 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
301
Roman Catholicism
Roman
Catholicism (Part 4)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 1)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 2)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 3)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 4)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 5)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 6)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 7)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 8)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 9)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 10)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 11)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 12)
Addendum:
In Their Own Words
(Continued from previous section.)
As we proceed with our investigation of the early Church writing
(Sacred Tradition) of the 1st and 2nd centuries, we will complete
our examination of the legitimacy of the RCC on these very
grounds, which the Catholic Encyclopedia provided in the above
quote.
Before we get to the writings themselves we should note some
historical commentary on the availability of early evidence
for the Roman Catholic doctrine of (Papal or) Apostolic Succession.
"Apostolic Succession - The origins of the doctrine
are obscure, and the New Testament records are variously
interpreted." - Britannica.com
"Christianity - For the first three centuries of Christianity,
history is dependent on apologetic and religious writings;
there are no chronicles (see patristic literature). Historians
differ greatly on how far back the 4th-century picture of
the church (which is quite clear) can be projected, especially
respecting organization by bishops (each bishop a monarch
in the church of his city), celebration of a liturgy entailing
a sacrament and a sacrifice, and claims by the bishop of
Rome to be head of all the churches (see papacy)." - The
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Papacy - There is no unequivocal evidence about
the status of the pope in the earliest days of the church."
- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
Additionally, we must recognize that Roman Catholic scholars
are fond of referring to the early bishops of Rome by the
title pope. However, in all fairness, to avoid being called
for dishonest scholarship, Roman Catholic authors should make
their readers aware that the title pope was not used in the
early Church as it is employed by today's Roman Catholics.
"Pope - The teaching of the Second Vatican Council
(1962-65) on the role of bishops the office and jurisdiction
of the bishop of Rome, or the pope (Latin: papa, from the
Greek pappas, "father"), who presides over the central government
of the Roman Catholic church, the largest of the three major
branches of Christianity. The term pope was originally
applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe
the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title.
In 1073, however, Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop
of Rome. According to the Annuario Pontificio, the papal
annual, there have been more than 260 popes since St. Peter
, traditionally considered the first pope. Among these, 78
have been proclaimed saints, as have some antipopes (rival
claimants to the papal throne who were appointed or elected
in opposition to the legitimate pope)." - Britannica.com
"The Pope - The title pope, once used with far greater
latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed
solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his
position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of
the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth." - Catholic
Encyclopedia
When they do not make this clear, Roman Catholic authors run
the risk of implying to the reader by default that the early
Church recognized the office that Roman Catholics associate
with the term pope. When Roman Catholics employ this tactic
without making this distinction they are transposing their
conclusion upon history and taking advantage of those who
may not realize that such revisionism is occurring. We commend
the Catholic Encyclopedia for mentioning this fact in their
article on the Pope.
It would be our preference to simply survey the writings of
the first two centuries and let them speak for themselves.
However, we will instead, first address the claims made by
the Catholic Encyclopedia as it argues for the historicity
(historical actuality) of their papal doctrine from the earliest
times, specifically the first three centuries A.D.
Consider the following quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
"The Pope - History bears complete testimony that
from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed
the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely
acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine
ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by
the first three centuries." - Catholic Encyclopedia
The quote above plainly states that evidence for RCC papal
doctrine is "afforded by the first three centuries" and comes
"from the very earliest times." But despite this claim, as
the following quote will demonstrate, the Catholic Encyclopedia
does not begin in the earliest period, with the 1st century
writings, or even with 2nd century writings, but instead,
begins with third century works. Their reason for this is
due to the fact that it is only in the third century that
Sacred Tradition exhibits frequent references to this crucial
doctrine.
"The Pope - It is no longer denied by any writer of
weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom
there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however,
of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny
that he was ever bishop of the city e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement
of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not, however,
difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well
attested as to be historically certain. In considering
this point, it will be well to begin with the third century,
when references to it become frequent, and work backwards
from this point." - Catholic Encyclopedia
However, it seems that if one claims, as Roman Catholics do,
that the doctrine of papal authority originated from the onset
of Christianity that it would be more natural to begin at
the onset and work forward as time progresses. Only in this
way do you show that the doctrine was present at the beginning
and was not merely a later development.
