Tradition and The Bible! I have already pointed out that The first book of the Bible was not written until about AD 50 and the last was not written until about AD 100! Christ was Crucified in AD 33! During this early time period the first Christians had nothing to go on except the oral Tradition that was passed on from the Apostles and the guidance that they received from the Church! "There was no Scripture at all for 17 years after Christ's death" and "The last book was not written until 67 years later!" What this means is that the new Testament as we know it was not even completely in existence for the first 67 years of Church history! Another important point to consider is that during this time there were many books in circulation! We have all heard of "the Gnostic Gospels" and there were many more as well! During this time period some Churches had some of the scriptures but non of them had all of them in the fully complete book that we today know as the Bible! In fact "The Bible" was not put together completely until AD 393, at the Council of Hippo! Then at another Council in AD 397, Carthage it was approved again! Finally, in the year AD 405, Pope St Innocent 1, approved the 73 book Cannon and officially closed the Cannon of the Bible. This is a full 372 years after the death of Jesus! It was the Catholic Church that decided what was Scripture and what was not! I want to ask you a few questions here. Is the Bibles table of contents part of the inspired text? Did the Bible fall from heaven preprinted and bound in a single volume? Does the Bible tell us anywhere which books belong in it? No! The Catholic Church put it all together! Protestants reject the Authority of the Catholic Church, yet they do follow her Authority in this matter because it was Catholics who wrote, preserved and decided what books belonged in the New Testament! This is also a Catholic Tradition. It was from the sacred original Deposit of Tradition that the books were written and it was in light of this Tradition that the books were chosen for inclusion into the Cannon! Tradition came first and the scriptures second! I quote Martin Luther here, "without the decisions of the Church, we would not know which books of the Bible are inspired." To trust the Bible is to trust the Authority of the Church which guarantees the Bible! I want to emphasize all of this because prior to this time No one had the full and complete Bible as we know it today! Yes, some Churches had copies of individual books but non of them had the full book in complete form. Another question! Is it reasonable to trust the authority of the Catholic church when it comes to determining the contents of the Bible, then reject her authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Sound pretty ludicrous does it not? Why bring all of this up? Because what were the first Christians doing then? They were going to Church and Participating in the mass is what they were doing! If you want evidence there are many writings left by the earliest Christians that attest to this. It does not matter that this material is not Scriptural, it is historical fact! Only the catholic position is found in the earliest writings of the Church fathers, a point we will touch on in greater depth later! What were they following if they did not have a Bible to go by? After all, no one had a full complete Bible to go by for almost 400 hundred years! They were following The oral Traditions passed along by the Apostles themselves also known as "the original deposit of Faith!" Protestants love to throw out this verse , (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." What it does not say is "only" Scripture is useful ....! Most people don't think critically and look at verses of the Bible in a critical or contextual manner. They are easily duped by this misunderstanding and believe that the Bible is the only thing that you need! When a Protestant throws this verse in your face, he is really trying to attempt to make you reject Sacred Tradition and the Authority of the Church! Do not be misled! We Catholics believe everything in the Bible word for word. We wrote it after all! We do not cherry Pick out verses, we believe in the whole thing! Another point is that Protestants will say this verse makes a Christian "complete and equipped for every good work." I say is Scripture the only thing that makes a Christian complete or fully equipped? Lets look at (James 1:4) "And let perseverance be perfect , so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." If (2 Timothy 3:16) proves "Bible Alone" then wouldn't (James 1:4) prove only perseverance? This approach would obviously lead to conclusions regarding Salvation that protestants wouldn't accept! That will come in future posts though. Anyhow, lets re examine some Bible verses that prove what I am talking about in regards to tradition so that we can move on to the actual subject at hand here! Protestants think that all Tradition is condemned in Scripture. The problem is that the Bible speaks of two kinds of Tradition: Human and Apostolic! Bad or human Tradition is condemned in (Mt 15:3) and Mark (7:9) Jesus clearly condemns human Tradition that sets aside the commandments of God. In my post on Tradition I clearly explained the context of this verse. It had to do with a rule called Qorban! It violated the Command to honor your mother and father because it allowed a person to keep his money in the possession of the Temple as alms, when in fact he had full control over it! This allowed people to not take care of their parents in time of need! This is a Tradition of man! In (Col 2:8) St Paul tells us to beware of false reasoning "according to human Tradition." We as Catholics can only say Amen! In condemning human traditions we agree! The problem for Protestants is that neither Jesus or St Paul is condemning Apostolic Traditions! the Bible does command us to follow Tradition. What are these Traditions, they are the deposit of divine truths that Jesus orally entrusted to the Apostles! Where is this found in the bible? (2 Thessalonians 2:15) "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by letter of ours." (1 Corinthians 11:2) "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the Traditions, just as I handed them on to you." (2 Thessalonians 3:6) "We instruct you brothers , in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the Tradition they received from us." This can lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is right! Tradition is to be respected equally right along with Scripture! This leads to the Third element which is the Magisterium or What I would call the Pope, the Church and the Authority that goes along with it all!
