Some of the greatest Protestant minds of the last 50 years have, at the peaks of their intellectual careers, converted to Roman Catholicism. Respect for those leaders has led me to spend months reading about their motivations for converting and to pursue extended conversations with Roman Catholic theologians to understand them better. Many converts have written prolifically about their rationale. But now that the Catholics Come Home ad blitz is heating up, I feel like this would be a good time to explain why some Christians will not be "returning home" in the year 2012, our great respect for the RC tradition notwithstanding.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out so many years ago, the essential difference between Catholics and Protestants is not some issue of doctrine, or our understanding of the Eucharist. In a letter to a Catholic, he once wrote: "We disagree about nothing more than the authority of the Pope: on which disagreement almost all the others depend."
And in another: "The real reason I cannot be in communion with you is ... that to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces."
Though Protestants (especially evangelicals) like to think that the disagreement boils down to doctrine, Catholics don't recognize their right to argue from Scripture, so debating theology won't do. And though Catholics think the issue boils down to the validity of their sacraments, they're not willing to actually debate that topic because they won't concede that anyone else can consider the question with them. The result, in both cases, is frustrating circularity.
No, as with the Christian faith itself, the issue is historical. Did Peter single-handedly found or assume control over the early Roman church with the idea that he was Christ's successor and that the Church he was establishing would be the global epicenter of Christianity until the end of time? The answer to that question will determine virtually all else.
Pius X said "a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord." The catechism states that as "Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the church." Is that the most plausible historical explanation of what happened? I do believe there are many millions of people in the Roman Communion who are Christians, but I am not convinced that all Christians need be in the Roman Communion. In summary form, here are the reasons their telling of the story seems less plausible than the alternative.
Three Major Defeaters for the Papacy
Note: a defeater is a belief which, if true, necessarily invalidates some other belief (e.g. "Jesus was not raised from the dead" is a defeater for Christianity). These "defeaters" take aim at papal history.
- In virtually all the early citations used to say that Peter led the church in Rome, Paul is listed as co-leader of the church (cf. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius). We should not be surprised at this. In all three letters to his disciples, Paul prescribes that there be multiple bishops (episkopoi) in every congregation. The church fathers testify to the same. This apostolically prescribed model, especially as history records it in Rome, is different from what papal historians might lead us to believe.
- Even though the founding of the papacy (if historical) would be the second most important event in all of history (after the Christ event itself), it has no place in the apostolic preaching (in Acts) or even in the writings of the apostolic fathers. The good news, if the papal narrative holds true, would have to be that Christ has come and that, in Peter, Christ remains. But there is not a trace or hint of this Petrine emphasis in the apostolic preaching. Nowhere do we hear it preached that "a human representative of Christ on earth will graciously continue on as Christ directs him." How could such a monumental component of the story be left out if in fact it was truly a part of the story?
- The medieval schism and Council of Constance not only severed what link there might have been to Petrine succession but, in fact, ground the true authority of all churches in Jesus Christ alone. In the papacy's darkest hour, the line of leaders which (is supposed to have) descended from Peter himself was broken, and the leaders of the church announced in their resolution to the schism that "everyone is subject to this ruling, even the pope. We draw our authority from Jesus Christ Himself." This is, in its essence, a Protestant understanding of authority, and it undercuts the whole Petrine office.
Six Secondary Defeaters
Let me handle these in chronological order.
- Peter did not seem to understand himself as the leader of the early church. He referred to himself as a "fellow elder" and was corrected and rebuked -- even after the ascension -- by other apostles.
- In Paul's Epistle to the Roman Church, the one primary early document we have about that all-important congregation, the names of 25 different people there are mentioned, but Peter's is not among them.
- The New Testament is concerned with "succession," but its emphasis is not on the succession of a group of people but on the succession of the message of the Gospel. In fact, Christ says "Don't call yourself rabbi; don't call yourself first; don't say you're Abraham's sons." So a ramping up of personal and individual importance seems not only surprising but antithetical to the "Jesus is better" emphasis of the NT.
- The documents most often used to bolster the papacy's historical case stem almost entirely from a sudden and suspicious increase in evidence in the fourth century, an increase which correlates directly to the shift of the capitol from Rome to Constantinople and the need of Rome to redefine and re-defend its own importance.
- As late as the year 189, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon wrote a candid and unequivocal rebuke to the bishop of Rome regarding the Paschal controversy. It seems unlikely he would do such a thing if he thought he was writing to the sole vicar of Christ on earth.
- Even though I see the administrative attraction of a strongly hierarchial style of church governance, I do not see it in New Testament apostolic practice. It's not the way Paul operated in handling controversy, and it's not the way Peter addressed himself either. Exhortation and prayer, not episcopacy and presbyteries, seemed to be the apostles' means of exerting their leadership.