In order to demonstrate that a teaching is inherent to Christianity
it is critical to establish the presence of that teaching
at the onset of Christianity. Since, the RCC claims that the
papal doctrine is inherent to Christianity they should have
no trouble showing its presence in the first two centuries
of Church history. So, why do they start later instead?
The Catholic Encyclopedia's decision to start at a later period
of history when references become frequent itself attests
to the lack of evidence from the1st and 2nd centuries. Consider
this question, as long as we aren't starting at the beginning
why should we start with the 3rd century? Why not start with
the 4th century? Why not start with the papal decrees of later
times, which solidified this teaching in formal language in
the Roman Catholic Catechism? The Catholic Encyclopedia provides
the answer to these questions by affirming the difficulty
of finding unequivocal evidence of the doctrine of papal succession
in the earliest period of Church history.
"The Pope - The limits of the present article prevent
us from carrying the historical argument further than the
year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the
beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ
large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to
the first age of the Church that any question can arise."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
The clear advantage of starting at the 3rd century and working
back towards earlier periods is that the Catholic Encyclopedia
can establish their doctrine when it is readily evident in
later times and then use this documentation to color the information
that we have from the earliest period where evidence is insufficient
on its own to validate this teaching. To start later than
the 3rd century would be too obvious because 4th or 10th century
documents for example would not be useful in demonstrating
that the RCC's doctrine of papal authority originated in Jesus'
own teachings in the early 1st century A.D.
Therefore, the Catholic Encyclopedia must recognize that it
would be very difficult, if not impossible, to sufficiently
and reasonably demonstrate the legitimacy of their papal doctrines
based purely on 1st and 2nd century Christian writings. Their
solution to this dilemma is simple: start with the third century,
where the Roman Catholic position becomes more arguable. In
employing this approach the Catholic Encyclopedia essentially
makes a very bizarre argument: "In order to prove once and
for all that the 1st century Church held to the Roman Catholic
doctrine of papal authority we now turn to these third century
documents…"
So, even though some of the proof that the Catholic Encyclopedia
offers from the 3rd century does manage to support the Roman
Catholic doctrine of papal succession this does not demonstrate
that the doctrine originated with Jesus Christ. At best it
only demonstrates that this Roman Catholic belief was present
in the 3rd century Church. As such it remains unknown then
whether the 3rd century Church was affirming existing doctrine,
developing new doctrine, or borrowing doctrine from some other
non-Christian source. The critical question remains as to
whether or not evidence in support of this doctrine can be
found in the earliest Christian period - the first two centuries
A.D., which we will examine after taking the time to call
into question a few of the 3rd century evidences offered by
the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Catholic Encyclopedia makes two claims in their attempt
to establish the legitimacy of their papal teaching. The first
claim is that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. The second
claim is that the bishopric of Rome, which Peter occupied,
enjoyed supreme authority over the Church. This is referred
to as the doctrine of Roman primacy.
"The Pope - It is no longer denied by any writer of
weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom
there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however,
of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny
that he was ever bishop of the city e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement
of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not,
however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric
is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering
this point, it will be well to begin with the third century,
when references to it become frequent, and work backwards
from this point.
"The Pope - History bears complete testimony that
from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed
the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely
acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine
ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded
by the first three centuries." - Catholic Encyclopedia
It must be noted that the first claim, that Peter was the
first bishop of Rome, is not sufficient by itself to establish
the legitimacy of Roman Catholic papal teaching. Instead,
it must be demonstrated that Peter was not only the bishop
of Rome, but that he was the supreme authority over the Church
and exercised sovereignty over all the other bishops.
The fact, that Peter was bishop of Rome, need not be disputed
by non-Catholics, for in and of itself, this detail does not
support the legitimacy of Roman Catholic papal doctrines any
more than the Apostle John's being bishop of Ephesus would
indicate that John was the supreme authority over the Church.
Therefore, even an unlimited amount of proofs from 1st and
2nd century authors declaring Peter to be the first bishop
of Rome would not mean that Peter was the supreme authority
in the Church any more than a picture of my license plate
proves that I own a red 1965 Ford Mustang convertible.
