resources to go by than he did
What resources would those be? Irenaeus was just two levels removed from the Apostle John.
> Whether a scholar is conservative or liberal is irrelevant. What matters are the facts. If the facts are supported then it does not matter if they are liberal or conservative
Then I’d invite you to present those facts, rather than simply appealing to authorities who agree with your point of view. I can present scholars who affirm that there is evidence – it proves little.
> Here are some names of true Christians in the early centuries…
This is an interesting list. Even though you mostly emphasize those mentioned in martyrologies, I was quite surprised by a few of your choices. Do you know that, among those listed, you have witnesses to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and a whole load of other Catholic doctrines?
Let’s just take the first name on that list. Do you agree with St. Polycarp when he says the following in his letter to the Philippians?
When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death”
This is a quotation from Tobit, a book of the Bible which you most likely hold to be apocryphal, and which speaks of good works being involved in salvation. Does that sound like something you’d hear in your congregation?
Jim,
You wrote: “Polycarp, Ireneus and Ignatius all knew John and we have there writings. It would seem to me that whatever they have to say about the faith is much more reliable than the opinion of anyone in the 21st century. They were there, they were taught by the Apostles”
What do these writings tell us specifically? How much do they add to the NT? I’d like some specifics.
> What do these writings tell us specifically? How much do they add to the NT? I’d like some specifics.
They tell us lots of things, such as how the successors to the Apostles understood the faith that was handed down to them, the books they regarded as Scripture, how they understood Mary, the Sabbath, how they celebrated the Lord’s Day, what heresies they had to deal with…
Do Polycarp, Ireneus and Ignatius mention that Mary was assumed into heaven, is queen of heaven and to be prayed to?
Do they say anything about the apocrypha being Scripture?
> Do Polycarp, Ireneus and Ignatius mention that Mary was assumed into heaven, is queen of heaven and to be prayed to?
No, but why would you expect them to? It’s not like we have the entire catalogue of their writings. For example, for Polycarp we just have one letter he wrote to the Philippians and the account of his martyrdom.
> Do they say anything about the apocrypha being Scripture?
Actually, Irenaeus does quote from Wisdom, the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, and Baruch. I’ve already mentioned that Polycarp quotes from Tobit.
Does your congregation’s leader quote from these books?
Ok, so we can conclude that Polycarp was not a RC. There is no reason to think he believed many of the things you believe as a RC such as the assumption of Mary, her being queen of heaven or praying to her.
Quoting from something does not make it Scripture. The church at the time of Polycarp did not consider that the deuterocanonical books were Scripture.
Never heard my pastor quote from these books in a sermon. They would be mentioned in a class on the canon of Scripture though.
> Ok, so we can conclude that Polycarp was not a RC. There is no reason to think he believed many of the things you believe as a RC such as the assumption of Mary, her being queen of heaven or praying to her.
Wait, what kind of logic is that?! Why on earth are you expecting to find every single Catholic doctrine within the space of a short occasional letter and a martyrdom account?!
What we can say is that Polycarp was certainly no proto-Protestant since he quotes from the deuterocanon just as he does the other Scriptures and denies the Protestant conception of salvation and sola fide.
> Quoting from something does not make it Scripture
I didn’t say it did, but what is a “true” Christian doing referencing quoting something which is clearly not Scripture, full of errors and heretical?!
> The church at the time of Polycarp did not consider that the deuterocanonical books were Scripture.
Please prove that statement.
Even the apostles quoted books that were not Scripture. Luke does in Acts for example.
There is no reason evidence that Polycarp believed many of the things you believe as a RC. Those doctrines did not come until centuries later.
A true Christian can believe in false things.
There is no record of the church of the 2nd-3rd century believing that the deuterocanonical books were Scripture.
> Even the apostles quoted books that were not Scripture. Luke does in Acts for example.
