I have never met an insincere Protestant.
And if I have, either I don’t recall it or I was fooled. But as far as I can tell, every Protestant I’ve ever mingled with has truly believed with all sincerity that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ; not one has believed that the Catholic Church is indeed what she claims to be – the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Christian Church.
I believe every Protestant has chosen to “protest” because he believes that his non-Catholic tradition is true, and that the Catholic tradition isn’t. Out of reverence for the truth (as he believes it to be) he cannot go where he does not believe true religion is being taught. If he does not believe that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, he’s not going to be Catholic; and that’s fair and commonsensical.
But what if we could show our Protestant brothers and sisters that there are good reasons to believe that Catholicism is true? What if we could demonstrate that Catholicism is the truest and most complete form of biblical Christianity? If we could do that, who knows what good would come of it. Then, perhaps, the world would be less scandalized by Christian disunity and bickering; perhaps Christians could be more united on the moral and ethical fronts of society; perhaps more lives and souls would be saved; perhaps God’s will would be done.
I am certain that if Protestants saw the Catholic Church as she really is, most would enter the Catholic Church at any cost; not as a “change of denomination” but as a perfection – a completion – of the faith they’ve held previously as a non-Catholic Christian.
If the Catholic Church really is “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” and the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” then what Christian would not want to be in it (see Eph 2:20; 1 Tim 3:15). Indeed, if Christ really did establish a Church on earth as the Scriptures clearly reveal – one that “the powers of death shall not prevail against” – then where is it? This is the question that every Christian must ask; and if he seriously desires to be in it, he must not stop asking “where is it?” until he is certain he has found it.
G.K. Chesterton, a convert to Catholicism, remarked that a convert’s first step towards conversion is when he decides to be fair to the Catholic Church. Once the convert-in-the-making (who often doesn’t know he’s going to be a convert) decides to be fair to the Church, he soon becomes fond of her:
“It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment a man ceases to pull against it he feels a tug towards it. The moment he ceases to shout it down he begins to listen to it with pleasure. The moment he tries to be fair to it he begins to be fond of it.” (from Catholic Church and Conversion)
Catholicism makes sense; she is beautiful and wise. And everybody loves beauty and wisdom. Thus everybody loves the Church once she is seen for what she truly is.
How, then, can we draw our dear Protestant friends into relationship with “the whole Christ” (see CCC 795)? How can we show them that Catholicism is true? There are many ways (some of which are not intellectual in nature). But here is a way that I believe has proven itself to have great power and potential for conviction:
What exactly is it that every Protestant can’t not know? That the earliest Christian Church was Catholic, through and through.
The fact of the matter is that most Protestants just don’t know these things. I dare assume most barely think about (if at all) the historical details of the 16th century Reformation, not to mention the historical details of the, say, second century Church. The early Church is off most Protestants’ radar. But it shouldn’t be.
Discovering the writings of the early Church Fathers has been, for many converts from Protestantism, the “straw that breaks the camel’s back”. Adding fuel to the wavering Protestant’s fire – in addition to the discovery of those “elusive” biblical texts that support Catholic doctrine – are often the early Church writings as they emerge from obscurity. And there are a lot of them.
Marcus Grodi is a former Evangelical pastor, and now the founder and president of The Coming Home Network International, an organization that helps new converts make the transition (especially former non-Catholic clergy). He writes:
“Certainly an amazing majority of converts mention how reading the Early Church Fathers, either for the first time or for the first time with awareness, convinced them that the early Church was amazingly Catholic and certainly not Protestant!” (from “The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw”)
Now where’s the evidence? Are there really good sources that show the early Church was Catholic; and Catholic in the sense that we mean today? Let’s take a look.
‘Catholic’ can be said to mean “according to the whole” or “universal”. That’s what it has always meant in a Christian context. There is one Church founded by Christ, and everyone is invited to be part of it. It is the one, universal Church.
The earliest recorded use of this term is found the early second century from St. Ignatius of Antioch:
“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, 8]
St. Ignatius does not explain what “Catholic” means here. He just uses it without qualification, suggesting that it was already a familiar term in the wider Church community.
And what about the ranks in the Church conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders: bishop, priest and deacon. It’s clear that these designations existed from St. Paul’s epistles (see especially 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus and Acts). But what about the early Church writings?
Consider this passage from St. Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians in A.D. 110:
“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters [priests] in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ…” [6.1]
There was a succession of the apostles; and this succession – called apostolic succession – has continued to present day. Every bishop in the Catholic Church today has been ordained in a direct line from the original twelve apostles of Christ (see Acts 1:20) .