Only by proving both claims can Roman Catholics hope to substantiate
their papal doctrines. But, we will see that the evidence
that they offer fails to conclusively support either claim.
The first evidence that the Catholic Encyclopedia appeals
to as support for its second claim, that the bishop of Rome
wielded authority over the other bishops, comes by way of
an incidents involving bishop Cyprian of Carthage and bishop
Stephen of Rome.
"The Pope - In considering this point, it will be well
to begin with the third century, when references to it become
frequent, and work backwards from this point. In the middle
of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman
See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded
to 'the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter' (Ep
55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen
claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the
ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian,
Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had
he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman
episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know
the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa
and of Asia Minor." - Catholic Encyclopedia
Of course, keep in mind from earlier, that the term "pope"
was not used exclusively of the Bishop of Rome until the eleventh
century AD as stated in both the Britannica.com as well the
Catholic Encyclopedia. In this page of history bishop Cyprian
of Carthage challenged the authority of bishop Stephen of
Rome, whom Roman Catholics call Pope Stephen. A little historical
background is in order before we proceed. Cyprian became the
bishop of Carthage in 248 A.D.
"Cyprian, Saint - born AD 200, Carthage died September
14, 258, Carthage; Western and Eastern feast day September
16; Anglican feast day September 26 Latin in full Thascius
Caecilius Cyprianus early Christian theologian and bishop
of Carthage who led the Christians of North Africa during
a period of persecution from Rome. Upon his execution he became
the first bishop-martyr of Africa." -Britannica.com
"Cyprian, Saint - Cyprian was born of wealthy pagan
parents and was educated in law. He practiced as a lawyer
in Carthage before he was converted to Christianity about
246. In baptism he found complete release from the sinful
and useless life he believed he had led hitherto. Within
two years he was elected bishop of Carthage and a few
months later, early in 250, was confronted by the Decian persecution.
He went into hiding. Bereft of his leadership, thousands of
Christians apostatized (rejected their faith) or obtained
libelli (certificates), by which they declared that they had
sacrificed to the pagan gods." -Britannica.com
The Catholic Encyclopedia reports the details of the incident
between Cyprian and Stephen in the following quote.
"The Pope - The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258)
in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion.
He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the
independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him
into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental
principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective
primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion
with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking
of it as "the principal Church whence episcopal unity had
its rise" (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem
unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est). The force of this expression
becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as
to the unity of the Church. This was he teaches, established
by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act
the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the
unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time
form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible
unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It
fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter
fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope
such as Novatian would be schism (Ep. 68:1). He holds,
also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop.
When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request
of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen
'to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated,
another may be substituted in his place' (Ep. 68:3). It
is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light
believed that the pope possessed a real and effective Primacy.
At the same time it is not to be denied that his views
as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government
of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox
bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language
in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error
on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that
he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction.
Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as
true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the
full implications of a general principle are only realized
gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is
often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that
such opposition was possible." - Catholic Encyclopedia
It must be noted that while the Catholic Encyclopedia offers
these incidents involving Cyprian as proof of their claim
that Rome enjoyed a place of authority over the other bishoprics,
this article makes several acknowledgments that Cyprian's
views of papal authority are not consistent with this claim
of the RCC.
First, it is noted that Cyprian "undoubtedly entertained exaggerated
views as to the independence of individual bishops, which
eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome." The cause
behind this conflict with Rome is described by Britannica.com.
"Cyprian, Saint - Cyprian returned to Carthage (early
251) and at a council of bishops in May 251 was able to regain
his authority. The decision of the council was that, though
no one should be totally excluded from penance, those who
truly had sacrificed (the sacrificati) should be readmitted
only on their deathbeds, and those who had merely accepted
certificates (the libellatici) were to be readmitted after
varying periods of penance. Three important principles
of church discipline were thus established. First, the
right and power to remit deadly sins, even that of apostasy,
lay in the hands of the church; second, the final authority
in disciplinary matters rested with the bishops in council
as repositories of the Holy Spirit; and, third, unworthy
members among the laity must be accepted in the New Israel
of Christianity just as in the Old Israel of Judaism." -Britannica.com
It is the second principle decided on by this council of bishops
would be central to the dispute, which would develop between
Cyprian and Stephen, the bishop of Rome.