It’s actually Paul who does the quoting, but it’s important to note why he quotes from a Pagan source – he’s speaking to a Pagan audience who know nothing of Revelation, of the works of Moses or Peter.
That’s not the situation in Polycarp’s case, he’s talking to Christian believers. And what does he do when he’s speaking to these believers? He quotes Tobit in the same way he quotes Scripture.
Irenaeus is even more pointed in that he quotes from the longer, Deuterocanonical version of Daniel. He clearly thinks the Deuterocanonical version of Daniel is Scripture. Likewise, he ascribe the authorship of Baruch to the Prophet Jeremiah – are you really suggestion that he didn’t regard Baruch as inspired?
It gets even more problematic in that subsequent Fathers also quote from the Deuterocanon and also identify them as Scripture.
> There is no reason evidence that Polycarp believed many of the things you believe as a RC. Those doctrines did not come until centuries later
I don’t need to prove that – it is enough to show that he didn’t believe what you believe. Everything Polycarp says is completely compatible with Catholicism. The same cannot be said for Protestantism.
> A true Christian can believe in false things
So you are saying a “true Christian” can get even the basic Gospel message wrong?! On what basis, then, do you claim Polycarp as one of your own?
Also, please bear in mind that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Was John such a bad teacher?
> There is no record of the church of the 2nd-3rd century believing that the deuterocanonical books were Scripture
That is demonstrably false. I’ll do another post on the subject, but if you’d like a challenge, please name anybody in antiquity who held to the same 66-book canon that you have in your Bible…
Hi Roscoe,
I recommend you pick up a modern translation of the Apostolic Fathers and read their writings for yourself. I think every Christian owes it to themselves and those they lead to be well versed in th early church.
I can send you a copy if you like.
read them all still did not see any connection with the catholic faith!
Hey David, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
You read them all?! That’s impressive! How long did it take you?
I’m curious though as to how you didn’t see Catholicism in their writings. They speak of bishops, apostolic succession, Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist and describe it as a sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, praying for the dead, the importance of the bishop of Rome, … Here’s my catalogue of Catholic beliefs found in the writings of the first couple of centuries of Christianity:
https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2014/04/24/before-300-christianity/
Pilgrim,
There is no record of Peter passing on his authority to anyone. There was no one-man-rule over the church at Rome nor over the entire church. Here is what Sullivan F.A. was professor of ecclesiology at the Gregorian University:
“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…”Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”…the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).”
The apostles never call Peter the head of the entire church nor does he himself.
The offices of the church are clearly spelled out in the NT. They are exhaustive and adequate for governing the church.
> There is no record of Peter passing on his authority to anyone…
Roscoe, you haven’t really interacted with the questions I asked, just re-asserted what you’ve already said in virtually identical terms.
> The offices of the church are clearly spelled out in the NT. They are exhaustive and adequate for governing the church.
Firstly, you just assert that they are “exhaustive and adequate” without demonstrating why you hold that to be the case.
Secondly, your assessment is problematic in that, in Scripture, we don’t see a neat separation between the roles of Presbyter and Bishop. However, by the time of the death of the last Apostle, we have clear witness (Ignatius of Antioch) to monarchial bishops, supported by a college of presbyters and deacons.
That aside, I’d really like to hear your response to my previous question about Polycarp. You had asserted before that he was a “true” Christian. If that’s the case, can you affirm what he says to the Philippians?
Pilgrim,
Now we can move beyond the idea that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. We know now that is not true.
Since Scripture only records those offices for the church then that is adequate. What Ignatius says is not scripture. He has no authority nor does anyone else have authority to add to the offices of the church.
Where does Polycarp call the Lord’s supper the ” Real Presence”? Where is it said he speaks for the entire church at his time?
> Now we can move beyond the idea that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. We know now that is not true.
Did you read my response? You haven’t interacted with any of my arguments or explained how it is that the earliest Fathers concur with Irenaeus.