St. Clement of Rome, one of the Church’s first popes and a disciple of Peter the apostle, writes around A.D. 80:
“Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
An early record of the line of successive popes (and bishops of Rome), beginning with St. Peter, is provided by St. Irenaeus at the tail end of the second century (see Against Heresies 3.3.3). From the beginning, it was understood that the bishop of Rome was the “chief” bishop – the one who held “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (see Matt 16:18-20).
Here is a later excerpt from the early Church (there are earlier examples that confirm the bishop of Rome’s primacy within the college of bishops). St. Cyprian of Carthage writes in A.D. 251:
“Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair….If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4).
Now when you read the New Testament, here’s what you’ll find regarding St. Peter:
1. Every time the apostles are listed, Peter is the first to be mentioned (Matt 10:2; Luke Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:3).
2. Peter is called the chief apostle (see Matt 10:2)
3. Peter is always listed before James and John, when Jesus’ inner three is listed (Mt 17:1; Mk 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Lk 8:51; 9:28).
4. On several occasions Peter is the only name mentioned when referring to the group of disciples. St. Paul does this (1 Cor 9:5; 1 Cor 15:5). St. Luke does this (Acts 2:37), as does St. Mark (Mk 16:7).
5. Peter’s name (in the forms of Peter, Kepha and Cephas) is mentioned in the New Testament more than all of the other apostles’ names put together.
This is why the Church has remained so rock-solid through the ages. That the people of God would heed His prayer that “they may be one”, Jesus, in His infinite wisdom, built His house upon the rock (see Matt 7:25; 16:18). Peter (from “Petros” meaning rock) was given the strength to uphold the integrity of the Church (see Luke 22:32). The apostles and their successors are established guardians of the deposit of faith – fallible men with a special gift from God to help them do the job (1 Tm 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) – lead by a chief guardian who represents God as His prime minister until He returns once and for all (see Isaiah 22).
God’s Word, which the bishops protect, has been handed down both in written and oral forms to the Church (see 1 Thess 2:15; 1 Pet 1:25). The Bible was never considered the sole authority in the early Church. The Bible (1 Tim 3:16), along with Tradition (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Cor 11:2) and the teaching authority of the Church (Matt 16:18; 18:18) served as a tripod – as they do today – holding the Church steady in faith and morals.
Now what about the Mass, Sacraments, and in particular, the Eucharist? Can these key components of the Catholic faith also be found in the writings of the early Christians?
Catholics believe we are saved by grace (Eph 2:8) through faith (Rom 3:26) working in love (Gal 5:6; 1 Cor 13) and believe, along with the unanimous testimony of the early Church Fathers, that the Sacrament of Baptism is the way that initial regeneration by “saving grace” comes to the Christian. This is why babies aren’t excluded. Salvation is free; though bought at a price.
From baptism onwards, “salvation is worked out in fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12) and “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 10:22).
Our first pope writes in 1 Peter 3:21, “Baptism…now saves you.” This was the belief from the beginning: that baptism cleanses the baptized of all sin – a free gift of sanctifying grace by means of water – and as a result the baptized were born again into new life (see John 3:5).
Tertullian writes:
“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . .” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203])
But Christians are likely to commit wrongdoings again due to the wounds of previous sin. Jesus said to the apostles, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them” (John 20:21-23) so that we might experience forgiveness “in the presence of Christ” through the priests and bishops (2 Cor 2:10). This is why we have confession or the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
St. Basil the Great writes:
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374])
The Eucharist – which comes to us in the Holy Mass when bread and wine is mysteriously changes in substance but not in physical appearance to Christ’s body and blood at the blessing of the priest – was at the center of Christian worship even in the earliest stages of Christianity.
Why? Because the Eucharist is Christ (see 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; John 6:32–71 and all the Last Supper accounts).
St Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John the apostle, writes at the turn of the second century:
“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… They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
St. Justin Martyr wrote:
“We call this food Eucharist…..For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Finally, what about Mary and the saints in the early Church?
St. Ambrose, the mentor of St. Augustine, in the 4th century writes this regarding Mary who is “blessed among women”:
“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).
And Ephraim the Syrian writes in the fourth century:
“You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us so that we may love him” (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).
Final Thoughts
This post doesn’t even begin to touch all of the writings of the early Church available to us today. I’ve only provided a small sample of excerpts; but I recommend that you go and read the writings for yourself. Many of them aren’t long (although another many of them are!). If you and I hope to help our Protestant brothers and sisters see the Catholic Church as she really is, the testimony of the early Church will be indispensable in helping them arrive at that affirmation.
The goal is to lead our separated brethren to “the whole Christ”, which resides ultimately in the Eucharistic Church (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 795).
Indeed one of the greatest affirmations I’ve experienced personally in my decision to be Catholic (in addition to discovering the rich biblical basis for Catholic beliefs) has been my discovery of the writings of the early Church. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, wrote the great convert from Anglicanism, Blessed John Henry Newman. Indeed.