"Cyprian, Saint - In the summer of 254 his position
was tested again by a dispute with Stephen, bishop of Rome
(254-257). Until then relations between the churches of
Carthage and Rome had been cordial." -Britannica.com
Though Cyprian did affirm the centrality of the Roman bishopric
as the Catholic Encyclopedia claims, he denied the authority
of the Roman bishop over matters of faith outside the Roman
diocese by his actions. In 254 A.D. two Spanish congregations
appeal to Cyprian against a decision made by Stephen. In response
to this appeal Cyprian does not affirm papal authority, but
instead convenes a council to consider the matter.
"Cyprian, Saint - Though Cyprian may have written
two drafts of an important passage concerning the primacy
of the chair of Peter, he implied no acceptance of Roman jurisdictional
prerogatives. When in 254 two Spanish congregations (Mérida
and León) appealed to him against a decision by Stephen
to restore bishops who had lapsed during the persecution,
he summoned a council to consider the case. The council
decided that the congregations not only had a right but
a duty to separate themselves from a cleric who had committed
a deadly sin such as apostasy. Cyprian wrote (Letter 67) that
the Holy Spirit was no longer in such a priest and that his
sacraments would lead to perdition and not salvation. The
church as the "pure Bride of Christ" might be obliged to absorb
a sinful laity, but a sinful priest making offerings on behalf
of the people was unthinkable." -Britannica.com
Two things are worth noting from this historical account.
The most obvious is Cyprian's denial that the bishop of Rome
had authority on such matters. This disregard or disagreement
with Rome over the bishop of Rome's authority is further strengthened
by the fact that the two Spanish congregations themselves
thought it appropriate to appeal to the bishop of Carthage
(Cyprian) against a decree of the bishop of Rome. These facts,
beg the question. If Stephen, as the bishop of Rome, wielded
a supreme authority that was handed down to the Church from
its onset by the Apostles, how is it that a council of bishops,
Cyprian the bishop of Carthage, and two Spanish congregations
not only failed to acknowledge this supreme authority, but
acted in opposition to it?
These actions lead the Catholic Encyclopedia to conclude regarding
Cyprian, that "it is not to be denied that his views as to
the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a
diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop
were inadequate." In saying so, the Catholic Encyclopedia
undermines their own argument by acknowledging that Cyprian
does not agree that the bishop of Rome exercised supreme authority
over the Church.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also acknowledges that during "the
rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen
was bitter and intemperate." This again undermines the RCC's
claim that the bishop of Rome was acknowledged to have supreme
authority by the other bishops.
Again, Britannica.com informs us of these events.
"Cyprian, Saint - Within months there was an even
more serious dispute with Rome. For a few years the supporters
of Novatian had been active in Africa, asserting against
Cyprian that no forgiveness for lapsed Christians was possible.
With the recovery of Cyprian's prestige, however, their threat
began to fade. Many of those whom they had baptized clamoured
to be admitted to the church. Was their baptism valid or not?
In Rome, Stephen, confronted by the same problem, decided
that all baptism in the name of the Trinity was valid. The
Africans at first were of two minds. Cyprian held three councils
between the autumn of 255 and September 256. The last, at
which 87 bishops were present, decided unanimously that there
could be no baptism outside the church, just as there
could not be faith, hope, or salvation for those outside it.
A minister could not dispense what he himself did not possess,
namely, the Holy Spirit. Those who had received baptism
from Novatianists must be baptized anew. Behind this clash
over rites lay the more fundamental question concerning the
nature of the church. Though Rome emphasized the church's
universal and inevitably mixed character on earth, the North
Africans stressed its integrity under all circumstances.