The Church! There has been much debate in this forum about just when exactly the Catholic Church first came into being! I have said and always will say that it was founded by Christ himself. It is the original Christian Church! What proof can I offer for this well lets start with this! I have cut and pasted a part out of "Ignatious of Antioch's, letter to the Smyrneans:
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"
This letter was written in the year AD 110! It is the earliest written record of the word Catholic being used! The last Apostle John died in the year AD 100! This is only 10 years later! here is another article written about this letter: early Church Fathers are indispensable resources for Catholic apologetics, helping to bridge the gap between our own time and the age of the apostles. Not only do they provide extrabiblical verification of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they also provide a great deal of insight into what the early Christians believed and how they interpreted Scripture.
This can go a long way to demonstrate that certain Catholic distinctives have been believed from the very beginning. One Church Father I find to be particularly helpful in apologetics is St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 110. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John (cf. The Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.
On the Authority of the Catholic Church
The Greek root of the term catholic means "according to the whole" or “universal.” Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God:
But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. —Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5
Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:
Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro
Ignatius indicates that the Church at Rome possessed the authority to teach others:
You have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instruction may remain in force. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 3
Finally, Ignatius confirms—as do other Church Fathers—that this authoritative Church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul:
Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 4
On the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (1374). In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius addresses the issue of those who do not believe as the Church does:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6
Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).
Ignatius also explains that the Eucharist must be administered either by a bishop or one of his ordained ministers:
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
Hear are some videos that I think you guys on Streetgangs might find interesting! They are real fast only a couple of minutes each!
I would like to emphasize the part where he talks about the term Catholic being understood by the audience in his letter and therefore not needing to be defined! It use probably dates from around AD 50! In any case we can least absolutely date it to at least within 10 years of the death of the last Apostle John! That is way earlier than the 6th or 7th century Bumperjack! I have no idea what version of history you are reading? It is obviously very, very wrong!
Here is another article that is really good! It defines the term "Catholic" which is Greek for "Universal" It is not a denomination like Protestant Churches, it is the Universal Church! In this article there are many letters written before the reign of Constantine AD 313 that use the word Catholic! Most Protestants generally try and pin this date as the beginning of the Catholic Church. This is obviously wrong as well as all these writings in this article date to before then! What Constantine did was Legalize or Legitimatize Catholicism. Prior to this time they were low key and hiding out as they were being openly persecuted by all of the various Roman Emperors. Anyhow here is the article:
The Greek roots of the term "Catholic" mean "according to (kata-) the whole (holos)," or more colloquially, "universal." At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term "Catholic" in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
The term "Catholic" is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was 'universal' or 'general.' . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).
Thus people who recite the creeds mentally inserting another meaning for "Catholic" are reinterpreting them according to a modern preference, much as a liberal biblical scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.
Included in the quotes below are extracts from the first creeds to use the term "Catholic"; so that the term can be seen in its historical context, which is supplied by the other quotations. It is from this broader context that the meaning of the term in the creeds is established, not by one’s own notion of what the term once meant or of what it ought to mean.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Muratorian Canon
"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected.
. . . There [in John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another" (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).
Council of Nicaea I
"But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,’ and ‘before he was born, he was not,’ and ‘because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes" (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).
"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, ‘the Clean,’ if at any time they come to the Catholic Church, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy. However, because they are accepting and following the doctrines of the catholic and apostolic Church, it is fitting that they acknowledge this in writing before all; that is, both that they communicate with the twice married and with those who have lapsed during a persecution" (Canon
. ...
"Concerning the Paulianists who take refuge with the Catholic Church, a decree has been published that they should be fully baptized. If, however, any of these in times past have been in the clerical order, if indeed they have appeared spotless and above reproach, after being baptized, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church" (Canon 9).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description" (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).
"And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God" (ibid., 18:26).
The Apostles’ Creed
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen" (Apostles’ Creed [A.D. 360 version, the first to include the term "Catholic"]).
Council of Constantinople I
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).
"Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristeri, Quartodecimians or Tetradites, Apollinarians— these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God" (Canon 7).
Augustine
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
...
""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (ibid., 5:6).
In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Vincent of Lerins
"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: that whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine law [Scripture], and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. But here some one perhaps will ask, ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?’ For this reason: Because, owing to the depth of holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are men. . . . Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various errors, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation" (The Notebooks 2:1–2 [A.D. 434]).
Council of Chalcedon
"Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, this sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptized among heretics, they are to bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church" (Canon 14 [A.D. 451]).
I think you get the picture! The Catholic church existed from the very beginning! Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs! (Ephesians 4 3:-6) "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father". He did not establish numerous Churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which one is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament! Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the Bishops back through time, Bishop by Bishop all the way to the Apostles, and they show that the Pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome! The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take any one you wish, and you can trace it back! If you think that Catholics worship Mary, pray to statues, and claim the Pope is equal to God, then you are rejecting not Catholicism, but someone's misinterpretation of it! Protestant leaders make no effort to trace their version of Christianity back century by century! Why, because they cant! It simply does not exist! They just claim that the Christianity existing in the new testament was like todays Protestant Fundamentalism in all of its essentials. Where are the writing of the earliest Christians to prove this? They cant be found to corroborate their position because they do not exist! A widely propagated myth is that when the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in AD 313, that the Church was founded then and Pagans flocked to the Church in hopes of Secular preferences. They say that the Church compromised its beliefs and principals and became Paganized in an effort to assimilate all these new converts! They say that it developed the doctrines with which the Catholic Church is identified today. Simply put, they claim that it Apostatized and became the Catholic Church! Meanwhile so they say, true Christians did not change their beliefs but were forced to remain in hiding until the Reformation!
The trouble with this version of history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up! As I already pointed out they had no Bible to work with! All they had was the Church and sacred Tradition to guide them. Distinctively Catholic beliefs such as the Papacy, Priesthood, invocation of Saints, Sacraments, veneration of Mary, Salvation by something besides "Faith alone", purgatory, were all evident long before the fourth century, Before Constantine! They were believed by Christians before this supposed "Paganization" took place. If there were an underground Christian movement in place where are the records to prove it? The Catholic Church was underground for its first 300 years and we have plenty of historical documents that attest to this fact. There were many schisms and heresies early on. All of this is documented in Church history. If a group believed in all or even most of the doctrines put forth by the Protestant reformers eg " Sola Scriptura, Salvation by faith alone, an invisible Church, then where is the evidence? Truth be told it does not exist! There are no records because those things were never believed until later! All evidence of the first fifteen centuries of Christianity points to the Catholic Church and the Catholic church only! (Mathew 5:14) "You are the light of the world a city set on a mountain top cannot be hidden" This is the Catholic Church! Catholics were visible and being persecuted in the Roman Empire. Where are these so called original Protestant Christians? A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like (Mathew 5:15) "The candle hidden under the bushel basket". That is what the Protestants claim to be! Trouble is they can not even claim that as there is no historical record of them!
Christ came to earth and founded a Church and put a person in charge of that Church, Peter the first Pope! Scripture says (Mathew 16:18-19 "and so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Does it get any clearer than that! Peter is the first Bishop of Rome AKA the first Pope! You can literally trace back in time from the Pope that we have today all the way to Peter! If this system was not in place and understood by the Church how could we trace it all the way back to the beginning then? Don't you think that at some point in time the Church would have said hey wait a minute what are you guys doing? This is new! It is not recorded in history because it never existed! Everyone knew that the Bishop of Rome was in charge! I have actually spent the last two weeks researching all of this. If anyone is brave enough to challenge any of it I already got answers for you prepared! I was going to write it all out tonight, but why bother! I will simply wait for Bumperjack or some other brave soul to step up to the plate and then I will shoot down whatever argument that they put forth! I will offer some important bits of information though to prove to you that the early Church always respected the official position of the Bishop of Rome. Around AD 80, the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth Bishop of Rome, Pope Clement 1, was called to settle the matter even though St John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than Rome! In fact he was in Ephesus "less than 300 miles from Corinth", yet the Corinthians appealed to the Bishop of Rome, "more than 700 miles away", because he had the keys of authority! Why would they go to him if the Bishop of Rome was not in charge of the Church? You had an Apostle who was still alive and closer to them! Things that make you go Hmmm!
We need to cover something very important here! Many Protestants argue that Jesus is not building his Church on Peter by pointing out that, in the Greek text, the word used for Peter is Petros, a masculine noun, while the word used for "Rock" is petra, a feminine noun. Petros means "small stone" while "Petra" means massive rock! They claim therefore, that the "massive rock" (Petra) upon which Christ will build his Church must not refer to Peter the "small stone" (petros) but rather to Peters profession of faith or to Jesus. However Jesus spoke Aramaic, which leaves no room for the Greek petros/petra distinction. In Aramaic the word for Rock is "Kepha" What Christ said was "you are Kepha (Rock) and upon this Kepha (Rock) I will build my Church". Why does the Greek use two different words for Peter and the rock? Because the Greek word for Rock, "Petra" is feminine. it would not be appropriate to give a man a feminine name. So the translator gave "Petra" a masculine ending and rendered it "Petros" Since "Petros" was a pre existing word meaning "Small stone", some of the original word play was lost! It is crystal clear in the Aramaic though. No Church Father, including those that spoke Greek as their native tongue, ever saw a distinction between Peter and the Rock! They all taught that Peter is the rock on which Christ built his Church!
Some Protestants claim that Peter was never in Rome, so he couldn't have been the first Pope! They claim the first link is broken in the chain! In his epistle (1 Peter 5:13) He alludes directly to it though! "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son Mark". "Babylon is a code word for Rome"! This is a fact that all Biblical scholars recognize! I have before me quite a few writings of the earliest Christians that talk about him being in Rome. If it becomes necessary I will quote them here! I will say this, his Bones have been found and inscriptions have been identified there as well all identifying the place as Peters Tomb! If you want to read about it get John Evangelist Walsh's "the Bones of St Peter".
Papal infallibility is another question that we must cover! The infallibility of the Pope is certainly a Doctrine that has developed, but it is not one that sprang out of nowhere in 1870 either! We will probably have to do a post on councils, doctrine and dogma, etc soon! I? just want say before Bumperjack gets all crazy, yes understandings can develop! Is the word Trinity found in Scripture? "NO" is the answer! It is a revealed truth found in Scripture and a Dogma that was developed over time! So is Papal Infallibility! It is rooted in Scripture of course, just as the Trinity's essence is found there as well. (John 21: 15-17) "feed my sheep" (Luke 22:32) "I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail" (Matthew 16:18 "Thou art Peter , etc". Christ instructed the Church to preach the good news (Mathew 28:19-20 and promised the protection of the holy spirit (John 16:13) "To guide you into all truth". Most importantly in (1 Timothy 3:15) we find "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth". You notice it does not say Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth! This scripture promises that the Church will never fall away frpm Christ's teachings even if individual Christians may! You may Ask why was a definition only given in the year 1870? The answer is that definitions are not given out unnecessarily! If no discussion arises on a given subject and no one disputes it then there is no need for a definition! In the seventeenth century the question of the Popes doctrinal Authority came to the front. Until 1870 it was widely assumed that the Pope had these powers. No one ever questioned it because it was something always believed and followed! In 1870 a council was asked to settle the question once and for all! What does this all mean? The inability of the Church to teach error is Infallibility and it is a negative protection! It means that what is taught will not be wrong, not that the official teachers will have the wits about them to stand up to what is right when it needs to be taught! People naturally question how Infallibility could be linked to the Papal office when some of the Popes had been very poor examples in morals and Integrity? Do not confuse ?Infallibility with Impeccability! It is important to remember that no Pope in history has ever contradicted another Pope when he has taught officially about Faith and Morals! Yes, theyb have disagreed in private with each other but never officially!
I also want to point out that if you study (Acts 15: 1-21) you will find "The council of Jerusalem" or the first council of the Church! It is clear in the passages that even before all of the Apostles died, there was already a second generation of leaders exercising authority in the Church! James is one of these leaders chosen by the Apostles even though he was not one of the Apostles! These leaders are called "Elders or Bishops and are always identified separately from the Apostles. What is even more interesting is that Scripture was not used to decide the matter of do the Gentiles need to obey Mosaic Law in order to be saved? They could have quoted from the Old Testament. Instead the issue was decided on the basis of the Councils own Authority! This was done in the presence of Apostles and Church members with Authority "The Bishops"!
Yes! Bishops were leading the Church even before the end of the Apostolic period! From about 92-101, Clement 1 of Rome was acknowledged as the single Bishop of Rome, he is the same one that I just discussed above. "He is 3rd in succession from Peter" He wrote a letter proving that the Bishops are the direct successors to the Apostles! He wrote (First epistle of Clement, 44) "Our Apostles gave instructions, that when these "Bishops should fall asleep other approved men should follow them in their ministry". This all leads to the truth that the Catholic Church is the Church that was founded by Christ himself, in the beginning! If people want to debate it I could have written way more about it! Honestly I am tired! I will search internet real quickly here and try to supplement all of this with more material! Anyhow, peaceout and God bless! Silent!