I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because I have every reason to believe the Catholic Church of today is the same Church founded by Christ in the first century. Along with St. Augustine and the rest of the early church Fathers:
“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
***All the early church quotations in this article were obtained from Catholic.com
———————————————————————————————————————
Recommended Reading:
The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin
The Mass Of The Early Christians by Mike Aquilina (anything by Dr. Aquilina, really)
The Apostasy That Wasn’t by Rod Bennett
Great post Matt! I thoroughly enjoyed it! And I second your recommendation of Jimmy Akin’s book, The Fathers Know Best, for those who want to dive deeper!
Thank you, Adam!
Wonderful article. I pinned it to my Catholic board on pinterest. I get many comments from Protestants on there, some are nasty and some are questions. I am glad to have the option to “pin” it. I especially like your articles because they are full of info, easy to read, and it is like you are talking to me! Thank you.
I’d also recommend “When the Church was Young” by Marcelino D’Ambrosio as an excellent introductory book to the Fathers. I love Mike Aquilina’s stuff, but Dr. D’Ambrosio’s book is just stellar.
Right on, thanks! Dr. D’Ambrosio is great – solid recommendation.
along with all of these excellent references, the best example of the Catholic Faith is the life of a Baptized Christ-ian who lives what he/she professes.
“Preach the Good News daily; if necessary, use words”!
Dear Matt,
I believe that most modern day Protestants are genuinely ignorant about the Truths of Catholicism. But there is one, [James White] which I believe has staked his career so deeply against the teachings of the Catholic Church that even he himself is too prideful to admit it. If there aren’t people who are intellectually dishonest then there wouldn’t be such a thing as heretics. Which I firmly believe can only be a person who clearly understands the full Truth and walk away from it. Which is why most modern day Protestants would not qualify as heretics these days. But despite certain efforts to reveal truth, which I have personally done calmly and logically to many who oppose the Faith, I have found with certainty that the Holy Spirit must be the one who touches their hearts, opens their eyes etc. I could lay everything out clear as day with a genuine Protestant who will turn around, lose their charitable smile and condemn me to Hell. This side of apologetics has drained me, because it has happened so many times. It seems like they may be blind when things are clearly obvious but really, it has to be a call to your heart from God, then the pieces fall into place.
Excellent! We are a former Assemblies of God family (my husband was a pastor) and converted 11 years ago ~ just as you wrote. Looking forward to reading more here.
Warmly,
Ken and Allison
PS ~ Here’s our conversion story (http://northerncffamily.blogspot.com/p/catholic-conversion-story.html).
Hi Allison – that’s fantastic! Thank you for reading – and stay in touch. (and I’ll be sure to check out your conversion story soon!)
I have been fair to the Catholic Church and to Catholics for years, but feel no attraction to her.
Hello Matt, I appreciate the graceful manner in which you treat us Protestants (Though I have some trouble with that term, I still use it), and your concern for us. But with all due respect, Matt, I can refute every line of argumentation in this article and they have been contested by scholars and historians of Protestants even in the 1800’s and 1500’s like William Whitaker and William Goode. I am a Reformed-Baptists by strong conviction and I have studied Patristics and Biblical exegesis on a scholarly level. I would be interested in interacting with you.
Sure, Chris. Fire me an email via the “Contact” option above and I’ll do my best to respond. Thanks for reading!
Hi Chris
I would like to know what refutations to the article exist. I am Protestant who was born Catholic. I still believe there are sincere Catholics but I believe the “Catholic” system has tended to harmfulness. I believe the Church has authority only when she is under submission to the head who is Christ. I am happy to receive correction should I be mistaken.
People choose not to worry over the fact. That although the Catholic Church had it’s hand in the early Period of Christianity,it has a cookie cutter approach to it’s methods. I can attest to a lot of rude brethren at a mass. leaving you feeling you have regressed as a person. Hollow,hungry and unworthy. To draw from Catholicism without Protesting it,You see the transparencies Fairly. Why complicate Christ with a menagerie of dictum? Education can enlighten but not save. To introvert the Crucifixion and the blood stone of the Catholic Church can be a spiritual freedom gained away from the hegemony of the Catholic foundation. feeling it’s vindicated spirit is enough to deter any believer.
Can you please explain everything you wrote. It makes no sense to me and I have a graduate degree with 75 years of living.
Very well written! Thank you, and God bless you!
…well presented…I am very proud of my Catholic faith… God bless us all…
Great job Matt. I’m proud to be a Catholic and a Catholic Priest.
I had to publish this article on my Catholic blog (www.joelokojie.org) to spread it among my readers. Thanks.
I earnestly admire you passion for your understanding of the Church and Church History. If only it were as simple as you present it.