Baptism entailed total renunciation of the world and the reception
of the Spirit." -Britannica.com
These disagreements between Carthage and Rome were quite serious
as anyone can see. A total split between the two was not avoided
on the basis of Roman authority, but by Stephen's death in
257 A.D.
"Cyprian, Saint - A complete breach between Rome
and Carthage was averted by Stephen's death on Aug. 2, 257,
and his successor, Sixtus II, was more conciliatory." -Britannica.com
We ask, are Cyprian's actions those of a man who attests to
the Roman Catholic claim that the bishop of Rome held superior
authority? If not, then how is it possible that the bishop
of Carthage failed to understand this important Church doctrine?
That is, unless no such doctrine existed in the early Church.
The Catholic Encyclopedia continues by insisting that Cyprian's
"error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact
that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction."
But how can this be their conclusion? How can the Catholic
Encyclopedia offer these events as proof for the doctrine
of the superiority of the Roman bishopric? Certainly Cyprian's
belief that the bishop of Rome had no authority in the diocese
of another orthodox bishop, his disrespectful words, and the
actions he took to deny any supposed authority of the Roman
bishop all strongly undermine the claim of the RCC that the
early Church all understood the supremacy of the bishop of
Rome, the bishopric of Peter.
In light of all of this the Catholic Encyclopedia attempts
to redirect the evidence in their favor by saying that Cyprian's
disagreements with Rome should not "occasion too much surprise"
because, in their words, "it is as true in the Church as in
merely human institutions that the full implications of a
general principle are only realized gradually." Thus, instead
of supporting their view, the Catholic Encyclopedia ends by
having to defend their position against the very evidence
that they themselves offered in the first place. Against the
obvious implications of Cyprian's actions, they nevertheless
conclude their defense by saying that the application of papal
doctrine is "often contested at first, though later ages may
wonder that such opposition was possible."
These remarks are nothing less than an admission of the inadequacy
of this line of evidence in supporting their claim of the
superiority of the bishopric of Rome. In effect their argument
is that though Cyprian didn't understand it the bishop of
Rome was superior in authority to all other bishops.
So, despite the fact that the case of Cyprian provides as
much evidence against the supremacy of the bishop of Rome
as it could in favor of it, the Catholic Encyclopedia chooses
to offer it anyway in support of their claims. And when they
realize that the reader may be having trouble understanding
how such historical facts help their cause, they bolster their
claim with circular reasoning. They conclude that the papal
authority is true despite the case of Cyprian and that Cyprian
was in error regarding these matters, which is understandable
since they claim that true doctrine is often "contested at
first."
And moreover, in their defense against Cyprian's actions,
the Catholic Encyclopedia fully admits that the doctrine of
the papal authority was not fully understood by the Church
in or before Cyprian's day. But instead, as the Catholic Encyclopedia
itself declares this essential doctrine of papal authority
was "only realized gradually," which in the context of their
article implies this doctrine wasn't realized until AFTER
Cyprian's time.
"The Pope - In the rebaptism controversy his language
in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error
on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that
he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction.
Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as
true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the
full implications of a general principle are only realized
gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often
contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such
opposition was possible." - Catholic Encyclopedia
Britannica.com sums up the views of Cyprian regarding papal
authority confirming the conclusions implied by the history
of these events in a more reasonable manner.
"Cyprian, Saint - Unity was expressed through the
consensus of bishops, all equally possessing the Holy Spirit
and sovereign in their own sees. There was no 'bishop of bishops.'
The church consisted of the people united to their bishop.
Schism and rebellion against the priesthood were viewed as
the worst of sins. These views-associated with an uncompromising
insistence on the integrity and exclusive character of the
church, which are believed to have been derived from the North
African theologian Tertullian -received divine sanction for
most North African Christians through his martyrdom." -Britannica.com
From all of this it is hard to see how the Catholic Encyclopedia
can use Cyprian as support for the idea that the supremacy
of Rome was established in the Church even during the 3rd
century. In fact, if Cyprian has anything to show it is that
the Roman Catholic doctrine of Roman primacy, which becomes
so apparent in the 4th century was not even that well established
yet, during the close of the 3rd century. This being the case,
we must wonder why the Catholic Encyclopedia would bother
to offer this kind of evidence? Perhaps more sufficient proof
is not available? But with this kind of 3rd century proof
at least we can understand why they would be reluctant to
begin with 1st or 2nd century documents.
(Continued in next section.)
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |