Christian history and the Catholic Church – Part 2
I can’t blame ‘em. I can’t blame Roman Catholic apologists for reading their beliefs into ancient Christian writings…for finding in them evidence that they expect to find which objectively isn’t there. They have been taught, in no uncertain terms, that in Jesus saying to Peter, “on this rock I will build my church” and giving him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16) he was granting him supreme authority which Peter was then to pass down to each successive bishop of Rome. Of course there must be evidence of Rome’s authority in the multitude of writings of the church fathers which have survived the centuries. There simply has to be.
So every letter from a first, second, or third century bishop to Rome, from Rome, or referencing Rome is read from that perspective and every statement that could be construed to be supportive of Rome’s primacy is declared to be so. If I were a committed Catholic, I would so construe it as well.
But when these statements are examined in context, from a perspective void of an a priori commitment to Roman Catholicism, their supposed evidentiality of her claims of primacy are seen as very sketchy indeed. A good example of this is found in a treatise written by a second century bishop named Irenaeus. The faithful in Christ were called to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3) since even before the New Testament was completed because of various heresies being propagated in the church, and this Irenaeus was doing when he wrote a collection of books commonly called Against Heresies. The heresies Irenaeus was contending with were a Gnostic variety claiming special knowledge unknown even to the bishops who had been appointed by the apostles themselves.
So after describing their “opinions…customs…character…[and] perverse teachings” in Books 1 and 2, he sets about to refute them in Book 3. Chapter 3 of that book is titled, A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up. Irenaeus argues here that correct doctrine can be found in the “various churches” because they were established by apostles who taught and appointed faithful men to succeed them. In paragraph 1 of Chapter 3 he says,
For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.
Irenaeus is saying that if there were any “hidden mysteries” God wished his church to know, the apostles certainly would have known them and handed them down to the bishops they appointed. But the bishops do not hold to these unorthodox teachings and the evidence of their heretical nature lies in the fact that the church in the late second century could trace the succession of bishops of the “various churches” back to the apostles. And the apostles selected men to succeed them in authority over the local churches who they knew were solid in their doctrine, would faithfully preserve and pass it on, and would appoint successors with the same criteria.
Even if a particular bishop was found to support heretical teaching (a reality which we’ll see next time bears on the passage in question), there was at the time a general consensus on orthodox doctrine in the churches to confidently establish its accuracy. To bolster his argument from apostolic succession, Irenaeus desires to record the entire heritage of faithful men who have served as bishops tracing their appointments back to the apostles in every one of the “various churches.” But paragraph 2 begins with:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches…
Because of the tediousness of such a task, Irenaneus chooses to focus on one church:
the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul
And it is here in paragraph 2 that the Roman Catholic Church believes she finds support for her claim of jurisdictional authority.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Understandably, any Roman Catholic reading Irenaeus’ statement, as translated here and read in isolation, would think, “Don’t need to go any further. Seems pretty clear to me that at least from the late second century the bishop of Rome governed the entire church.” But go further we must if we want to be confident that such an assessment is accurate. Taking any statement apart from its context often results in error, and the way Catholic apologists conclude from this one exactly what they brought into it despite conflicting evidence is a prime example.
Furthermore, there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the correct translation of the statement. The translation contemporary Catholic apologists use is certainly one of the furthest from correct. Next time I’ll explain why and give some very important context.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
Pingback: Christian History and the Catholic Church – Part 3 | a reasonable faith
Clement of Rome is pretty clear in his letter to the Corinthians on authority…
LikeLike
How so, Philip?
LikeLike
Pretty simple, In the letter, Clement rebuked and corrected the youth for attempting usurping the authority of the leadership in Corinth. The irony is that particular letter was lost until after Protestant Reformation the Western Church.
LikeLike
Not simple at all. Bishops of other churches also wrote letters of correction to each other, including to Rome, which was repeatedly succumbing to heresy. Though Clement’s letter may have had an air of authority, that does not equate with actually having jurisdictional authority over the entire church.
LikeLike
Well it depends, because many historians believe that Clement was the Bishop of Rome at the time. A Bishop exhibiting authority who would have possibly known Peter, the Apostle, who some believed is mentioned in the New Testament.