The early Church Fathers used the term ‘catholic’ in its true and literal meaning–universal, world-wide. They write about the ‘Catholic Church’ (capitalization added in translation, I might add).Yes, the Church has always been catholic in that sense…has always been open to all people of all races and nations…and, indeed, spans the globe. Yet, you’re a bit ingenuous in suggesting that when they refer to the ‘Catholic Church’ that they were in fact referring to the Roman Catholic Church. The very presence of the adjective ‘Roman’ nullifies the following adjective ‘Catholic’. The Church cannot be both universal, world-wide and merely Roman. I believe ‘oxymoron’ is the phrase that applies best here.
Jesus founded the Church when he walked the earth in 1st Century Judea…among a group of Jews. That was the beginning of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. I hope I’d not need to walk you through the next 500 years of Church History to show exactly how the various bishoprics grew, gained strength, etc. Rome’s bishopric gained the eye of the emperor…and the Roman Church came to the fore…spatted with other bishoprics…and the East/West (Great) Schism happened around AD500 resulting in what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Even so , the Church remains Catholic–one Body, many members–and God’s Spirit obviously continues to work through all the members. So, my response is not to condemn Roman Catholics–I know my RC brothers and sisters are every much a part of the one Church as are my Anglican, Orthodox and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. The RCC has MUCH to offer. But to insist she is the one and only is like insisting that the Jerusalem Church in the New Testament is superior to the Church at Galatia or Corinth or Ephesus.
Even so, I–a ‘Protestant’–continue to read your pieces with great interest. Keep ’em coming, my brother.
Hear, hear.
Hi Jon. I always enjoy reading your comments – and I am especially thankful for your ongoing support here at ReasonableCatholic.com.
I am curious: where in the article do I say that by “Catholic Church” I mean Roman Catholic Church? This post was not a defense of Roman Catholicism – it was a defense of Catholicism. I am a member of the Roman church – that is, the Roman rite – of the greater Catholic Church. But I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church is any more Catholic than, say, the Maronite Catholic Church.
With that understood, where is your objection? I would not dispute that various bishoprics grew in strength through the centuries, etc. Neither would I dispute that Rome’s presence in the Church became gradual but – as the First Letter of Clement of Rome or the Shepherd of Hermas suggest, for example – the Roman bishopric always had universal jurisdiction (not to say that other bishops failed at times to turn to Rome to resolve issues when they should have).
This article was meant to show that the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is consistent with the early Church Fathers understanding of Christian doctrine. I think it makes a good case – and I’d love to see a Protestant version doing the same thing proving distinctly “Protestant” doctrines while disproving Catholic doctrines from the early Church. I don’t think it can be done.
Great article.
as a protestant, i didn’t realise that transubstantiation was believed as early as your quotes show.
I would say there are a few things that may or may not be part of catholic teaching that restrict me from joining the local catholic church.
1. praying to mary and the saints. I regard jesus as the ONE mediator between god and man, and can’t see a biblical precedent for praying to anyone other than the father, or jesus himself.
2. the idea that mary was sinless. she obviously was righteous as God chose her to be the vessel of christ.
3.i can’t see biblical evidence for purgatory
would loved to be challenged by biblical evidence for these things 🙂 thanks
Hi Sarah, so glad you left this comment! Let me first say that if you’d like to discuss these questions in private you are welcome to email me at my personal email – just go through the ‘Contact’ page above.
1. In regards to praying to Mary and the Saints, we recognize that praying for one another is an act of love. God allows us to do it in this life – why wouldn’t he allow us to pray for others while perfected in love in heaven? Why not go straight to Jesus? We often do – and should. When your friends ask you to pray for them why don’t you tell them to go straight to Jesus instead? It’s because you know Christ has made it possible for us to participate in his mediation (Heb 7:25). Remember James 5:16 – the prayer of a righteous man is great in its effects and those in heaven are perfected in righteousness (Heb 12:23). So we ask the angels and saints to pray for us as we are all of one body in Christ (Rom 12; 1 Cor 12) and cannot be separated even by death (Rom 8). For explicit biblical evidence of the saints and angels praying for Christians on earth see Rev 5:8 and Rev 8:3-4.
2. That Mary was sinless is evident though not explicit in Gabriel’s address to her as “full of grace”. “Highly favored one” is not as direct of a translation from Luke’s original Greek. Also, recall that the Ark of the Covenant in the old Testament was made of the purest gold and incorruptible acacia wood. The early Church Fathers called Mary the New Ark of the Covenant because she to was a pure vessel that carried the Word of God – read Luke 1:39-45 alongside 2 Samuel 6:1-15. It is clear that Luke is drawing a comparison between Mary and the ark (see this article for more (http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant)
3. Purgatory is not a Catholic invention like many imagine. The Jews believed in it first. It is the final process of cleansing after death; because “nothing impure shall enter” heaven (see Rev 21:27). Why shouldn’t Jesus do this? It’s just one more act of mercy and grace. It might be instantaneous or it might be over a duration of time. Purgatory changes nothing about the Gospel for it occurs after a person’s judgement and anyone who experiences purgatory has already been saved and will definitely enter heaven. For scriptural allusions to Purgatory see 1 Cor 3:15 (and prior verses), Matthew 5:25 (and prior verses) and Matt 12:32.
Like I said, email me if you have more question, objections or need any clarifications! Happy to help.
Recently, I was skimming a Catholic evangelism article online that popped up on Facebook titled, What every Protestant Can’t Not Know by Matt Nelson. While well written and supported extensively, unfortunately Matt, you lost me at, “…Protestant”. Isn’t calling fellow ‘brothers and sisters’ in Christ “Protestant” like calling a Native-American an “Indian” or Native-Alaskan an “Eskimo” these days? I am confused by the Catholic branded term but not in the way that you think. To me, Protestantism is not a term that defines a group of misguided believers in Jesus but rather an oblique, adumbrate of a Catholic defined Christian Church. I don’t know of any Catholic described “Protestants” who view themselves as in “protest” of anything religious or Catholic. It’s a Catholic worldview, not a non-Catholic world view. What I am is a “Believer in Christ” with the mission to, “…glorify God by helping all people—of all ages, all the time—advance in their journey with Christ.” My allegiance is solely to Christ Jesus, the Son of God, and not to the head of any religious system built around the Early Church and buttressed by an ancient Roman Empire in His name or any other.
In the 1990’s, I began to challenge the strength of my learned religious Faith to determine what I truly believed on my own, questioning and researching everything I had learned in my youth with a veracious fervor. My goal was to smelt, purify and galvanize my beliefs for the rest of my life where ever they may take me. I openly considered what other faith traditions had to offer, their doctrine, theology, history and influences. I spent a considerable amount of time learning about Catholicism and found some very interesting things that gave me a considerable amount of pause as a believer in Christ. For the sake of brevity, I will highlight the areas that fortified my non-Catholic, Christian views, NOT anti-Catholic to be very clear, brother.
The “Universal” Church with Religious Orders and Rites vs. Evangelical Denominations – While Catholicism touts the universal nature of the church in its singular interpretation of the scriptures, there are several Catholic divisions, Orders and Rites, that allow autonomy in some way set apart in accordance with their specific religious devotion, usually characterized by the principles of its founder’s religious practice. This practice is similar in nature to Evangelical Denominations. The primary difference being whether a single provincial jurisdiction approves of the division or not. How universal is “universal”, honestly?
The Whole Community or Universal origin – The people of Israel in the Old Testament called themselves collectively (depending on your English translation) “the whole community” [Exodus 12:3, 12:47, 16:2, 16:9, Lev 4:13, etc. in addition to many other verses] when referred to as a collective group of God’s people. The Early Church as you mention was also referred to as, “according to the whole [community]” or also translated as “universal”. Both Jewish and Christian references show a continuity of common meaning in the meaning of Universal that transcended from a Jewish to Christian tradition simply meaning “God’s people”. In other words, the Catholics did not coin the phrase “Universal” which Catholics use to claim an exclusive license to the entire, exclusively Catholic, Christian church. Catholics are part OF the “whole [church] community”, not THE entire church community if we all believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, regardless of our traditional expressions.
Apostolic Succession – Catholics claim the Catholic church was started by Peter’s Apostolic Succession, centralizing Catholic authority from Peter to each of his Papal successors in Rome. However, the canons of the Early Church Councils point to an equal provincial authority split between bishops in Jerusalem and Antioch in the East and Rome in the West as of 343 A.D. with no centralized bishop documented controlling ALL of the early church. During the Council of Nicea there was no Pope to mediate which is why the Roman Emperor Constantine mediated to successfully negotiate canons between the Eastern and Western Bishop Councils, who rarely agreed on matters. One example of a Papal power vacuum was a dubiouse change in the Nicene Canon V at the Council of Serdica during an Eastern Bishop Council boycott. The Western Bishop Council controlled by Rome voted in their absence to change the appeals process for excommunicated bishops from an equal provincial jurisdiction between Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome into one controlled solely by the bishop of Rome. This not only reflected the struggle over the balance of power between eastern and western Christian provinces but demonstrated that there was no central authoritative figure like a Pope to override or preside over any fully represented council. The truth is control over the church incrementally centralized in Rome starting approximately 300 years after Christ. If the Catholic Pope had full authority as claimed, where was he in Nice and Serdica for example?
Nicene Canon V, “…we decree that in every province councils shall be held twice a year, so that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, all such questions may be thoroughly examined by them. In this way, everyone can see how those who have confessedly offended their bishop have been justly excommunicated, unless it shall seem fit to the general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them.”
Serdica- Nicene Canon V, “…And if any one require that his case be
heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to
send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as
he judges it to be good and decides it to be right…”
Why did the Catholic Pope not already have such powers as claimed by Catholics from Peter at the beginning through the first 300 years, despite being ‘underground’? The list of Catholic Popes claimed to be sovereign through Apostolic Succession is in fact the list of bishops of Rome (much like the list of bishops of Jerusalem and bishops of Antioch while they lasted) in some form or another after Peter but the list itself does not prove the level of authority each had after Peter, considering the canons from multiple early church councils suggest otherwise.
The Rome-centric Church – Why is it so important that Rome is the only location the successor to Peter is physically located, considering there were many more places where bishops lived, not to mention, relatively safer places at least for the first 300-400 years?
Pope Linus who? – The second Pope in the list of Roman Popes is St. Linus. The New Testament was canonized after St. Linus was bishop of Rome, according to Catholics, so he should have shared in as many Biblical references as Peter if his authority was going to be equally sovereign as Catholics claim. The only reference to Linus found anywhere in the Bible is 2 Timothy 4:21 “21 Do your best to get here before winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers.” Linus doesn’t sound like a Pope or high priest here or even a very important ‘apostle-to be’ in his only reference in the Bible while working with Peter. Why wasn’t one of the more popular or often mentioned apostles in the Bible the next Pope after Peter such as Paul? That is more logical. Well intentioned Catholics like Matt often refer to Bible reference sequence or quantity for Peter to justify him as the first Pope rather than authoritative references like one for parents such as, “…children, obey your Father and Mother…” or when talking about the Eucharist. But when it comes to the second Pope Linus, why is the same Bible reference standards not applied to Linus as to Peter since they were likely together spreading the Gospel before the New Testament was written?
The Eucharist – Catholics claim that John 6:51-56 refers to a literal meaning by Jesus to ‘eat his flesh and drink is blood’ as later fulfilled in principle during the Last Supper. In Genesis 9:4-5, God says, 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.” Jesus also said in John 2:19-22, 19 “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days. 20 They replied, It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days? 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.” Now, go back to John 6:60 and read further. Jesus sees that he has made everyone very angry (they don’t understand what He was actually saying yet) so after everyone else leaves, he talked to His disciples. 60 “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?'” All Jews knew this statement appeared to be blasphemy due to Genesis 9. 61 “Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you?'” This is the cool part. Jesus lets them off the hook. He explains that he was speaking figuratively about things in the spirit realm, not the physical realm. 62 “What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” It becomes clear that he didn’t really mean literally “physical” ‘flesh and blood’ because that IS blasphemy. Jesus explains what he meant, “the flesh counts for nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit.” He is clearly describing that His spiritual flesh and blood are real, which represents our belief in His resurrection (yet to come at that time) where the true power lies and the actual miracle resides.
Mary, mother of Jesus – Catholics claim that Mary is the ‘Queen of Heaven’ because she gave birth to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Per Wikipedia, “Queen of Heaven was a title given to a number of ancient sky goddesses in the ancient Mediterranean and Near East, in particular Anat, Isis, Innana, Astarte, Hera and possibly Asherah (by the prophet Jeremiah).” All of these goddesses were derivatives of Semiramis, Nimrod’s wife. Nimrod was the great-grandson of Noah and associated with the Tower of Babel and had a reputation as a king who was rebellious against God. After the death of Nimrod, Semiramis had a child that she claimed was Nimrod reborn as the ‘sun god’ called Ba’al, which became the template for paganism that spread into all known civilizations throughout world history. Jeremiah 44 spends the entire chapter describing in no uncertain terms the disaster beholden to the Jews due to Idolatry, namely, to the “Queen of Heaven”. 24 “Then Jeremiah said to all the people, including the women, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, all you people of Judah in Egypt. 25 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You and your wives have done what you said you would do when you promised, ‘We will certainly carry out the vows we made to burn incense and pour out drink offerings to the Queen of Heaven.’“Go ahead then, do what you promised! Keep your vows! 26 But hear the word of the Lord, all you Jews living in Egypt: ‘I swear by my great name,’ says the Lord, ‘that no one from Judah living anywhere in Egypt will ever again invoke my name or swear, “As surely as the Sovereign Lord lives.” 27 For I am watching over them for harm, not for good; the Jews in Egypt will perish by sword and famine until they are all destroyed. 28 Those who escape the sword and return to the land of Judah from Egypt will be very few. Then the whole remnant of Judah who came to live in Egypt will know whose word will stand—mine or theirs.” Catholics claim Mary is the REAL Queen of Heaven while ancient references that were pagan by the same name are completely unrelated. How convenient.
I have already read many Catholic counter-arguments to every point previously mentioned so there is no need to replay them here; however, I challenge you or whoever reads this to simply unhinge worship of religion and instead worship our Lord, regardless of Catholic, Orthodox or Evangelical traditions.
Peace brothers and sisters.
Thank you for the thoughtful commentary, Chad. Keep searching, brother. God bless.
The problem with the references to the church fathers is that that with respect to their (supposed) writings there is disagreement among experts concerning their date or for some even concerning their authenticity. As far as I can see the only writing of a church father about which there is a general agreement that it was written before 150 AD is First Clement. As for this writing nowhere does the name Clement appear, and the author does not call himself a bishop, let alone a bishop appointed by the apostle Peter. Peter is mentioned in the writing, but not as a bishop of Rome. From the fact that neither in Acts nor in Romans Peter is mentioned as staying in Rome one can draw the conclusion that he never was there. As for 1 Peter 5:13 the “Babylon” mentioned there is often interpreted as a code name for Rome, but it could just as well refer to Jerusalem as to Rome. As for this view a number of arguments can be put forward. First, according to 1 Peter 2:13-14 the apostle Peter acknowledged the Roman government authorities. Therefore, it seems questionable to me that in the same letter he would refer to the capital Rome as to “Babylon”, thereby regarding the Roman Empire as being ripe for God’s judgement. Second, according to Galatians 2:7-9 Peter was regarded as “an apostle to the Jews” (NIV), who, at least around 50 AD, lived in Jerusalem. Third, if Jerusalem could be called “Sodom” (Isaiah 1:10, Revelation 11:8), “Gomorrha” (Isaiah 1:10), and “Egypt” (Revelation 11:8) it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that it could also be called “Babylon”. Moreover, Justin Martyr, writing around the middle of the second century, points to the stay of Simon mentioned in Acts 8:9-24 in Rome, but seems to know nothing of a stay of Simon’s contemporary Peter in that city.
As for your quotes concerning Mary it is interesting that they all date from the 4th century. Obviously one cannot find references written down before that century.
Coming back to the disagreement among experts concerning the date or even the authenticity of writings attributed to church fathers the following quote concerning the Ignatian letters is very informative:
“Some years ago a debate exploded between these scholars who accepted the traditional view that Ignatius should be dated at the time of the emperor Trajan, and those who argued that the letters were in fact pseudonymous and should be dated to the 160s or the 170s. Reinhard M. Hübner has argued that the epistles were written in the name of Ignatius by a follower of Noetus of Smyrna around the years 165-175 C. E. in order to combat the growing threat of Gnosticism. In a similar vein Thomas Lechner has claimed that the Ignatian corpus was written in this period as a direct response to the heretical notions of Valentinus.”
David C. Sim, “Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of Matthew: Methods, Sources, and Possible Results”, in: Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg (eds.), Matthew, James, and Didache: Three related documents in their Jewish and Christian settings, Atlanta 2008, p. 17.
Did Irenaeus teach that the church in Rome is the leading church and that all other churches have to follow it and its bishop? According to the Classical philologist Otto Zwierlein this is not the case. On p. 145 of his book “Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse” (Berlin and New York 2009) he translates the respective passage from Irenaeus’s work Against Heresies (3:3:2) as follows:
“For with this church, on account of its superior authority [or antiquity], it is [legally or practically] necessary for the whole church [or every church] to agree [or come together], that is those on every place who are of the faith; it is in this [i.e. either the Roman church, or the whole church] that the tradition which comes from the Apostles is preserved by those who are on every place.”
On pp. 145-146 Zwierlein paraphrases the passage as follows: “As the church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul it is compared to the other churches of a superior origin (“potentior principalitas”). Consequently, it cannot but be that the Apostolic tradition concerning faith and doctrine that has been preserved by the faithful in the whole world is in agreement with the tradition concerning faith and doctrine in the church in Rome whose orthodoxy is warranted by its being founded by these apostles and by the succession of bishops down to the present day. Therefore it suffices to measure the teaching of the heretics against the Apostolic tradition in the church of Rome.”
As Zwierlein points out on p. 146 according to Irenaeus this tradition can also be found in the churches of Smyrna and of Ephesus (Against Heresies 3:3:4), as these churches, according to Irenaeus, also were founded by apostles, the former by John, the latter by Paul. So, the idea is that every church that was founded by an apostle is a church whose orthodoxy is warranted by its being founded by an apostle and by the succession of bishops down to the present day and not just Rome.