Each of these points has been presented in summary form, but I hope they will be food for thought and fodder for discussion between Christians both inside and outside of the Roman communion. Come Lord Jesus!
Follow Ben Stevens on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/benwstevens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Churches_claiming_apostolic_succession
So even if one is persuaded by the article's arguments that Peter isn't unique, there is still an ancient Christian consensus that one should be connected to one of the apostles.
I think that it would be better for you to see things as a "both/and" versus "either/or." Yes, Apostolic succession is important (when debating the gnostics & heretics the Early Church Fathers often pointed back to it- 3 examples are St. Ireneaus, Tertullian, and St. Vincent of Lerins)...
But also Peter was unique as the NT and early Church testifies to. The Greek Father St. John Cyrysostom called him the head of the choir, for example.
To quote St. Cyprian of Carthage:
"Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair..."
Source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
Still St. Ireneaus and Tertullian are two prime examples of harkening back to Apostolic Tradition in order to discover the true Christian teaching.
To quote the late J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant scholar who studied the early Church regarding the Early Church Fathers:
"'the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth'"
source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession
"
2. I'm not sure how you'd characterize my position as "either/or" and yours as "both/and". You seem to be saying Peter alone was the head of the Church and I'm trying to suggest that the different ancient Churches looked back to different apostles, not necessarily Peter.
3. I think I'd agree that the Biblical gospels seem to give a special role to Peter. (in his initial confession and then in the triple reinstatement after the resurrection) But later on in Acts when the dispute arises between Peter and Paul over circumcision it is James as the head of the Jerusalem Church who serves as arbiter. And there are at least one or two other events in the book of Acts where it doesn't read as if everybody was just assuming Peter was totally in charge.
Also your's and other's argument that there was no singular bishop in Rome is refuted by St. Ireneaus:
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate... To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm)
Yes he says Peter & Paul but Tradition is clear that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and even if Paul was (he was not) you still see singular succession.
This three tiered hierarchy with the monarchical bishop is clerly spelled out over and over again in the Letters of St. Igantius of Antioch writing around 110 A.D.
Peter's Roman Residency and that he was the first bishop of Rome:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency
"'If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger'"
source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i
This begs the question of why the Roman Church thought they could intervene all the way over in Corinth (and why the Corinthians wrote for their help..see the first part of the letter) especially when at that time St. John was living in Ephesus.
And in a letter of Firmillian to St. Cyprian of Carthage, where Firmillian complains about Pope St. Stephen around 250 A.D.:
"'[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter' (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253])."
source: Ibid.
continued...
Clement speaks with force, so what? There are many writers who use equal force such as the epistle if Ignatius to Polycarp and yet nobody uses that as defense of the papacy.
Also you bring up the apostle John, in doing that a faulty assertion is being made unless you can respond to each of the following proof requests.
One must prove that disputes were handled by John in other situations before you can say he should have handled this.
One must prove when the letter was written.
Not theory. PROVE
They must prove that John was not on Patmos when it was written, unless you think he was getting his mail at that time.
They must PROVE when John died.
We already know from Holy Scripture though that people wrote letters to people outside their jurisdiction.
As to your comment on Cyprian, Cyprian did believe in a primacy of Peter, but look it’s as chronological and symbolic, not jurisdictional…
At the 7th council of Carthage' Cyprian denied that there's any Pope.
For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another." – (The Seventh Council of Carthage.)
Clement's quote shows that he understood his prerogative as bishop of Rome; as did Victor, Stephen and all the Popes we have on Record from the 1st century until Benedict XVI.
Perhaps you can quote me where Ignatius uses similar wording as Clement? Also, the Corinthians had appealed to Rome and Rome responded - this is not the case with Ignatius & Polycarp as Ignatius writes exhorting churches (and Polycarp) on his way to his martyrdom. His tone is different in his 7 letters. For example, in his letter to the Romans he says:
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man..."
source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm
I also point out that he refers to the Roman Church as one which "presides" and has "taught others"
continued...
Your assertions:
-I don't have prove John settled other disputes as it should be obvious that an Apostle has authority given to him by Christ (see Mathew 18, and John 20)
-Prove when the letter was written? You can see the scholarly consensus otherwise, I hope you are as skeptical of all other writings and apply the same standard as you are applying here?
-John on Patmos? My argument doesn't hinge on John. You must explain why the Corinthians appealed to Rome. Tradition tells us when John died, as it does when and how the other Apostles did. But like I said we can throw out the John argument if you want and you have not solved the problem.
continued...
There is no historical verification for Jesus or Peter ever being made the head of a church. Yet, it is presented here as fact.
Thanks so much for reading. Your questions are a bit unclear. Please help me understand them better and I'll try to respond.
As for the historical piece, non-Christians like Josephus and Tacitus reported about Jesus, as did the Babylonian Talmud. Are you suggesting a plausibility structure under which those writers would have a motive to report on his existence itself if it were not true?