So, the dismiss the significance and language of correction of the actual letter, one could simply make the same argument that you’ve attempted on Catholic apologist.
LikeLike
I also believe he was bishop of Rome. So what? He HAD authority over a very important church so it’s perfectly understandable that his letters to other churches would exhibit that authoritative air. Letters from bishops of other churches sounded pretty authoritative also.
LikeLike
Hey, you’re the one who made the positive claim that the See of Rome didn’t have authority over the entire Church with poisoning the well as your argument. A letter was so influential from a Bishop from Rome that the Corinthians put it in their Liturgy, the burden is on you.
LikeLike
If you need help, as to no longer keep using circular reasoning, e.g. “so what?” What you need to do is is refer to a specific letter, as you’ve claimed that Bishops from the patristic period corrected other Churches all the time, where a Bishop correct the succession of authority to illustrate that Clement’s letter is not unique.
Otherwise, your argument will remain fallacious in its premise.
LikeLike
Philip, you made the claim that Clement’s letter was “pretty clear” in establishing his authority over the entire church. The burden is on you to prove that.
LikeLike
Well, the initial claim is that Catholic apologist read into the Church Father’s the primacy of Rome more or less. So you’ve poisoned the well to where if I get into specifics of the actual letter, you can simply use a circular argument, “so what” to deflect anything not convenient.
However, the letter reads:
“The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus12 Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,14 then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,16 to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons2 in faith.”
Now, let’s pair this with a point made by John Henry Newman, that after studying the history of the Church fathers, caused him to convert to Catholicism:
“All sects think it necessary that their Ministers should be ordained by other Ministers. Now, if this be the case, then the validity of ordination even with them, rest on a succession; and is it not plain that they ought to trace that succession to the Apostles?”[4] Furthermore, “A body of doctrine had been delivered by the Apostles to their first successors, and by them in turn to the next generation, and then to the next.”[5] “We say, ‘therefore the Apostles live in their successors.’ Christ implies, ‘therefore the body never died, and therefore it will rise again.”
The motivation of the letter was to prevent a schism in the Church of Corinth, it appeals to Christ’s High Priestly prayer in John 17:
“20 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”
Whereas, after the 16th century, the uniformity of faith was fractured, where 16th century anachronisms where read into Scripture and the Fathers that differed both from Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox in regards to primacy of grace, as opposed to the work of faith–see Augustine’s On the Predestination of Saints, the Sacraments–where there was no indicated for 1500 years of being simply a symbol–a historical precedent.
So, again, unless you can present a letter with similarity of another Bishop correcting another Church’s Apostolic succession then you’ll be reduced to nothing more than deflection and circular reasoning.
Because, as you’ve shown with Ireneaus’ letter. I can also present Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrnaeans in regards to the topic, which even with the attempt of poisoning the well, eventually the body of evidence simply speak for itself.
LikeLike
I’m sorry. None of what you’ve said here proves your claim.
LikeLike
Yes it does. See, now I’ve employed the circular argument. At any rate, now you’ve made a postive claim on my claim, so you’d have to prove that it doesn’t. But it appaers you’re intellectually dishonest person.
At the very least, without any other supportive evidence, I can simply ask from what Apostle does the leaders of your Church come from, can I see the list of succession?
LikeLike
o, you’ve dismissed Irenaus and Clement:
How about Cyprian of Carthage who quotes Mt. 16:18-19 in the Catholic apologist context?
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven …” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? Treatise 1:4 252 A.D.
Pretty much a slam dunk.
LikeLike
Let’s try his analogy of your argument. The United States government is codified in the Constitution. So, republicans (small r), have been taught that their government is a constitutional republic and so they naturally interpreted passages of the Constitution, letters from Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, the Federalist Papers to support their position of a republican government…
See the fallacious argument? The well is poisoned due to the origin of the interpreters, or in your language “apologist” rather than the actually argument.
LikeLike
You didn’t answer my question.
LikeLike
Pingback: Christian History and the Catholic Church – Part 4 | a reasonable faith