Zwierlein’s book mentioned above can be read in the following link:
https://de.scribd.com/doc/219580350/Otto-Zwierlein-Petrus-in-Rom-Die-Literarischen-Zeugnisse-Mit-Einer-Kritischen-Edition-Der-Martyrien-Des-Petrus-Und-Paulus-Auf-Neuer-Handschriftlicher
On p. 141 Zwierlein takes the view that Irenaeus got the idea that the church in Rome was founded by the the apostles Peter and Paul from a text written by Dionysius of Corinth around 170 AD. On pp. 156-162 Zwierlein deals with the list of bishops of Rome Irenaeus presents in Against Heresies. With respect to the nine men following Peter as bishops, namely Linus, Anencletus, Clemens, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, and Pius, Zwierlein casts doubt on the historical reliability of the list. As for Peter, Zwierlein argues that he was never in Rome. An overview of his respective arguments can be read in the following link:
https://www.philologie.uni-bonn.de/philologie/personal/zwierlein/st_peter_in_rome.pdf
As for the status of bishops in early Christianity and in this connection the status of the bishop of Rome in particular and what Irenaeus’s point of view concerning it was Zwierlein describes it in the link mentioned before as follows:
“The early church was not organized centralistically. It was the community of the faithful, in which presbyters, deacons, and episkopoi served various functions. The monoepiscopacy developed in the late 2nd c. in the fight directed primarily against the gnostic movements. All the bishops of the Christian communities comprising the entire oikumene saw themselves as successors to the apostles on whom the Holy Spirit had been poured out indiscriminately at the feast of Pentecost (cf. Zw. 2009/10, 142. 146 fn. 43). The primacy of the bishop of Rome is due to historical reasons, it took time to develop and took on the form of an absolutistic monarchy, which it still has today, by adopting the Roman imperial law in the High Middle Ages. In sharp contrast to this, Polycarp of Smyrna, e.g., negotiated with ‘bishop’ Anicetus about the date of Easter in Rome around 154 AD as a representative of the Asian rite of equal rank. Both presbyters invoked their respective traditions. Although they could not agree on a unanimous solution, they celebrated the Eucharist in the same church and parted in peace. Still in the last decade of the 2nd c., bishop Victor of Rome, presiding over a synod in Rome, was unsuccessful when, in a public letter, he arrogantly tried to declare all the congregations of Asia Minor outside the community of the Church since they insisted on their date of Easter. The bishops of Asia Minor were not impressed by his threats, invoking their own apostolic tradition, and bishop Irenaeus sided with them in the name of the church of Gallia. Fundamental points of dispute such as this were not decided by authoritarian decree in Rome, but cooperatively by mutual agreement of the various regional episcopal synods (in Palestine, Asia Minor, Pontus, Gallia, Osrhoene [Mesopotamia], Rome) and in direct contact with other individual bishops. Despite the regional differences – as Irenaeus looking back tells us – the various congregations lived in peace with each other. For example, as for the question of fasting before Easter they followed the principle that the differences in fasting lay the foundations for the unity in faith.”
I concur. To further ‘the idea that every church that was founded by an apostle is a church whose orthodoxy is warranted by its being founded by an apostle and by the succession of bishops down to the present day and not just Rome’…The Coptic Church predates all Christian churches still in existence today, including the Catholic Church. Mark clearly founded the Church of Alexandria in Egypt circa. 42 A.D., which is known today as the Christian Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt. It is not certain when exactly Peter visited Rome, if he visited Rome at all. It is certainly not clear when Peter started the church in Rome even though it was just as likely started by Paul. However, if any date can be generously asserted, it would be at the end of Peter’s life, circa 60 A.D. when Paul was certainly there – approximately 4 years before they were martyred.
I would remove a comment just to prevent judgement based on a hypothesis. but to me it seems as the state has created a mold perhaps not originally intentioned. Had the big bang theory been a possibility.and people formed. what lessons are taught can be pasteurized to the point of human belief. To be an organized contributor to a blossoming world. The human condition is miraculous and fragile. A redemption could have manifest. It the views from scriptures are timepieces. Ones own viewpoints can be contained within or in public view. We are all accountable to our human activity. Living by any set of codes designed to enrich or honor human conduct can always be important. I was rebaptized to something exotic,and consider this a political designation. Human agreement will bring forth guidelines. transparencies of faith, but trust in you keeper. My Guardian Angel. She is the messenger of truth. As Baptism will have it’s place. Scott “working for god” . living for God.
[…] What Every Protestant Can’t Not Know […]
Becoming ‘catholic’ is indeed the fulfilment of my formerly protestant faith and so I agree with so much of what you said. However, I found the reformed V2 mass is quite a disappointment (and I’m not Latin traditionalist) and quite a mismatch with the RC claim to be ancient and traditional. So I accept the majority of your argument but found its fullness in Orthodoxy which has better preserved her liturgical traditions imho. Orthodox Christianity is truly Catholic and Apostolic with a liturgy that is both deeply worshipful and truly traditional.