Thanks again!
Salvation depends upon scholarship? A notion that some find curious, others repellent.
You're right to note that the early writers often spoke of a plurality of elders, not one specific authority. You see that all over Clement's writings.
Simon
Number 1 could easily speak to the humility of Peter
"2) How could such a monumental component of the story be left out if in fact it was truly a part of the story?"
Number 2 is kind of silly - Scripture doesn't formally describe all kinds of things, including the exact nature of the divinity of Christ. It took six ecumenical councils to hammer out Christ's divinity. Using your logic, we would have to deny that Christ is fully God and fully man according to the ecumenical formulations, since we can hardly imagine something that important might be left out.
It's equally likely that no one talked about Petrine authority early on because no one ever dreamed it could be questioned.
3) is as bad as two. The Council of Constance? Really? That's the best you could come up with? The Roman Pontiff resigned in order and commissioned the Council to choose his successor. That's perfectly legitimate. The Pope has the right to resign, and the Pope defines how his successor is to be chosen. The two anti-popes had all support cut out from them by the Council, then the Council elected the successor. The Council's position on conciliar supremacy was Protestant, no doubt, but the line of Peter was preserved throughout that particularly bad bout of anti-popes, so there's no "defeater" in that argument on papal supremacy.
Thanks for interacting with the piece!
1) It could speak to the humility of Peter, but humility is not mutually exclusive of authority. After washing the disciples' feet, Jesus says (in John 13) "You have called me teacher and Lord, and rightly so, for that is what I am." My point here is that, while he may have washed their feet in humility, Peter never assumed the posture of exclusive authority which the papal office would have given him.
2) Here's the key: Jesus' divinity, the nature of the Trinity, and the other things about which Jesus taught get "hammered out" in those councils, but Jesus himself described them in no small detail himself. Conversely, neither Peter nor Paul give us anything to "hammer out" regarding Peter's leadership, and that's a big difference. If we want to know who Jesus thought he was, we have a lot to work with. But if we want to know who Peter thought he was, or who Paul thought Peter was, we've got nothing to work with.
3) The schism of the papacy, existence of 3 popes simultaneously, and then rejection of them by a council formed to sort it out -- this constitutes a major, major problem, and several vocational Catholic theologians told me so when they were reviewing my paper. It's possible to present a defense on the matter, as they did, but it's not possible to say it isn't a big deal. :)
All the very best!
1) Clement's Letter to the Corinthians proves Rome the court of last resort by 70-90 AD. Peter had every reason to be humble. To say that YOU find no evidence that he wielded such authority is NOT to say that he didn't HAVE the authority.
You're arguing from silence here: an extraordinarily weak logical argument.
2) Jesus did NOT describe His own divinity in any detail at all. Paul took a few desultory swipes at it, but it wasn't very clear there either. Why do you think the Ebionites rejected Jesus' divinity prior to 100 AD?
If these doctrines were so clear, why did the Church need to call SIX general councils over the course of 400 years?
Again, this is just an argument from silence.
Not much of an argument.
3) All you have to do is read the history. The Popes in the Roman line were the valid Popes, all the way through. That is the Pope who resigned. The others were anti-Popes that the Council scared off. That sequence of events is only a big deal if you aren't familiar with the historical details or the theology of the papacy.
Personally, I know several Catholic Ph.D.s who really aren't very bright. Appealing to "unnamed Catholic authorities" is not only the weakest of all possible arguments, it's again essentially fallacious.
Either you have an argument or you don't.
If you have one, bring it on.
What you've provided so far is just silly.
In my reconstruction of the events of shortly after 100 CE Ignatios came to Rome - as a condemned prisoner to be sure but perhaps it was a condemnation he had actively sought - to bring the idea of the ruling Bishop to Rome. In that sense he, Ignatios, was the first bishop IN Rome though not the first Bishop OF Rome. I conclude that the church in Rome met that challenge and selected a Bishop. That Bishop, the first Bishop OF Rome would be Telephoros who was the only early Bishop - according to Irenaios - to die as a martyr.
And I read First Clement as the church in Rome urging the church in Corinth to reverse the innovation they made by selecting a Bishop and to go back to its old bishop-free governance. Possibly Ignatios' mission was to directly counteract that letter.
Here is one from St. Ireneaus:
"3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church [in Rome], committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate ... To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. .. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus , who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutheriu s does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritanc e of the episcopate ."
source: http://www .newadvent .org/fathe rs/0103303 .htm
Thanks for interacting with the piece. You're making the point that the antiquity of a belief indicates how truthful it is. But quite apart from the papal issue, the truthfulness of a proposition is not dependent on how long ago someone first believe it, if ever. There are plenty of old lies, and plenty of new truths. Thanks again!
Not when it comes to Christianity, my friend.
Mormons believe in continuing revelation, Christians do not.
If this is your position, there's no point interacting with you any more.