I think I’ll do a post on this subject, since you objection is a common one, but probably stems from the fact that you probably haven’t read Against Heresies. I’ll explain more in the post.
> Since Scripture only records those offices for the church then that is adequate.
That’s an unsubstantiated statement.
> What Ignatius says is not scripture
That is correct. So?
> He has no authority
I beg to differ! Aside from being a bishop of the Church (a monarchial bishop, I might add), he is Christian martyr who stands in the transitional period between the Apostles and the next generation of Christians. As such, his testimony carries tremendous weight.
Now, you might not like what he says, but you now have to explain how such a well-connected bishop (Peter, John, Polycarp, …) committed such massive doctrinal blunders, so close to the time of the Apostles and with no trace of challenge.
> nor does anyone else have authority to add to the offices of the church
Did the Apostles? Jesus never mentioned anything in the Gospels about the role of Deacon…
> Where does Polycarp call the Lord’s supper the ” Real Presence”?
I never said he did. I pointed to Polycarp’s quotation from the Book of Tobit which speaks of works being involved in salvation.
If you want to talk about the Real Presence, we could look to Ignatius of Antioch in c. AD 110.
> Where is it said he speaks for the entire church at his time?
I never made that claim. You said that he was a “true” Christian, so all I’m doing is looking at the stuff Polycarp taught and asking you if you’d teach the same thing.
David,
There is a conversation over here that you might find interesting: http://ancient-faith.com/2014/05/18/the-primacy-of-the-roman-church/
Thanks Jim 🙂
As usual, I agree with most of what Paul has to say…but then am left scratching my head at his conclusion… :-/
Well described truth. We must strengthen our Catholic brothers and Sisters to be informed regarding bad Protestant history.
Simple fact Catholic is a denomination of Christianity like Baptist and Lutheran….the Catholic church started between 250 AD and 1054 AD…..Fact none of the 12 disciple’s were Catholic….Catholic is peoples opinion on how Christianity should be taught like Nazarene….Why would Jesus say be Catholic???? or even Baptist ????…..these denominations are created on someone’s opinion on the religion….I’m going to go on a limb here and say pilgrim is obviously a liberal and really has no clue on what they are talking about……when you follow a denomination you’re creating a division between God and yourself….just follow the word of the Old Testament ( Torah and the New Testament ) and you will be fine……Oldest Religion in order: Judaism….Buddhism….Christianity….Catholics and Muslim
Welcome to the Restless Pilgrim!
This isn’t a simple fact, but a simple assertion. If you want to convince me, you’ll need to back up the assertion with evidence.
You don’t offer any evidence to back up this assertion. I’m also unclear as to how a Church founded over a period of eight hundred years! How does that work?
If you are going to draw the starting point of the Catholic Church at AD 250, how do you explain the writings of Christians such as Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, and many others who predate that year? You might like to familiarize yourself with the beliefs of the Early Church prior to AD 300…
Again, this isn’t a fact – just an assertion.
I can’t parse this sentence – sorry.
You’re asking the wrong question. Did Jesus found a visible Church and does He want people to be fully united to that Church? If so, where is it today?
I don’t know how on earth you conclude that I’m “obviously a liberal”, either from this post or anything else on my site. If one were to apply the political categories of “conservative” and “liberal” to my political philosophy or religious views, it would certainly come down on the side of “conservative”.
As for not having a clue as to what I’m talking about, that may indeed be true! However, in my posts I have provided argument and evidence, but your comment has been nothing but assertion.
This is another assertion, made without argument or evidence.
Would you say that when the Christians in the time of Acts obeyed the edicts of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), were they putting a division between God and themselves?
Without the Church, how do you even know what constitutes the Bible?
Even once you have the Bible, how do you know whether or not you are interpreting it correctly, because “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16). Are your interpretations infallible?
I’m not sure what the age of a religion has got to do with anything…
It is my assertion that Catholicism is the original Christianity and this is confirmed by the historic record. You are welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.